4.6 Article

More effective purifying selection on RNA viruses than in DNA viruses

期刊

GENE
卷 404, 期 1-2, 页码 117-125

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2007.09.013

关键词

DNA virus; immune selection; nucleotide diversity; purifying selection; RNA virus

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM043940, GM 43940, R01 GM043940-19] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analysis of the pattern of nucleotide diversity in 222 independent viral sequence datasets showed the prevalence of purifying selection. In spite of the higher mutation rate of RNA viruses, our analyses revealed stronger evidence of the action of purifying selection in RNA viruses than in DNA viruses. The ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous nucleotide diversity was significantly lower in RNA viruses than in DNA viruses, indicating that nonsynonymous mutations have been removed at a greater rate (relative to the mutation rate) in the former than in the latter. Moreover, statistics that measure the occurrence of rare polymorphisms revealed significantly a greater excess of rare nonsynonymous polymorphisms in RNA viruses than in DNA viruses but no difference with respect to synonymous polymorphisms. Since rare nonsynonymous polymorphisms are likely to be undergoing the effects of purifying selection acting to eliminate them, this result implies a stronger signature of ongoing purifying selection in RNA viruses than in DNA viruses. Across datasets from both DNA viruses and RNA viruses, we found a negatively allometric relationship between nonsynonymous and synonymous nucleotide diversity; in other words, nonsynonymous nucleotide diversity increased with synonymous nucleotide diversity at a less than linear rate. These findings are most easily explained by the occurrence of slightly deleterious mutations. The fact that the negative allometry was more pronounced in RNA viruses than in DNA viruses provided additional evidence that purifying selection is more effective in the former than in the latter. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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