Comparative population genomics: Power and principles for the inference of functionality

Trends in Genetics

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 133-139

  Lawrie, David S ^a   Petrov, Dmitri A ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC CONSERVATION; GENETIC POLYMORPHISM; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HUMAN; NEUTRAL GENE THEORY; POPULATION GENETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PURIFYING SELECTION; REVIEW; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; GENETICS; GENOMICS; MUTATION; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE;

ANIMALS; BASE SEQUENCE; GENETICS, POPULATION; GENOMICS; HUMANS; MODELS, GENETIC; MUTATION; POLYMORPHISM, GENETIC;

EID: 84897043964     PISSN: 01689525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2014.02.002     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Hardison R.C. Comparative genomics. PLoS Biol. 2003, 1:e58.
2. Siepel A., et al. Evolutionarily conserved elements in vertebrate, insect, worm, and yeast genomes. Genome Res. 2005, 15:1034-1050.
3. Stark A., et al. Discovery of functional elements in 12 Drosophila genomes using evolutionary signatures. Nature 2007, 450:219-232.
4. Davydov E.V., et al. Identifying a high fraction of the human genome to be under selective constraint using GERP. PLoS Comp. Biol. 2010, 6:e1001025.
5. Pollard K.S., et al. Detection of nonneutral substitution rates on mammalian phylogenies. Genome Res. 2010, 20:110-121.
6. Lindblad-Toh K., et al. A high-resolution map of human evolutionary constraint using 29 mammals. Nature 2011, 478:476-482.
7. Graur D., et al. On the immortality of television sets: 'function' in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE. Genome Biol. Evol. 2013, 5:578-590.
8. Khatun J. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 2012, 489:57-74.
9. Eddy S.R. The ENCODE project: missteps overshadowing a success. Curr. Biol. 2013, 23:R259-R261.
10. Doolittle W.F. Is junk DNA bunk? A critique of ENCODE. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110:5294-5300.
11. Ward L.D., Kellis M. Evidence of abundant purifying selection in humans for recently acquired regulatory functions. Science 2012, 337:1675-1678.
12. Siepel A., et al. New methods for detecting lineage-specific selection. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Research in Computational Molecular Biology (RECOMB 2006) 2006, 190-205.
13. Hall S.S. Journey to the genetic interior. Sci. Am. 2012, 307:80-84.
14. Andolfatto P. Adaptive evolution of non-coding DNA in Drosophila. Nature 2005, 437:1149-1152.
15. Bergman C.M., Kreitman M. Analysis of conserved noncoding DNA in Drosophila reveals similar constraints in intergenic and intronic sequences. Genome Res. 2001, 11:1335-1345.
16. Boyko A.R., et al. Assessing the evolutionary impact of amino acid mutations in the human genome. PLoS Genet. 2008, 4:e1000083.
17. Fay J.C., et al. Positive and negative selection on the human genome. Genetics 2001, 158:1227-1234.
18. Hartl D.L., et al. Selection intensity for codon bias. Genetics 1994, 138:227-234.
19. Lawrie D.S., et al. Faster than neutral evolution of constrained sequences: the complex interplay of mutational biases and weak selection. Genome Biol. Evol. 2011, 3:383.
20. Halpern A.L., Bruno W.J. Evolutionary distances for protein-coding sequences: modeling site-specific residue frequencies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1998, 15:910-917.
21. Tamuri A.U., et al. Estimating the distribution of selection coefficients from phylogenetic data using sitewise mutation-selection models. Genetics 2012, 190:1101-1115.
22. Eyre-Walker A., Keightley P.D. The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2007, 8:610-618.
23. Lawrie D.S., et al. Strong purifying selection at synonymous sites in D. melanogaster. PLoS Genet. 2013, 9:e1003527.
24. Keightley P.D., Halligan D.L. Inference of site frequency spectra from high-throughput sequence data: quantification of selection on nonsynonymous and synonymous sites in humans. Genetics 2011, 188:931-940.
25. Messer P.W., Petrov D.A. Frequent adaptation and the McDonald-Kreitman test. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110:8615-8620.
26. Kousathanas A., Keightley P.D. A comparison of models to infer the distribution of fitness effects of new mutations. Genetics 2013, 193:1197-1208.
27. Clemente F., Vogl C. Evidence for complex selection on fourfold degenerate sites in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 2012, 25:2582-2595.
28. Mackay T.F.C., et al. The Drosophila melanogaster genetic reference panel. Nature 2012, 482:173-178.
29. Weigel D., Mott R. The 1001 genomes project for Arabidopsis thaliana. Genome Biol. 2009, 10:107.
30. A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing. Nature 2010, 467:1061-1073. The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium.
31. Keinan A., Clark A.G. Recent explosive human population growth has resulted in an excess of rare genetic variants. Science 2012, 336:740-743.
32. Goode D.L., et al. Evolutionary constraint facilitates interpretation of genetic variation in resequenced human genomes. Genome Res. 2010, 20:301-310.
33. Cooper G.M., et al. Single-nucleotide evolutionary constraint scores highlight disease-causing mutations. Nat. Methods 2010, 7:250-251.
34. Wilson D.J., et al. A population genetics-phylogenetics approach to inferring natural selection in coding sequences. PLoS Genet. 2011, 7:e1002395.
35. Gronau I., et al. Inference of natural selection from interspersed genomic elements based on polymorphism and divergence. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30:1159-1171.
36. De Maio N., et al. Linking great apes genome evolution across time scales using polymorphism-aware phylogenetic models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30:2249-2262.
37. Kimura M. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 1968, 217:624.
38. King J.L., Jukes T.H. Non-Darwinian evolution. Science 1969, 164:788-798.
39. Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J. Mol. Evol. 1981, 17:368-376.
40. Meyer L.R., et al. The UCSC genome browser database: extensions and updates 2013. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41:D64-D69.
41. Siepel A., Haussler D. Phylogenetic estimation of context-dependent substitution rates by maximum likelihood. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2004, 21:468-488.