Advertisement

Russian Journal of Genetics

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 338–340 | Cite as

Evolution of genome size: A phylogenetic test of the DNA loss hypothesis

  • M. R. Pie
Short Communications

Abstract

It has been recently suggested that the C-value paradox, the lack of an obvious association between organismal complexity and genome size, can result simply from biases in insertion and deletion rates—the DNA loss hypothesis. This hypothesis has been heavily criticized, particularly because its evidence, a negative relationship between genome size and DNA loss rate, is based on a highly selective use of the available data. In this study it is shown that the even the most favorable interpretation of the data favoring the DNA loss hypothesis is largely an artifact of phylogenetic nonindependence, supporting the assertion made by other authors that the mechanisms underlying genome size evolution might be more complex than envisioned by the DNA loss hypothesis.

Keywords

Genome Size Organismal Complexity Obvious Association Base Pair Substitution Deletion Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Maynard Smith, J., Overview—Unsolved Evolutionary Problems, Genome Evolution, Dover, G.A. and Flavell, R.B., Eds., New York: Academic, 1982, pp. 375–382.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thomas, C.A., The Genetic Organization of Chromosomes, Annu. Rev. Genet., 1971, vol. 5, pp. 237–256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gregory, T.R., Coincidence, Coevolution or Causation? DNA Content, Cell Size and the C-Value Enigma, Biol. Rev., 2001, vol. 76, pp. 65–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lozovskaya, E.R., Nurminsky, D.I., Petrov, D.A., and Hartl, D.L., Genome Size as a Mutation Selection-Drift Process, Genes Genet. Syst., 1999, vol. 74, pp. 201–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Petrov, D.A., Mutational Equilibrium Model of Genome Size Evolution. Theor. Pop. Biol., 2002, vol. 61, pp. 533–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petrov, D.A., Lozovskaya, E.R., and Hartl, D.L., High Intrinsic Rate of DNA Loss in Drosophila, Nature, 1996, vol. 384, pp. 346–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petrov, D.A., Sangster, T.A., Johnson, J.S., et al., Evidence for DNA Loss as a Determinant of Genome Size, Science, 2000, vol. 287, pp. 1060–1062.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Felsenstein, J., Phylogenies and the Comparative Method, Am. Nat., 1985, vol. 125. pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harvey, P.H. and Pagel, M., The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martins, E.P., Adaptation and the Comparative Method, Trends Ecol. Evol., 2000, vol. 15, pp. 295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diaz-Uriarte, R. and Garland, T. Jr, Testing Hypotheses of Correlated Evolution Using Phylogenetically Independent Contrasts: Sensitivity to Deviations from Brownian Motion, Syst. Biol., 1996, vol. 45, pp. 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gregory, T.R., Insertion-Deletion Biases and the Evolution of Genome Size, Gene, 2004, vol. 324, pp. 15–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bensasson, D., Petrov, D.A., Zhang, D.X., et al., Genomic Gigantism: DNA Loss in Mountain Grasshoppers, Mol. Biol. Evol., 2001, vol. 18, pp. 246–253.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ophir, R. and Graur, D., Patterns and Rates of Indel Evolution in Processed Pseudogenes from Humans and Murids, Gene, 1997, vol. 205, pp. 191–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. R. Pie
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de ZoologiaUniversidade Federal do ParanáCuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations