DNA loss and evolution of genome size in Drosophila
- PMID: 12188050
- DOI: 10.1023/a:1016076215168
DNA loss and evolution of genome size in Drosophila
Abstract
Mutation is often said to be random. Although it must be true that mutation is ignorant about the adaptive needs of the organism and thus is random relative to them as a rule, mutation is not truly random in other respects. Nucleotide substitutions, deletions, insertions, inversions, duplications and other types of mutation occur at different rates and are effected by different mechanisms. Moreover the rates of different mutations vary from organism to organism. Differences in mutational biases, along with natural selection, could impact gene and genome evolution in important ways. For instance, several recent studies have suggested that differences in insertion/deletion biases lead to profound differences in the rate of DNA loss in animals and that this difference per se can lead to significant changes in genome size. In particular, Drosophila melanogaster appears to have a very high rate of deletions and the correspondingly high rate of DNA loss and a very compact genome. To assess the validity of these studies we must first assess the validity of the measurements of indel biases themselves. Here I demonstrate the robustness of indel bias measurements in Drosophila, by comparing indel patterns in different types of nonfunctional sequences. The indel pattern and the high rate of DNA loss appears to be shared by all known nonfunctional sequences, both euchromatic and heterochromatic, transposable and non-transposable, repetitive and unique. Unfortunately all available nonfunctional sequences are untranscribed and thus effects of transcription on indel bias cannot be assessed. I also discuss in detail why it is unlikely that natural selection for or against DNA loss significantly affects current estimates of indel biases.
Similar articles
-
Pseudogene evolution and natural selection for a compact genome.J Hered. 2000 May-Jun;91(3):221-7. doi: 10.1093/jhered/91.3.221. J Hered. 2000. PMID: 10833048
-
Genomic gigantism: DNA loss is slow in mountain grasshoppers.Mol Biol Evol. 2001 Feb;18(2):246-53. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003798. Mol Biol Evol. 2001. PMID: 11158383
-
Evidence for DNA loss as a determinant of genome size.Science. 2000 Feb 11;287(5455):1060-2. doi: 10.1126/science.287.5455.1060. Science. 2000. PMID: 10669421
-
Mutation pressure, natural selection, and the evolution of base composition in Drosophila.Genetica. 1998;102-103(1-6):49-60. Genetica. 1998. PMID: 9720271 Review.
-
Codon bias evolution in Drosophila. Population genetics of mutation-selection drift.Gene. 1997 Dec 31;205(1-2):269-78. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1119(97)00400-9. Gene. 1997. PMID: 9461401 Review.
Cited by
-
The genomic landscape of short insertion and deletion polymorphisms in the chicken (Gallus gallus) Genome: a high frequency of deletions in tandem duplicates.Genetics. 2007 Jul;176(3):1691-701. doi: 10.1534/genetics.107.070805. Epub 2007 May 16. Genetics. 2007. PMID: 17507681 Free PMC article.
-
Modification of gene duplicability during the evolution of protein interaction network.PLoS Comput Biol. 2011 Apr;7(4):e1002029. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002029. Epub 2011 Apr 7. PLoS Comput Biol. 2011. PMID: 21490719 Free PMC article.
-
Cloning and sequencing of the breakpoint regions of inversion 5g fixed in Drosophila buzzatii.Chromosoma. 2009 Jun;118(3):349-60. doi: 10.1007/s00412-008-0201-5. Epub 2009 Feb 7. Chromosoma. 2009. PMID: 19198866
-
Effect of Phenotype Selection on Genome Size Variation in Two Species of Diptera.Genes (Basel). 2020 Feb 19;11(2):218. doi: 10.3390/genes11020218. Genes (Basel). 2020. PMID: 32093067 Free PMC article.
-
Sepsid even-skipped enhancers are functionally conserved in Drosophila despite lack of sequence conservation.PLoS Genet. 2008 Jun 27;4(6):e1000106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000106. PLoS Genet. 2008. PMID: 18584029 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Molecular Biology Databases