Kr/Kc but not dN/dS correlates positively with body mass in birds, raising implications for inferring lineage-specific selection

Genome Biology

Volumn 12, Issue 15, 2014, Pages

  Weber, Claudia C ^a   Nabholz, Benoit ^b   Romiguier, Jonathan ^b,c   Ellegren, Hans ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b INSTITUT DES SCIENCES DE L EVOLUTION   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTION; ARTICLE; BIRD; BODY MASS; CONTROLLED STUDY; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENETIC DISTANCE; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; GENETIC VARIABILITY; LIFE HISTORY; MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY; NONHUMAN; PHYLOGENETIC TREE; PURIFYING SELECTION; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; STOP CODON; ANIMAL; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGY; CLASSIFICATION; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MUTATION RATE; PHYLOGENY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

AVIAN PROTEIN;

AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTION; ANIMALS; AVIAN PROTEINS; BAYES THEOREM; BIRDS; BODY MASS INDEX; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; MUTATION RATE; PHYLOGENY; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCI; SELECTION, GENETIC; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84987900198     PISSN: 14747596     EISSN: 1474760X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13059-014-0542-8     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Britten R: Rates of DNA sequence evolution differ between taxonomic groups. Science 1986, 39:1393-1398.
2. Wu CI, Li WH: Evidence for higher rates of nucleotide substitution in rodents than inman. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1985, 82:1741-1745.
3. Ohta T: Evolutionary rate of cistrons and DNA divergence. JMol Evol 1972, 1:150-157.
4. Bromham L: Why do species vary in their rate of molecular evolution? Biol Lett 2009, 5:401-404.
5. Nabholz B, Glémin S, Galtier N: Strong variations of mitochondrial mutation rate across mammals -the longevity hypothesis. Mol Biol Evol 2008, 25:120-130.
6. Martin AP, Palumbi SR: Body size, metabolic rate, generation time, and the molecular clock. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1993, 90:4087-4091.
7. Welch JJ, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Bromham L: Correlates of substitution rate variation inmammalian protein-coding sequences. BMC Evol Biol 2008, 8:53.
8. Wilson Sayres MA, Venditti C, Pagel M, Makova KD: Do variations in substitution rates and male mutation bias correlate with life-history traits? A study of 32 mammalian genomes. Evolution 2011, 65:2800-2815.
9. Lartillot N, Delsuc F: Joint reconstruction of divergence times and life-history evolution in placental mammals using a phylogenetic covariance model. Evolution 2012, 66:1773-1787.
10. Bromham L: The genome as a life-history character: why rate of molecular evolution varies between mammal species. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B: Biol Sci 2011, 366:2503-2513.
11. Li WH, Ellsworth DL, Krushkal J, Chang BH, Hewett-Emmett D: Rates of nucleotide substitution in primates and rodents and the generation-time effect hypothesis. Mol Phylogenet Evol 1996, 5:182-187.
12. Thomas GWC, Hahn MW: The human mutation rate is increasing, even as it slows. Mol Biol Evol 2014, 31:253-257.
13. Damuth J: Population density and body size in mammals. Nature 1981, 290:699-700.
14. Kimura M: On the probability of fixation of mutant genes in a population. Genetics 1962, 47:713-719.
15. Ohta T: Slightly deleteriousmutant substitutions in evolution. Nature 1973, 246:96-98.
16. Akashi H, Osada N, Ohta T: Weak selection and protein evolution. Genetics 2012, 192:15-31.
17. Ohta T, Gillespie J: Development of neutral and nearly neutral theories. Theor Popul Biol 1996, 49:128-142.
18. Ohta T: Synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions in mammalian genes and the nearly neutral theory. JMol Evol 1995, 40:56-63.
19. Woolfit M, Bromham L: Increased rates of sequence evolution in endosymbiotic bacteria and fungi with small effective population sizes. Mol Biol Evol 2003, 20:1545-1555.
20. Warnecke T, Rocha EPC: Function-specific accelerations in rates of sequence evolution suggest predictable epistatic responses to reduced effective population size. Mol Biol Evol 2011, 28:2339-2349.
21. Lanfear R, Kokko H, Eyre-Walker A: Population size and the rate of evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 2014, 29:33-41.
22. Nikolaev SI, Montoya-Burgos JI, Popadin KY, Parand L, Margulies EH, Antonarakis SE: Life-history traits drive the evolutionary rates of mammalian coding and noncoding genomic elements. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104:20443-20448.
23. Kosiol C, Vinar T, da Fonseca RR, Hubisz MJ, Bustamante CD, Nielsen R, Siepel A: Patterns of positive selection in six mammalian genomes. PLoS Genet 2008, 4:1000144.
24. Romiguier J, Figuet E, Galtier N, Douzery EJP, Boussau B, Dutheil JY, Ranwez V: Fast and robust characterization of time-heterogeneous sequence evolutionary processes using substitution mapping. PLoS One 2012, 7:33852.
25. Lartillot N: Interaction between selection and biased gene conversion in mammalian protein-coding sequence evolution revealed by a phylogenetic covariance analysis. Mol Biol Evol 2013, 30:356-368.
26. Romiguier J, Ranwez V, Douzery EJP, Galtier N: Genomic evidence for large, long-lived ancestors to placentalmammals. Mol Biol Evol 2013, 30:5-13.
27. Popadin KY, Polishchuk LV, Mamirova L, Knorre D, Gunbin K: Accumulation of slightly deleteriousmutations in mitochondrial protein-coding genes of large versus smallmammals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104:13390-13395.
28. Lanfear R, Ho SYW, Love D, Bromham L: Mutation rate is linked to diversification in birds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010, 107:20423-20428.
29. Nabholz B, Uwimana N, Lartillot N: Reconstructing the phylogenetic history of long-term effective population size and life-history traits using patterns of amino acid replacement in mitochondrial genomes ofmammals and birds. Genome Biol Evol 2013, 5:1273-1290.
30. Ballard JWO, Whitlock MC: The incomplete natural history of mitochondria. Mol Ecol 2004, 13:729-744.
31. Popadin KY, Nikolaev SI, Junier T, Baranova M, Antonarakis SE: Purifying selection inmammalian mitochondrial protein-coding genes is highly effective and congruent with evolution of nuclear genes. Mol Biol Evol 2013, 30:347-355.
32. Woolfit M, Bromham L: Population size andmolecular evolution on islands. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 2005, 272:2277-2282.
33. Charlesworth J, Eyre-Walker A: The other side of the nearly neutral theory, evidence of slightly advantageous back-mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104:16992-16997.
34. Wright SD, Gillman LN, Ross HA, Keeling DJ: Slower tempo of microevolution in island birds: implications for conservation biology. Evolution 2009, 63:2275-2287.
35. Johnson KP, Seger J: Elevated rates of nonsynonymous substitution in island birds. Mol Biol Evol 2001, 18:874-881.
36. Loire E, Chiari Y, Bernard A, Cahais V, Romiguier J, Nabholz B, Lourenço JM, Galtier N: Population genomics of the endangered giant Galápagos tortoise. Genome Biol 2013, 14:136.
37. Lourenço JM, Glémin S, Galtier N: The rate ofmolecular adaptation in a changing environment. Mol Biol Evol 2013, 30:1292-1301.
38. Weber CC, Boussau B, Romiguier J, Jarvis ED, Ellegren H: Evidence for GC-biased gene conversion as a driver of between-lineage differences in avian base composition. Genome Biol 2014. doi:10.1186/s13059-014-0549-1.
39. Nabholz B, Künstner A, Wang R, Jarvis ED, Ellegren H: Dynamic evolution of base composition: causes and consequences in avian phylogenomics. Mol Biol Evol 2011, 28:2197-2210.
40. Jarvis ED, Mirarab S, Aberer AJ, Li B, Houde P, Li C, Ho SYW, Faircloth BC, Nabholz B, Howard JT, Suh A, Weber CC, da Fonseca RR, Li J, Zhang F, Li H, Zhou L, Narula N, Liu L, Ganapathy G, Boussau B, Bayzid MS, Zavidovych V, Subramanian S, Gabaldón T, Capella-Gutiérrez S, Huerta-Cepas J, Rekepalli B, Munch K, Schierup M, et al.: Whole-genome analyses resolve early branches in the tree of life ofmodern birds. Science 2014. doi:10.1126/science.1253451.
41. Hackett SJ, Kimball RT, Reddy S, Bowie RCK, Braun EL, Braun MJ, Chojnowski JL, Cox WA, Han K-L, Harshman J, Huddleston CJ, Marks BD, Miglia KJ, Moore WS, Sheldon FH, Steadman DW, Witt CC, Yuri T: A phylogenomic study of birds reveals their evolutionary history. Science 2008, 320:1763-1768.
42. Lartillot N, Poujol R: A phylogenetic model for investigating correlated evolution of substitution rates and continuous phenotypic characters. Mol Biol Evol 2011, 28:729-744.
43. Bay RA, Bielawski JP: Inference of functional divergence among proteins when the evolutionary process is non-stationary. JMol Evol 2013, 76:205-215.
44. Weber CC, Hurst LD: Protein rates of evolution are predicted by double-strand break events, independent of crossing-over rates. Genome Biol Evol 2009, 1:340-349.
45. Rocha EPC, Smith JM, Hurst LD, Holden MTG, Cooper JE, Smith NH, Feil EJ: Comparisons of dN/dS are time dependent for closely related bacterial genomes. J Theoretical Biol 2006, 239:226-235.
46. Ho SYW, Lanfear R, Bromham L, Phillips MJ, Soubrier J, Rodrigo AG, Cooper A: Time-dependent rates ofmolecular evolution. Mol Ecol 2011, 20:3087-3101.
47. Peterson GI, Masel J: Quantitative prediction of molecular clock and Ka/Ks at short timescales. Mol Biol Evol 2009, 26:2595-2603.
48. Dos Reis M, Yang Z: Why domore divergent sequences produce smaller nonsynonymous/synonymous rate ratios in pairwise sequence comparisons? Genetics 2013, 195:195-204.
49. Mugal CF, Wolf JBW, Kaj I: Why timematters: codon evolution and the temporal dynamics of dN/dS. Mol Biol Evol 2014, 31:212-231.
50. Wolf JBW, Künstner A, Nam K, Jakobsson M, Ellegren H: Nonlinear dynamics of nonsynonymous (dN) and synonymous (dS) substitution rates affects inference of selection. Genome Biol Evol 2009, 1:308-319.
51. Eory L, Halligan DL, Keightley PD: Distributions of selectively constrained sites and deleteriousmutation rates in the hominid andmurid genomes. Mol Biol Evol 2010, 27:177-192.
52. Chamary J-V, Parmley JL, Hurst LD: Hearing silence: non-neutral evolution at synonymous sites inmammals. Nat Rev Genet 2006, 7:98-108.
53. Drummond DA, Wilke CO: Mistranslation-induced protein misfolding as a dominant constraint on coding-sequence evolution. Cell 2008, 134:341-352.
54. Yampolsky LY, Kondrashov FA, Kondrashov AS: Distribution of the strength of selection against amino acid replacements in human proteins. HumMol Genet 2005, 14:3191-3201.
55. Smith NGC: Are radical and conservative substitution rates useful statistics in molecular evolution? JMol Evol 2003, 57:467-478.
56. Wernegreen JJ: Reduced selective constraint in endosymbionts: elevation in radical amino acid replacements occurs genome-wide. PLoS One 2011, 6:28905.
57. Eyre-Walker A, Keightley PD, Smith NGC, Gaffney D: Quantifying the slightly deleteriousmutationmodel of molecular evolution. Mol Biol Evol 2002, 19:2142-2149.
58. Axelsson E, Ellegren H: Quantification of adaptive evolution of genes expressed in avian brain and the population size effect on the efficacy of selection. Mol Biol Evol 2009, 26:1073-1079.
59. Bachtrog D: Similar rates of protein adaptation in Drosophila miranda and D. melanogaster, two species with different current effective population sizes. BMC Evol Biol 2008, 8:334.
60. Nee S, Read A, Greenwood J, Harvey P: The relationship between abundance and body size in British birds. Nature 1991, 351:312-313.
61. Künstner A, Nabholz B, Ellegren H: Significant selective constraint at 4-fold degenerate sites in the avian genome and its consequence for detection of positive selection. Genome Biol Evol 2011, 3:1381-1389.
62. Weber CC, Hurst LD: Intronic AT skew is a defendable proxy for germline transcription but does not predict crossing-over or protein evolution rates in Drosophila melanogaster. JMol Evol 2010, 71:415-426.
63. Webster MT, Axelsson E, Ellegren H: Strong regional biases in nucleotide substitution in the chicken genome. Mol Biol Evol 2006, 23:1203-1216.
64. Mugal CF, Arndt PF, Ellegren H: Twisted signatures of GC-biased gene conversion embedded in an evolutionary stable karyotype. Mol Biol Evol 2013, 30:1700-1712.
65. Webster MT, Hurst LD: Direct and indirect consequences of meiotic recombination: implications for genome evolution. Trends Genet 2012, 28:101-109.
66. Duret L, Galtier N: Biased gene conversion and the evolution of mammalian genomic landscapes. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2009, 10:285-311.
67. Duret L, Eyre-Walker A, Galtier N: A new perspective on isochore evolution. Gene 2006, 385:71-74.
68. Kostka D, Hubisz MJ, Siepel A, Pollard KS: The role of GC-biased gene conversion in shaping the fastest evolving regions of the human genome. Mol Biol Evol 2012, 29:1047-1057.
69. Ratnakumar A, Mousset S, Glémin S, Berglund J, Galtier N, Duret L, Webster MT: Detecting positive selection within genomes: the problem of biased gene conversion. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B: Biol Sci 2010, 365:2571-2580.
70. Galtier N, Duret L, Glémin S, Ranwez V: GC-biased gene conversion promotes the fixation of deleterious amino acid changes in primates. Trends Genet 2009, 25:1-5.
71. Berglund J, Pollard KS, Webster MT: Hotspots of biased nucleotide substitutions in human genes. PLoS Biology 2009, 7:26.
72. Galtier N, Duret L: Adaptation or biased gene conversion? Extending the null hypothesis ofmolecular evolution. Trends Genet 2007, 23:273-277.
73. Capra JA, Pollard KS: Substitution patterns are GC-biased in divergent sequences across themetazoans. Genome Biol Evol 2011, 3:516-527.
74. Redelings B: Erasing errors due to alignment ambiguity when estimating positive selection. Mol Biol Evol 2014:1979-1993.
75. Markova-Raina P, Petrov DA: High sensitivity to aligner and high rate of false positives in the estimates of positive selection in the 12 Drosophila genomes. Genome Res 2011, 21:863-874.
76. Jordan G, Goldman N: The effects of alignment error and alignment filtering on the sitewise detection of positive selection. Mol Biol Evol 2012, 29:1125-1139.
77. Blackburne BP, Whelan S: Class ofmultiple sequence alignment algorithm affects genomic analysis. Mol Biol Evol 2013, 30:642-653.
78. Cherry JL: Should we expect substitution rate to depend on population size? Genetics 1998, 150:911-919.
79. Goldstein RA: Population size dependence of fitness effect distribution and substitution rate probed by biophysical model of protein thermostability. Genome Biol Evol 2013, 5:1584-1593.
80. Wylie CS, Shakhnovich EI: A biophysical protein folding model accounts formostmutational fitness effects in viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011, 108:9916-9921.
81. Goldie X, Lanfear R, Bromham L: Diversification and the rate of molecular evolution: no evidence of a link inmammals. BMC Evol Biol 2011, 11:286.
82. Gharib WH, Robinson-Rechavi M: The branch-site test of positive selection is surprisingly robust but lacks power under synonymous substitution saturation and variation in GC. Mol Biol Evol 2013, 30:1675-1686.
83. Zhang G, Li C, Li Q, Li B, Larkin DM, Lee C, Storz JF, Antunes A, Greenwold MJ, Meredith RW, Odeen A, Cui J, Zhou Q, Xu L, Pan H, Wang Z, Jin L, Zhang P, Hu H, YangW, Hu J, Xiao J, Yang Z, Liu Y, Xie Q, Yu H, Lian J, Wen P, Zhang F, Li H, et al.: Comparative genomics across modern bird species reveal insights into avian genome evolution and adaptation. Science 2014. doi:10.1126/science.1251385.
84. Edgar RC: MUSCLE:multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 2004, 32:1792-1797.
85. Dunning JBJ: CRC Handbook of Avian BodyMasses. 2nd edition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press; 2007.
86. Dutheil JY, Galtier N, Romiguier J, Douzery EJP, Ranwez V, Boussau B: Efficient selection of branch-specificmodels of sequence evolution. Mol Biol Evol 2012, 24:1-15.
87. Yang Z, Nielsen R: Synonymous and nonsynonymous rate variation in nuclear genes ofmammals. JMol Evol 1998, 46:409-418.
88. Gueguen L, Gaillard S, Boussau B, Gouy M, Groussin M, Rochette NC, Bigot T, Fournier D, Pouyet F, Cahais V, Bernard A, Scornavacca C, Nabholz B, Haudry A, Dachary L, Galtier N, Belkhir K, Dutheil JY: Bio++: efficient extensible libraries and tools for computationalmolecular evolution. Mol Biol Evol 2013, 30:1745-1750.
89. Bio++Wiki. [http://biopp.univ-montp2.fr/]
90. Yang Z: PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol Biol Evol 2007, 24:1586-1591.
91. Zhang G, Li B, Li C, Gilbert MTP, Jarvis E, The Avian Genome Consortium, Wang J: The avian phylogenomic project data; 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10. 5524/101000.