4.8 Article

Adaptive protein evolution of X-linked and autosomal genes in Drosophila:: Implications for faster-X hypotheses

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 2566-2572

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msm199

关键词

X chromosome; sex linkage; adaptive evolution; Hill Robertson interference; effective population size; codon bias

资金

  1. NHGRI NIH HHS [T32 HG00040] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patterns of sex chromosome and autosome evolution can be used to elucidate the underlying genetic basis of adaptative change. Evolutionary theory predicts that X-linked genes will adapt more rapidly than autosomes if adaptation is limited by the availability of beneficial mutations and if such mutations are recessive. In Drosophila, rates of molecular divergence between species appear to be equivalent between autosomes and the X chromosome. However, molecular divergence contrasts are difficult to interpret because they reflect a composite of adaptive and nonadaptive substitutions between species. Predictions based on faster-X theory also assume that selection is equally effective on the X and autosomes; this might not be true because the effective population sizes of X-linked and autosomal genes systematically differ. Here, population genetic and divergence data from Drosophila melanogaster, Drosophila simulans, and Drosophila yakuba are used to estimate the proportion of adaptive amino acid substitutions occurring in the D. melanogaster lineage. After gene composition and effective population size differences between chromosomes are controlled, X-linked and autosomal genes are shown to have equivalent rates of adaptive divergence with approximately 30% of amino acid substitutions driven by positive selection. The results suggest that adaptation is either unconstrained by a lack of beneficial genetic variation or that beneficial mutations are not recessive and are thus highly visible to natural selection whether on sex chromosomes or on autosomes.

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