Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 70, Issue 1, pp 116–128 | Cite as

Studying Patterns of Recent Evolution at Synonymous Sites and Intronic Sites in Drosophila melanogaster

Article

Abstract

Most previous studies of the evolution of codon usage bias (CUB) and intronic GC content (iGC) in Drosophila melanogaster were based on between-species comparisons, reflecting long-term evolutionary events. However, a complete picture of the evolution of CUB and iGC cannot be drawn without knowledge of their more recent evolutionary history. Here, we used a polymorphism dataset collected from Zimbabwe to study patterns of the recent evolution of CUB and iGC. Analyzing coding and intronic data jointly with a model which can simultaneously estimate selection, mutational, and demographic parameters, we have found that: (1) natural selection is probably acting on synonymous codons; (2) a constant population size model seems to be sufficient to explain most of the observed synonymous polymorphism patterns; (3) GC is favored over AT in introns. In agreement with the long-term evolutionary patterns, ongoing selection acting on X-linked synonymous codons is stronger than that acting on autosomal codons. The selective differences between preferred and unpreferred codons tend to be greater than the differences between GC and AT in introns, suggesting that natural selection, not just biased gene conversion, may have influenced the evolution of CUB. Interestingly, evidence for non-equilibrium evolution comes exclusively from the intronic data. However, three different models, an equilibrium model with two classes of selected sites and two non-equilibrium models with changes in either population size or mutational parameters, fit the intronic data equally well. These results show that using inadequate selection (or demographic) models can result in incorrect estimates of demographic (or selection) parameters.

Keywords

Drosophila melanogaster Codon usage Mutational bias Natural selection GC content 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Andrea Betancourt for helpful discussions, and Dr. David Turissini for providing the Drosophila dataset. This work made use of the resources provided by the Edinburgh Compute and Data Facility (ECDF; http://www.ecdf.ed.ac.uk/). The ECDF is partially supported by the e-Science Data, Information and Knowledge Transformation (eDIKT) initiative (http://www.edikt.org.uk). K.Z. acknowledges support from the School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, and a Biomedical Personal Research Fellowship given by the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Caledonian Research Foundation.

Supplementary material

239_2009_9314_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (25 kb)
(PDF 24 kb)

References

  1. Akashi H (1994) Synonymous codon usage in Drosophila melanogaster: natural selection and translational accuracy. Genetics 136:927–935PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Akashi H (1995) Inferring weak selection from patterns of polymorphism and divergence at “silent” sites in Drosophila DNA. Genetics 139:1067–1076PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Akashi H (1996) Molecular evolution between Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans: reduced codon bias, faster rates of amino acid substitution, and larger proteins in D. melanogaster. Genetics 144:1297–1307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Akashi H, Schaeffer SW (1997) Natural selection and the frequency distributions of “silent” DNA polymorphism in Drosophila. Genetics 146:295–307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Akashi H, Ko WY, Piao S, John A, Goel P, Lin CF, Vitins AP (2006) Molecular evolution in the Drosophila melanogaster species subgroup: frequent parameter fluctuations on the timescale of molecular divergence. Genetics 172:1711–1726CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Andolfatto P (2005) Adaptive evolution of non-coding DNA in Drosophila. Nature 437:1149–1152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Andolfatto P (2007) Hitchhiking effects of recurrent beneficial amino acid substitutions in the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Genome Res 17:1755–1762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartolome C, Maside X, Yi S, Grant AL, Charlesworth B (2005) Patterns of selection on synonymous and nonsynonymous variants in Drosophila miranda. Genetics 169:1495–1507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergman CM, Kreitman M (2001) Analysis of conserved noncoding DNA in Drosophila reveals similar constraints in intergenic and intronic sequences. Genome Res 11:1335–1345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Betancourt AJ, Presgraves DC (2002) Linkage limits the power of natural selection in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:13616–13620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bulmer M (1991) The selection-mutation-drift theory of synonymous codon usage. Genetics 129:897–907PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlini DB, Stephan W (2003) In vivo introduction of unpreferred synonymous codons into the Drosophila Adh gene results in reduced levels of ADH protein. Genetics 163:239–243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Casillas S, Barbadilla A, Bergman CM (2007) Purifying selection maintains highly conserved noncoding sequences in Drosophila. Mol Biol Evol 24:2222–2234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Charlesworth B (2009) Fundamental concepts in genetics: effective population size and patterns of molecular evolution and variation. Nat Rev Genet 10:195–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Comeron JM, Guthrie TB (2005) Intragenic Hill–Robertson interference influences selection intensity on synonymous mutations in Drosophila. Mol Biol Evol 22:2519–2530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Comeron JM, Kreitman M, Aguade M (1999) Natural selection on synonymous sites is correlated with gene length and recombination in Drosophila. Genetics 151:239–249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Connallon T (2007) Adaptive protein evolution of X-linked and autosomal genes in Drosophila: implications for faster-X hypotheses. Mol Biol Evol 24:2566–2572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Cutter AD, Charlesworth B (2006) Selection intensity on preferred codons correlates with overall codon usage bias in Caenorhabditis remanei. Curr Biol 16:2053–2057CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Duret L, Mouchiroud D (1999) Expression pattern and, surprisingly, gene length shape codon usage in Caenorhabditis, Drosophila, and Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:4482–4487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ewens WJ (2004) Mathematical population genetics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. Eyre-Walker A (1997) Differentiating between selection and mutation bias. Genetics 147:1983–1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Galtier N, Bazin E, Bierne N (2006) GC-biased segregation of noncoding polymorphisms in Drosophila. Genetics 172:221–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Haddrill PR, Charlesworth B (2008) Non-neutral processes drive the nucleotide composition of non-coding sequences in Drosophila. Biol Lett 4:438–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Haddrill PR, Charlesworth B, Halligan DL, Andolfatto P (2005) Patterns of intron sequence evolution in Drosophila are dependent upon length and GC content. Genome Biol 6:R67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Haddrill PR, Halligan DL, Tomaras D, Charlesworth B (2007) Reduced efficacy of selection in regions of the Drosophila genome that lack crossing over. Genome Biol 8:R18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Haddrill PR, Bachtrog D, Andolfatto P (2008) Positive and negative selection on noncoding DNA in Drosophila simulans. Mol Biol Evol 25:1825–1834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Halligan DL, Keightley PD (2006) Ubiquitous selective constraints in the Drosophila genome revealed by a genome-wide interspecies comparison. Genome Res 16:875–884CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hershberg R, Petrov DA (2008) Selection on codon bias. Annu Rev Genet 42:287–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hey J, Kliman RM (2002) Interactions between natural selection, recombination and gene density in the genes of Drosophila. Genetics 160:595–608PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hutter S, Stephan W (2009) Reply to Beatriz Vicoso and Brian Charlesworth. Genetics 181:1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hutter S, Li H, Beisswanger S, De Lorenzo D, Stephan W (2007) Distinctly different sex ratios in African and European populations of Drosophila melanogaster inferred from chromosomewide single nucleotide polymorphism data. Genetics 177:469–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Ikemura T (1985) Codon usage and tRNA content in unicellular and multicellular organisms. Mol Biol Evol 2:13–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kern AD, Begun DJ (2005) Patterns of polymorphism and divergence from noncoding sequences of Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans: evidence for nonequilibrium processes. Mol Biol Evol 22:51–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kliman RM (1999) Recent selection on synonymous codon usage in Drosophila. J Mol Evol 49:343–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kliman RM, Hey J (1994) The effects of mutation and natural selection on codon bias in the genes of Drosophila. Genetics 137:1049–1056PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kliman RM, Hey J (2003) Hill–Robertson interference in Drosophila melanogaster: reply to Marais, Mouchiroud and Duret. Genet Res 81:89–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Langley CH, Montgomery E, Hudson R, Kaplan N, Charlesworth B (1988) On the role of unequal exchange in the containment of transposable element copy number. Genet Res 52:223–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Li WH (1987) Models of nearly neutral mutations with particular implications for nonrandom usage of synonymous codons. J Mol Evol 24:337–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Li H, Stephan W (2006) Inferring the demographic history and rate of adaptive substitution in Drosophila. PLoS Genet 2:e166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Marais G (2003) Biased gene conversion: implications for genome and sex evolution. Trends Genet 19:330–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Marais G, Mouchiroud D, Duret L (2001) Does recombination improve selection on codon usage? Lessons from nematode and fly complete genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:5688–5692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Marais G, Mouchiroud D, Duret L (2003) Neutral effect of recombination on base composition in Drosophila. Genet Res 81:79–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Maside X, Lee AW, Charlesworth B (2004) Selection on codon usage in Drosophila americana. Curr Biol 14:150–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. McVean GAT, Charlesworth B (1999) A population genetic model for the evolution of synonymous codon usage: patterns and predictions. Genet Res 74:145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McVean GA, Vieira J (1999) The evolution of codon preferences in Drosophila: a maximum-likelihood approach to parameter estimation and hypothesis testing. J Mol Evol 49:63–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. McVean GA, Vieira J (2001) Inferring parameters of mutation, selection and demography from patterns of synonymous site evolution in Drosophila. Genetics 157:245–257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Nagylaki T (1983) Evolution of a finite population under gene conversion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 80:6278–6281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Nielsen R, Bauer DuMont VL, Hubisz MJ, Aquadro CF (2007) Maximum likelihood estimation of ancestral codon usage bias parameters in Drosophila. Mol Biol Evol 24:228–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Nielsen R, Hubisz MJ, Hellmann I, Torgerson D, Andres AM, Albrechtsen A, Gutenkunst R, Adams MD, Cargill M, Boyko A, Indap A, Bustamante CD, Clark AG (2009) Darwinian and demographic forces affecting human protein coding genes. Genome Res 19:838–849CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Ometto L, De Lorenzo D, Stephan W (2006) Contrasting patterns of sequence divergence and base composition between Drosophila introns and intergenic regions. Biol Lett 2:604–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP (1992) Numerical recipes in C: the art of scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Qin H, Wu WB, Comeron JM, Kreitman M, Li WH (2004) Intragenic spatial patterns of codon usage bias in prokaryotic and eukaryotic genomes. Genetics 168:2245–2260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Shapiro JA, Huang W, Zhang C, Hubisz MJ, Lu J, Turissini DA, Fang S, Wang HY, Hudson RR, Nielsen R, Chen Z, Wu CI (2007) Adaptive genic evolution in the Drosophila genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:2271–2276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Singh ND, Arndt PF, Petrov DA (2005a) Genomic heterogeneity of background substitutional patterns in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 169:709–722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Singh ND, Davis JC, Petrov DA (2005b) Codon bias and noncoding GC content correlate negatively with recombination rate on the Drosophila X chromosome. J Mol Evol 61:315–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Singh ND, Davis JC, Petrov DA (2005c) X-linked genes evolve higher codon bias in Drosophila and Caenorhabditis. Genetics 171:145–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Singh ND, Bauer DuMont VL, Hubisz MJ, Nielsen R, Aquadro CF (2007) Patterns of mutation and selection at synonymous sites in Drosophila. Mol Biol Evol 24:2687–2697CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Singh ND, Larracuente AM, Clark AG (2008) Contrasting the efficacy of selection on the X and autosomes in Drosophila. Mol Biol Evol 25:454–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Tajima F (1989) Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism. Genetics 123:585–595PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Takano-Shimizu T (2001) Local changes in GC/AT substitution biases and in crossover frequencies on Drosophila chromosomes. Mol Biol Evol 18:606–619PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Vicoso B, Charlesworth B (2009a) Recombination rates may affect the ratio of X to autosomal noncoding polymorphism in African populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 181:1699–1701 author reply 1703CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Vicoso B, Charlesworth B (2009b) Effective population size and the faster-X effect: an extended model. Evolution 63:2413–2426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Zeng K, Charlesworth B (2009) Estimating selection intensity on synonymous codon usage in a non-equilibrium population. Genetics 183:651–662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown Copyright 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ashworth Laboratories, School of Biological Sciences, Institute of Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations