4.8 Article

The Interaction of Natural Selection and GC Skew May Drive the Fast Evolution of a Sand Rat Homeobox Gene

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 1473-1480

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msz080

关键词

mutation; biased gene conversion; genome evolution; protein evolution; Pdx1; homeodomain

资金

  1. Elizabeth Hannah Jenkinson Fund
  2. Rhodes Trust
  3. Leverhulme Trust Research Project Grant [RPG-2017-321]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several processes can lead to strong GC skew in localized genomic regions. In most cases, GC skew should not affect conserved amino acids because natural selection will purge deleterious alleles. However, in the gerbil subfamily of rodents, several conserved genes have undergone radical alteration in association with strong GC skew. An extreme example concerns the highly conserved homeobox gene Pdx1, which is uniquely divergent and GC rich in the sand rat Psammomys obesus and close relatives. Here, we investigate the antagonistic interplay between very rare amino acid changes driven by GC skew and the force of natural selection. Using ectopic protein expression in cell culture, pulse-chase labeling, in vitro mutagenesis, and drug treatment, we compare properties of mouse and sand rat Pdx1 proteins. We find that amino acid change driven by GC skew resulted in altered protein stability, with a significantly longer protein half-life for sand rat Pdx1. Using a reversible inhibitor of the 26S proteasome, MG132, we find that sand rat and mouse Pdx1 are both degraded through the ubiquitin proteasome pathway. However, in vitro mutagenesis reveals this pathway operates through different amino acid residues. We propose that GC skew caused loss of a key ubiquitination site, conserved through vertebrate evolution, and that sand rat Pdx1 evolved or fixed a new ubiquitination site to compensate. Our results give molecular insight into the power of natural selection in the face of maladaptive changes driven by strong GC skew.

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