Genetica

, Volume 129, Issue 1, pp 45–55 | Cite as

Compensatory vs. pseudocompensatory evolution in molecular and developmental interactions

Review Paper

Abstract

The evolution of molecules, developmental circuits, and new species are all characterized by the accumulation of incompatibilities between ancestors and descendants. When specific interactions between components are necessary at any of these levels, this requires compensatory coevolution. Theoretical treatments of compensatory evolution that only consider the endpoints predict that it should be rare because intermediate states are deleterious. However, empirical data suggest that compensatory evolution is common at all levels of molecular interaction. A general solution to this paradox is provided by plausible neutral or nearly neutral intermediates that possess informational redundancy. These intermediates provide an evolutionary path between coadapted allelic combinations. Although they allow incompatible end points to evolve, at no point was a deleterious mutation ever in need of compensation. As a result, what appears to be compensatory evolution may often actually be “pseudocompensatory.” Both theoretical and empirical studies indicate that pseudocompensation can speed the evolution of intergenic incompatibility, especially when driven by adaptation. However, under strong stabilizing selection the rate of pseudocompensatory evolution is still significant. Important examples of this process at work discussed here include the evolution of rRNA secondary structures, intra- and inter-protein interactions, and developmental genetic pathways. Future empirical work in this area should focus on comparing the details of intra- and intergenic interactions in closely related organisms.

Keywords

Compensatory evolution Developmental system drift Epistasis Genetic pathway evolution Incompatibility pseudocompensation RNA structure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atchley W, Wollenberg K, Fitch W, Terhalle W, Dress A (2000). Correlations among amino acid sites in bHLH protein domains: an information theoretic analysis. Mol Biol Evol 17:164–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker J, Moth J (2001). Linkage maps of D. simulans: an update of Sturtevant (1929) with additional loci. Dros Inf Serv 84:205–206Google Scholar
  3. Barton N. (1989). The divergence of a polygenic system subject to stabilizing selection, mutation, and drift. Gent Res Camb 54:59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carter A, Wagner G (2002). Evolution of functionally conserved enhancers can be accelerated in large populations: a population-genetic model. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:953–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charlesworth D. (2000). How can two-gene models of self-incompatibility generate new specificities? Plant Cell 12:309–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen R, Grobler J, Hurley J, Dean A (1996). Second-site suppression of regulatory phosphorylation in Escherichia coli isocitrate dehydrogenase. Protein Sci 5:287–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crick F, Barnett L, Brenner S, Watts-Tobin R. (1961). General nature of the genetic code for proteins. Nature 192:1227–1232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fay D, Large E, Han M, Darland M (2003). lin-35/Rb and ubc-18, an E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme, function redundantly to control pharyngeal morphogenesis in C. elegans. Development 130:3319–3330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Force A, Lynch M, Pickett F, Amores A, Yan Y, Postlethwait J (1999). Preservation of duplicate genes by complementary, degenerative mutations. Genetics 151:1531–1545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fraser H, Hirsh A, Steinmetz L, Scharfe C, Feldman M (2002). Evolutionary rate in the protein interaction network. Science 296:750–752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gavrilets S. (1997). Evolution and speciation on holey adaptive landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 12:307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graustein A, Gaspar JM, Walters JR, Palopoli MF (2002). Levels of DNA polymorphism vary with mating system in the nematode genus Caenorhabditis. Genetics 161:99–107PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gutell R, Lee J, Cannone J (2002). The accuracy of ribosomal RNA comparative structure models. Curr Opin Struct Biol 12:301–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haag E, Ackerman A (2005) Intraspecific variation in fem-3and tra-2, two rapidly coevolving nematode sex-determining genes. Gene pp TBAGoogle Scholar
  15. Haag E, Kimble J (2000). Regulatory elements required for development of C. elegans hermaphrodites are conserved in the tra-2 homologue of C. remanei, a male/female sister species. Genetics 155:105–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Haag E, Molla M (2005) Compensatory evolution of interacting gene products through multifunctional intermediates. Evolution 59:1620–1632Google Scholar
  17. Haag E, True J (2001). From mutants to mechanisms? Assessing the candidate gene paradigm in evolutionary biology. Evolution 55:1077–1084PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Haag E, Wang S, Kimble J (2002). Rapid coevolution of the nematode sex-determining genes fem-3 and tra-2. Curr Biol 12:2035–2041PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haldane J. (1931). A mathematical theory of natural selection. Part VIII: metastable populations. Proc Camb Phil Soc 27:137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haldane J (1932). The Causes of Evolution. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  21. Hellberg M, Moy G, Vacquier V (2000). Positive selection and propeptide repeats promote rapid interspecific divergence of a gastropod sperm protein. Mol Biol Evol 17:458–466PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hickson R, Simon C, Cooper A, Spicer G, Sullivan J, Penny D (1996). Conserved sequence motifs, alignment, and secondary structure for the third domain of animal 12S rRNA. Mol Biol Evol 13:150–169PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Higgs P (1998). Compensatory neutral mutations and the evolution of RNA. Genetica 102/103:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hill R, Carvalho C, Salogiannis J, Schlager B, Pilgrim D, Haag E (2006) Genetic flexibility in the convergent evolution of hermaphroditism in Caenorhabditis nematodes. Dev Cell 10:531–538 Google Scholar
  25. Hirsch N, Zimmerman L, Grainger R (2002). Xenopus, the next generation: X. tropicalis genetics and genomics. Dev Dyn 225:422–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodgkin J, Brenner S (1977). Mutations causing transformation of sexual phenotype in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 86:275–287PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson N, Porter A (2000). Speciation via parallel, directional selection on regulatory genetic pathways. J Theor Biol 205:527–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson NA, Porter AH (2006) Evolution of branched regulatory genetic pathways: directional selection on pleiotropic loci accelerates developmental system drift. Genetica (in␣press)Google Scholar
  29. Jordan I, Wolf Y, Koonin E (2003). No simple dependence between protein evolution rate and the number of protein–protein interactions: only the most prolific interactors tend to evolve slowly. BMC Evol Biol 3:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kachroo A, Nasrallah M, Nasrallah J (2002). Self-incompatibility in the Brassicaceae: receptor-ligand signaling and cell–cell communication. Plant Cell 14(Suppl): S227–S238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kachroo A, Schopfer C, Nasrallah M, Nasrallah J (2001). Allele-specific receptor-ligand interactions in Brassica self-incompatibility. Science 293:1824–1826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kimura M (1983) The neutral theory of molecular evolution, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Kimura M (1985). The role of compensatory neutral mutations in molecular evolution. J Genet 64:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kondrashov A, Sunyaev S, Kondrashov F (2002). Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities in protein evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:14878–14883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kresge N, Vacquier V, Stout D (2001). Abalone lysin: the dissolving and evolving sperm protein. BioEssays 23:95–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuwabara PE (1996). Interspecies comparison reveals evolution of control regions in the nematode sex-determining gene tra-2. Genetics 144:597–607PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuwabara PE, Shah S (1994). Cloning by synteny: identifying C. briggsae homologues of C. elegans genes. Nucleic Acids Res 22:4414–4418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. LaMunyon C, Ward S (1997). Increased competitiveness of nematode sperm bearing the male X chromosome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:185–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ludwig M, Bergman C, Patel N, Kreitman M (2000). Evidence for stabilizing selection in a eukaryotic enhancer element. Nature 403:564–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ludwig M, Patel N, Kreitman M (1998). Functional analysis of eve stripe 2 enhancer evolution in Drosophila: rules governing conservation and change. Development 125:949–958PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lum D, Kuwabara P, Zarkower D, Spence A (2000). Direct protein–protein interaction between the intracellular domain of TRA-2 and the transcription factor TRA-1A modulates feminizing activity in C. elegans. Genes Dev 14:3153–3165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Lynch M, Force A (2000). The probability of duplicate gene preservation by subfunctionalization. Genetics 154:459–473PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Lynch M, O’Hely M, Walsh B, Force A (2001). The probability of preservation of a newly arisen gene duplicate. Genetics 159:1789–1804PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Matton D, Luu D, Xike Q, Bertrand C, Morse D, Cappadocia M (1999). The production of an S-RNase with dual specificity suggests a novel hypothesis for the generation of new S-alleles. Plant Cell 11:2087–2097PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mehra A, Gaudet J, Heck L, Kuwabara PE, Spence AM (1999). Negative regulation of male development in Caenorhabditis elegans by a protein–protein interaction between TRA-2A and FEM-3. Genes Dev 13:1453–1463PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Michalakis Y, Slatkin M (1996). Interaction of selection and recombination in the fixation of negative-epistatic genes. Genet Res Camb 67:257–269Google Scholar
  47. Morosyuk S, Lee K, Santalucia JJ, Cunningham P (2000). Structure and function of the conserved 690 hairpin in Escherichia coli 16S ribosomal RNA: analysis of the stem nucleotides. J Mol Biol 300:113–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Muse S (1995). Evolutionary analyses of DNA sequences subject to constraints of secondary structure. Genetics 139:1429–1439PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Phillips P (1996). Waiting for a compensatory mutation: phase zero of the shifting-balance process. Genet Res Camb 67:271–283Google Scholar
  50. Phillips P, Otto S, Whitlock M (2000) Beyond the Average. In: Wolf J, Brodie III ED, Wade MJ (eds) Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp20–38Google Scholar
  51. Poteete A, Dao-Pin S, Nicholson H, Matthews B (1991). Second-site revertants of an inactive T4 lysozyme mutant restore activity by restructuring the active site cleft. Biochemistry 30:1425–1432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rockman M, Wray G (2002). Abundant raw material for cis-regulatory evolution in humans. Mol Biol Evol 19:1991–2004PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Romano L, Wray G (2003). Conservation of Endo16 expression in sea urchins despite evolutionary divergence in both cis and trans-acting componenets of transcriptional regulation. Development 130:4187–4199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rousset F, Pelandakis M, Solignac M (1991). Evolution of compensatory substitutions through G:U intermediate stat in Drosophila rRNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88:10032–10036PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schierup M, Mable B, Awadalla P, Charlesworth D (2001) Identification and characterization of a polymorphic receptor kinase gene linked to the self-incompatibility locus of Arabidopsis lyrata. Genetics 158:387–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Srinivasan J, Sinz W, Jesse T, Wiggers-Perebolte L, Jansen K, Buntjer J, van der Meulen M, Sommer R (2003) An integrated physical and genetic map of the nematode Pristionchus pacificus. Mol Genet Genomics 269:715–722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stephan W (1996) The rate of compensatory evolution. Genetics 144:419–426PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Stoltzfus A (1999) On the possibility of constructive neutral evolution. J Mol Evol 49:169–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stothard P, Pilgrim D (2003) Sex determination gene and pathway evolution in nematodes. BioEssays 25:221–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sturtevant A (1929) The genetics of Drosophila simulans. Carnegie Inst Wash Publ 339:50–61Google Scholar
  61. Swanson W, Vacquier V (1995) Extraordinary divergence and positive Darwinian selection in a fusagenic protein coating the acrosomal process of abalone spermatozoa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:4957–4961PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Swanson W, Vacquier V (2002) The rapid evolution of reproductive proteins. Nature Rev Gen 3:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tamarina N, Ludwig M, Richmond R (1997) Divergent and conserved features in the spatial expression of the Drosophila pseudoobscura esterase-5B gene and the esterase-6 gene of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:7735–7741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. True J, Haag E (2001) Developmental system drift and flexibility in evolutionary trajectories. Evol Dev 3:109–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Uyenoyama M, Newbigin E (2000) Evolutionary dynamics of dual-specificity self-incompatibility alleles. Plant Cell 12:310–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Uyenoyama M, Zhang Y, Newbigin E (2001) On the origin of self-incompatibility haplotypes: transition through self-compatible intermediates. Genetics 157:1805–1817Google Scholar
  67. Wang S, Kimble J (2001) The TRA-1 transcription factor binds TRA-2 to regulate sexual fates in Caenorhabditis elegans. EMBO J 20:1363–1372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Watanabe M, Ito A, Takada Y, Ninomiya C, Kakizakia T, Takahata Y, Hatakeyama K, Hinata K, Suzuki G, Takasaki T, Satta Y, Shiba H, Takayama S, Isogai A (2000) Highly divergent sequences of the pollen self-incompatibility (S) gene in class-I S haplotypes of Brassica campestris (syn. rapa) L. FEBS Lett 473:139–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Waterston R, Lindblad-Toh K, Birney E, a. m. o. o. t. M.G.S. Consortium. (2002) Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature 420:520–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wilkins A (2002) The Evolution of Developmental Pathways. Sinauer, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  71. Wollenberg K, Atchley W (2000) Separation of phylogenetic and functional associations in biological sequences by using the parametric bootstrap. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:3288–3291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wray G, Hahn M, Abouheif E, Balhoff J, Pizer M, Rockman M, Romano L (2003) The evolution of transcriptional regulation in eukaryotes. Mol Biol Evol 20:1377–1419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhang J, Rosenberg H (2002) Complementary advantageous substitutions in the evolution of an antiviral RNase of higher primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:5486–5491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zuckerkandl E (1965) The evolution of hemoglobin. Sci Am. 212:110–118Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations