4.8 Article

Evidence for an ancient adaptive episode of convergent molecular evolution

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0900233106

关键词

adaptation; convergence; phylogenetics; reptile

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [GM065612, GM065580, GM083127]
  2. National Science Foundation [DEB-0416000]
  3. University of Central Florida startup package
  4. NIH [LM009451]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Documented cases of convergent molecular evolution due to selection are fairly unusual, and examples to date have involved only a few amino acid positions. However, because convergence mimics shared ancestry and is not accommodated by current phylogenetic methods, it can strongly mislead phylogenetic inference when it does occur. Here, we present a case of extensive convergent molecular evolution between snake and agamid lizard mitochondrial genomes that overcomes an otherwise strong phylogenetic signal. Evidence from morphology, nuclear genes, and most sites in the mitochondrial genome support one phylogenetic tree, but a subset of mostly amino acid-altering substitutions ( primarily at the first and second codon positions) across multiple mitochondrial genes strongly supports a radically different phylogeny. The relevant sites generally evolved slowly but converged between ancient lineages of snakes and agamids. We estimate that approximate to 44 of 113 predicted convergent changes distributed across all 13 mitochondrial protein-coding genes are expected to have arisen from nonneutral causes-a remarkably large number. Combined with strong previous evidence for adaptive evolution in snake mitochondrial proteins, it is likely that much of this convergent evolution was driven by adaptation. These results indicate that nonneutral convergent molecular evolution in mitochondria can occur at a scale and intensity far beyond what has been documented previously, and they highlight the vulnerability of standard phylogenetic methods to the presence of nonneutral convergent sequence evolution.

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