scholarly journals Two decades of suspect evidence for adaptive DNA-sequence evolution – Less negative selection misconstrued as positive selection

Author(s):  
Qipian Chen ◽  
Ziwen He ◽  
Xiao Feng ◽  
Hao Yang ◽  
Suhua Shi ◽  
...  

AbstractEvidence for biological adaptation is often obtained by studying DNA sequence evolution. Since the analyses are affected by both positive and negative selection, studies usually assume constant negative selection in the time span of interest. For this reason, hundreds of studies that conclude adaptive evolution might have reported false signals caused by relaxed negative selection. We test this suspicion two ways. First, we analyze the fluctuation in population size, N, during evolution. For example, the evolutionary rate in the primate phylogeny could vary by as much as 2000 fold due to the variation in N alone. Second, we measure the variation in negative selection directly by analyzing the polymorphism data from four taxa (Drosophila, Arabidopsis, primates, and birds, with 64 species in total). The strength of negative selection, as measured by the ratio of nonsynonymous/synonymous polymorphisms, fluctuates strongly and at multiple time scales. The two approaches suggest that the variation in the strength of negative selection may be responsible for the bulk of the reported adaptive genome evolution in the last two decades. This study corroborates the recent report1 on the inconsistent patterns of adaptive genome evolution. Finally, we discuss the path forward in detecting adaptive sequence evolution.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ziwen He ◽  
Qipian Chen ◽  
Hao Yang ◽  
Qingjian Chen ◽  
Suhua Shi ◽  
...  

AbstractA recent study suggests that the evidence of adaptive DNA sequence evolution accumulated in the last 20 years may be suspect1. The suspicion thus calls for a re-examination of the reported evidence. The two main lines of evidence are from the McDonald-Kreitman (MK) test, which compares divergence and polymorphism data, and the PAML test, which analyzes multi-species divergence data. Here, we apply these two tests concurrently on the genomic data of Drosophila and Arabidopsis. To our surprise, the >100 genes identified by the two tests do not overlap beyond random expectations. The results could mean i) high false positives by either test or ii) high false-negatives by both tests due to low powers. To rule out the latter, we merge every 20 - 30 genes into a “supergene”. At the supergene level, the power of detection is high, with 8% - 56% yielding adaptive signals. Nevertheless, the calls still do not overlap. Since it is unlikely that one test is largely correct and the other is mostly wrong (see Discussion), the total evidence of adaptive DNA sequence evolution should be deemed unreliable. As suggested by Chen et al.1, the reported evidence for positive selection may in fact be signals of fluctuating negative selection, which are handled differently by the two tests. Possible paths forward on this central evolutionary issue are discussed.


Biometrics ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ziheng Yang ◽  
Tianlin Wang

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document