4.8 Article

Strong Evidence for Lineage and Sequence Specificity of Substitution Rates and Patterns in Drosophila

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 26, 期 7, 页码 1591-1605

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msp071

关键词

substitutional patterns; Drosophila; stationary GC content; selective constraint

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health National Research Service Award [1F32GM080944-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rates of single nucleotide substitution in Drosophila are highly variable within the genome, and several examples illustrate that evolutionary rates differ among Drosophila species as well. Here, we use a maximum likelihood method to quantify lineage-specific substitutional patterns and apply this method to 4-fold degenerate synonymous sites and introns from more than 8,000 genes aligned in the Drosophila melanogaster group. We find that within species, different classes of sequence evolve at different rates, with long introns evolving most slowly and short introns evolving most rapidly. Relative rates of individual single nucleotide substitutions vary similar to 3-fold among lineages, yielding patterns of substitution that are comparatively less GC-biased in the melanogaster species complex relative to Drosophila yakuba and Drosophila erecta. These results are consistent with a model coupling a mutational shift toward reduced GC content, or a shift in mutation-selection balance, in the D. melanogaster species complex, with variation in selective constraint among different classes of DNA sequence. Finally, base composition of coding and intronic sequences is not at equilibrium with respect to substitutional patterns, which primarily reflects the slow rate of the substitutional process. These results thus support the view that mutational and/or selective processes are labile on an evolutionary timescale and that if the process is indeed selection driven, then the distribution of selective constraint is variable across the genome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据