Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 409–418 | Cite as

Synonymous and nonsynonymous rate variation in nuclear genes of mammals

  • Ziheng Yang
  • Rasmus Nielsen


A maximum likelihood approach was used to estimate the synonymous and nonsynonymous substitution rates in 48 nuclear genes from primates, artiodactyls, and rodents. A codon-substitution model was assumed, which accounts for the genetic code structure, transition/transversion bias, and base frequency biases at codon positions. Likelihood ratio tests were applied to test the constancy of nonsynonymous to synonymous rate ratios among branches (evolutionary lineages). It is found that at 22 of the 48 nuclear loci examined, the nonsynonymous/synonymous rate ratio varies significantly across branches of the tree. The result provides strong evidence against a strictly neutral model of molecular evolution. Our likelihood estimates of synonymous and nonsynonymous rates differ considerably from previous results obtained from approximate pairwise sequence comparisons. The differences between the methods are explored by detailed analyses of data from several genes. Transition/transversion rate bias and codon frequency biases are found to have significant effects on the estimation of synonymous and nonsynonymous rates, and approximate methods do not adequately account for those factors. The likelihood approach is preferable, even for pairwise sequence comparison, because morerealistic models about the mutation and substitution processes can be incorporated in the analysis.

Key words

Synonymous rates Nonsynonymous rates Mammalian genes Likelihood Codon substitution Transition/transversion rate bias Neutral theory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cameron JM (1995) A method for estimating the numbers of synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions per site. J Mol Evol 41: 1152–1159Google Scholar
  2. Easteal S, Collet C (1994) Consistent variation in amino-acid substitution rate, despite uniformity of mutation rate: protein evolution in mammals is not neutral. Mol Biol Evol 11:643–647PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Eyre-Walker A, Gaut BS (1997) Correlated rates of synonymous site evolution across plant genomes. Mol Biol Evol 14:455–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Gillespie JH (1987) Molecular evolution and the neutral allele theory. Oxf Surv Evol Biol 4:10–37Google Scholar
  5. Gillespie JH (1989) Lineage effects and the index of dispersion of molecular evolution. Mol Biol Evol 6:636–647PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gillespie JH (1991) The causes of molecular evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldman N (1994) Variance to mean ratio, R(t), for Poisson processes on phylogenetic trees. Mol Phylogenet Evol 3:230–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldman N, Yang Z (1994) A codon-based model of nucleotide substitution for protein-coding DNA sequences. Mol Biol Evol 11: 725–736PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Grantham R (1974) Amino acid difference formula to help explain protein evolution. Science 185:862–864PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ina Y (1995) Amino acid difference formula to help explain protein evolution. Science 185:862–864Google Scholar
  11. Ina Y (1995) New methods for estimating the numbers of synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions. J Mol Evol 40:190–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ina Y (1996) Patterns of synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions: an indicator of mechanisms of molecular evolution. J Genet 75:91–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kimura M (1968) Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217:624–626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kimura M (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol 16:111–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kimura M (1983) The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Li W-H (1993) Unbiased estimation of the rates of synonymous and nonsynonymous substitution. J Mol Evol 36:96–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li W-H, Wu C-I, Luo C-C (1985) A new method for estimating synonymous and nonsynonymous rates of nucleotide substitutions considering the relative likelihood of nucleotide and codon changes. Mol Biol Evol 2:150–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. McDonald JH, Kreitman M (1991) Adaptive protein evolution at the Adh locus in Drosophila. Nature 351:652–654PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miyata T, Yasunaga T (1980) Molecular evolution of mRNA: a method for estimating evolutionary rates of synonymous and amino acid substitutions from homologous nucleotide sequences and its applications. J Mol Evol 16:23–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Muse SV, Gaut BS (1994) A likelihood approach for comparing synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide substitution rates, with application to chloroplast genome. Mol Biol Evol 11:715–724PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Nei M, Gojobori T (1986) Simple methods for estimating the number of synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide substitutions. Mol Biol Evol 3:418–426PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Nielsen R (1997) Robustness of the estimator of the index of dispersion for DNA sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol 7:346–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ohta T (1993) A examination of the generation-time effect on molecular evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:10676–10680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ohta T (1995) Synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions in mammalian genes and the nearly neutral theory. J Mol Evol 40:56–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pamilo P, Bianchi NO (1993) Evolution of the Zfx and Zfy genes- rates and interdependence between the genes. Mol Biol Evol 10: 271–281PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Yang Z (1997) Phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood (PAML), version 1.3. University of California, Berkeley, California, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ziheng Yang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rasmus Nielsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Integrative BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity College LondonLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations