scholarly journals Large-Scale Comparative Analysis of Codon Models Accounting for Protein and Nucleotide Selection

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iakov I. Davydov ◽  
Nicolas Salamin ◽  
Marc Robinson-Rechavi

AbstractThere are numerous sources of variation in the rate of synonymous substitutions inside genes, such as direct selection on the nucleotide sequence, or mutation rate variation. Yet scans for positive selection rely on codon models which incorporate an assumption of effectively neutral synonymous substitution rate, constant between sites of each gene. Here we perform a large-scale comparison of approaches which incorporate codon substitution rate variation and propose our own simple yet effective modification of existing models. We find strong effects of substitution rate variation on positive selection inference. More than 70% of the genes detected by the classical branch-site model are presumably false positives caused by the incorrect assumption of uniform synonymous substitution rate. We propose a new model which is strongly favored by the data while remaining computationally tractable. With the new model we can capture signatures of nucleotide level selection acting on translation initiation and on splicing sites within the coding region. Finally, we show that rate variation is highest in the highly recombining regions, and we propose that recombination and mutation rate variation, such as high CpG mutation rate, are the two main sources of nucleotide rate variation. While we detect fewer genes under positive selection in Drosophila than without rate variation, the genes which we detect contain a stronger signal of adaptation of dynein, which could be associated with Wolbachia infection. We provide software to perform positive selection analysis using the new model.

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 2430-2439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadie R Wisotsky ◽  
Sergei L Kosakovsky Pond ◽  
Stephen D Shank ◽  
Spencer V Muse

Abstract Most molecular evolutionary studies of natural selection maintain the decades-old assumption that synonymous substitution rate variation (SRV) across sites within genes occurs at levels that are either nonexistent or negligible. However, numerous studies challenge this assumption from a biological perspective and show that SRV is comparable in magnitude to that of nonsynonymous substitution rate variation. We evaluated the impact of this assumption on methods for inferring selection at the molecular level by incorporating SRV into an existing method (BUSTED) for detecting signatures of episodic diversifying selection in genes. Using simulated data we found that failing to account for even moderate levels of SRV in selection testing is likely to produce intolerably high false positive rates. To evaluate the effect of the SRV assumption on actual inferences we compared results of tests with and without the assumption in an empirical analysis of over 13,000 Euteleostomi (bony vertebrate) gene alignments from the Selectome database. This exercise reveals that close to 50% of positive results (i.e., evidence for selection) in empirical analyses disappear when SRV is modeled as part of the statistical analysis and are thus candidates for being false positives. The results from this work add to a growing literature establishing that tests of selection are much more sensitive to certain model assumptions than previously believed.


1994 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darren G. Monckton ◽  
Rita Neumann ◽  
Tara Guram ◽  
Neale Fretwell ◽  
Keiji Tamaki ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 182 (4) ◽  
pp. 494-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy O. Scholle ◽  
Rolf J. F. Ypma ◽  
Alun L. Lloyd ◽  
Katia Koelle

Genetics ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 152 (2) ◽  
pp. 661-673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick G C Smith ◽  
Laurence D Hurst

Abstract Miyata et al. have suggested that the male-to-female mutation rate ratio (α) can be estimated by comparing the neutral substitution rates of X-linked (X), Y-linked (Y), and autosomal (A) genes. Rodent silent site X/A comparisons provide very different estimates from X/Y comparisons. We examine three explanations for this discrepancy: (1) statistical biases and artifacts, (2) nonneutral evolution, and (3) differences in mutation rate per germline replication. By estimating errors and using a variety of methodologies, we tentatively reject explanation 1. Our analyses of patterns of codon usage, synonymous rates, and nonsynonymous rates suggest that silent sites in rodents are evolving neutrally, and we can therefore reject explanation 2. We find both base composition and methylation differences between the different sets of chromosomes, a result consistent with explanation 3, but these differences do not appear to explain the observed discrepancies in estimates of α. Our finding of significantly low synonymous substitution rates in genomically imprinted genes suggests a link between hemizygous expression and an adaptive reduction in the mutation rate, which is consistent with explanation 3. Therefore our results provide circumstantial evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the discrepancies in estimates of α are due to differences in the mutation rate per germline replication between different parts of the genome. This explanation violates a critical assumption of the method of Miyata et al., and hence we suggest that estimates of α, obtained using this method, need to be treated with caution.


2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 902-902
Author(s):  
Charles F. Baer ◽  
Michael M. Miyamoto ◽  
Dee R. Denver

2009 ◽  
pp. 217-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romain A. Studer ◽  
Marc Robinson-Rechavi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document