Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 67, Issue 4, pp 418–426 | Cite as

Divergence and Polymorphism Under the Nearly Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution

Article

Abstract

The nearly neutral theory attributes most nucleotide substitution and polymorphism to genetic drift acting on weakly selected mutants, and assumes that the selection coefficients for these mutants are drawn from a continuous distribution. This means that parameter estimation can require numerical integration, and this can be computationally costly and inaccurate. Furthermore, the leading parameter dependencies of important quantities can be unclear, making results difficult to understand. For some commonly used distributions of mutant effects, we show how these problems can be avoided by writing equations in terms of special functions. Series expansion then allows for their rapid calculation and, also, illuminates leading parameter dependencies. For example, we show that if mutants are gamma distributed, the neutrality index is largely independent of the effective population size. However, we also show that such results are not robust to misspecification of the functional form of distribution. Some implications of these findings are then discussed.

Keywords

Genetic drift Distribution of mutant effects Neutrality index Special functions 

References

  1. Abramowitz M, Stegun I (1965) Handbook of mathematical functions. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bulmer M (1991) The selection-mutation-drift theory of synonymous codon usage. Genetics 129:897–907PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bustamante CD, Nielsen R, Sawyer SA, Olsen KM, Purugganan MD, Hartl DL (2002) The cost of inbreeding in Arabidopsis. Nature 416:531–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Charlesworth J, Eyre-Walker A (2007) The other side of the neutral theory, evidence of slightly advantageous back-mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:16992–16997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies EK, Peters AD, Keightley PD (1999) High frequency of cryptic deleterious mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans. Science 285:1745–1747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elena SF, Ekunwe L, Hajela N, Oden SA, Lenski RE (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102(103):349–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ewens WJ (1979) Mathematical population genetics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Eyre-Walker A (2002) Changing effective population size and the McDonald Kreitman test. Genetics 162:2017–2024PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Eyre-Walker A (2006) The genomic rate of adaptive evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 21:569–575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eyre-Walker A, Keightley PD (2007) The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations. Nat Rev Genet 8:610–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eyre-Walker A, Keightley PD, Smith NGC, Gaffney D (2002) Quantifying the slightly deleterious mutation model of molecular evolution. Mol Biol Evol 19:2142–2149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Eyre-Walker A, Woolfit M, Phelps T (2006) The distribution of fitness effects of new deleterious amino acid mutations in humans. Genetics 173:891–900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fine NJ (1951) Note on the Hurwitz zeta-function. Proc Am Math Soc 2:361–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galassi M, Davies J, Theiler J, Gough B, Jungman G, Booth M, Rossi F (2006) GNU scientific library reference manual—revised second edition (v1.8). Network Theory, BristolGoogle Scholar
  15. Gillespie JH (1991) The causes of molecular evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillespie JH (1995) On Ohta’s hypothesis: most amino acid substitutions are deleterious. J Mol Evol 40:64–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gillespie JH (2001) Is the population size of a species relevant to its evolution? Evolution 55:2161–2169PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gu X (2007a) Stabilizing selection of protein function and distribution of selection coefficients among sites. Genetica 130:93–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gu X (2007b) Evolutionary framework for protein sequence evolution and gene pleiotropy. Genetics 175:1813–1822PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartl DL, Moriyama EN, Sawyer SA (1994) Selection intensity for codon bias. Genetics 138:227–234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Keightley PD (1994) The distribution of mutation effects on viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 138:1315–1322PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Keightley PD, Eyre-Walker A (1999) Terumi Mukai and the riddle of deleterious mutation rates. Genetics 153:515–523PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kimura M (1962) On the probability of fixation of mutant genes in a population. Genetics 47:713–719PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kimura M (1969) The number of heterozygous nucleotide sites maintained in a finite population due to steady flux of mutations. Genetics 61:893–903PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kimura M (1979) Model of effectively neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 76:3440–3444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kimura M (1983) The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Loewe L, Charlesworth B (2006) Inferring the distribution of mutational effects in Drosophila. Biol Lett 2:426–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loewe L, Charlesworth B, Bartolomè C, Nöel V (2006) Estimating selection on non-synonymous mutations. Genetics 172:1079–1092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lynch M, Blanchard J, Houle D, Kibota T, Schultz S, Vassilieva L, Willis J (1999) Perspective: spontaneous deleterious mutation. Evolution 53:645–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin G, Lenormand T (2006) A general multivariate extension of Fisher’s geometrical model and the distribution of mutation fitness effects across species. Evolution 60:893–907PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. McDonald JH, Kreitman M (1991) Adaptive evolution at the Adh locus in Drosophila. Nature 351:652–654PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nielsen R, Yang Z (2003) Estimating the distribution of selection coefficients from phylogenetic data with applications to mitochondrial and viral DNA. Mol Biol Evol 20:1231–1239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nielsen R, Hubisz MJ, Clark AG (2004) Reconstituting the frequency spectrum of ascertained single-nucleotide polymorphism data. Genetics 168:2373–2382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ohta T (1977) Extension to the neutral mutation random drift hypothesis. In: Kimura M (ed) Evolution and polymorphism. National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, pp 148–167Google Scholar
  35. Ohta T, Gillespie JH (1996) Development of neutral and nearly neutral theories. Theor Popul Biol 49:128–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Piganeau G, Eyre-Walker A (2003) Estimating the distribution of fitness effects from DNA sequence data: implications for the molecular clock. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:10335–10340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Presgraves DC (2005) Recombination enhances protein adaptation in Drosophila melanogaster. Curr Biol 15:1651–1656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. R Development Core Team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (http://www.R-project.org)
  39. Rand DM, Kann LM (1996) Excess amino acid polymorphism in mitochondrial DNA: contrasts among genes from Drosophila, mice, and humans. Mol Biol Evol 13:735–748PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Sanjuan R, Moya A, Elena SF (2004) The distribution of fitness effects caused by single-nucleotide substitutions in an RNA virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:8396–8401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sawyer SA, Hartl DL (1992) Population genetics of polymorphism and divergence. Genetics 132:1161–1176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Sawyer SA, Kulathinal RJ, Bustamante CD, Hartl DL (2003) Bayesian analysis suggests that most amino acid replacements in Drosophila are driven by positive selection. J Mol Evol 57:S154–S164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Subramanian S, Kumar S (2006) Higher intensity of purifying selection on >90% of the human genes revealed by the intrinsic replacement mutation rates. Mol Biol Evol 23:2283–2287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tachida H (1996) Effects of the shape of distribution of mutant effect in nearly neutral mutation models. J Genet 75:33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Truesdell C (1950) On the addition and multiplication theorems for the special functions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 36:752–757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Welch JJ (2006) Estimating the genome-wide rate of adaptive protein evolution in Drosophila. Genetics 173:821–837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williamson S, Fledel-Alon A, Bustamante CD (2004) Population genetics of polymorphism and divergence for diploid species with arbitrary dominance. Genetics 168:463–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Woodhams M (2006) Can deleterious mutations explain the time dependency of molecular rate estimates? Mol Biol Evol 23:2271–2273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yampolsky LY, Kondrashov FA, Kondrashov SA (2005) Distribution of the strength of selection against amino acid replacements in human proteins. Hum Mol Genet 14:3191–3201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yang Z, Nielsen R, Goldman N, Pederson A-MK (2000) Codon-substitution models for variable selection pressure at amino acid sites. Genetics 155:431–449PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • John J. Welch
    • 1
    • 2
  • Adam Eyre-Walker
    • 2
  • David Waxman
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Centre for the Study of Evolution, School of Life SciencesUniversity of SussexFalmer, BrightonUK

Personalised recommendations