4.8 Article

The frequency distribution of nucleotide variation in Drosophila simulans

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 18, 期 7, 页码 1343-1352

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003918

关键词

Drosophila; DNA variation; population genetics; molecular evolution; natural selection

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM55298] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patterns of codon bias in Drosophila suggest that silent mutations can be classified into two types: unpreferred (slightly deleterious) and preferred (slightly beneficial). Results of previous analyses of polymorphism and divergence in Drosophila simulans were interpreted as supporting a mutation-selection-drift model in which slightly deleterious, silent mutants make significantly greater contributions to polymorphism than to divergence. Frequencies of unpreferred polymorphisms were inferred to be lower than frequencies of other silent polymorphisms. Here, I analyzed additional D. simulans data to reevaluate the support for these ideas. I found that D. simulans has fixed more unpreferred than preferred mutations, suggesting that this lineage has not been at mutation-selection-drift equilibrium at silent sites. Frequencies of polarized unpreferred polymorphisms are not skewed toward rare alleles. However, frequencies of unpolarized unpreferred codons are lower in high-bias genes than in low-bias genes. This supports the idea that unpreferred codons are borderline deleterious mutations. Purifying selection on silent sites appears to be stronger at twofold-degenerate codons than at fourfold-degenerate codons. Finally, I found that X-linked polymorphisms occur at a higher average frequency than polymorphisms on chromosome arm 3R, even though an average X-linked site is significantly less likely to be polymorphic than an average site on 3R. This result supports a previous analysis of D. simulans indicating different population genetics of X-linked versus autosomal mutations.

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