Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Missense Meanderings

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

MISSENSE MEANDERINGS IN
SEQUENCE SPACE: A BIOPHYSICAL
VIEW OF PROTEIN EVOLUTION
Mark A. DePristo, Daniel M. Weinreich and Daniel L. Hartl

“Taken as a whole, recent findings from biochemistry and evolutionary biology indicate that our understanding of protein evolution is incomplete, if not fundamentally flawed.”

Abstract | Proteins are finicky molecules; they are barely stable and are prone to aggregate, but they must function in a crowded environment that is full of degradative enzymes bent on their destruction. It is no surprise that many common diseases are due to missense mutations that affect protein stability and aggregation. Here we review the literature on biophysics as it relates to molecular evolution, focusing on how protein stability and aggregation affect organismal fitness. We then advance a biophysical model of protein evolution that helps us to understand phenomena that range from the dynamics of molecular adaptation to the clock-like rate of protein evolution

Summary:

**In addition to functional properties, proteins have a wide range of biophysical characteristics, such as stability, propensity for aggregation and rate of degradation. These properties are at least as important as function for cellular and organismal fitness.

**Proteins tolerate only narrow ranges of stability, aggregation propensity and degradation rate. Many individual missense mutations perturb these traits by amounts that are on the same order as the permissible range of values, and are consequently common causes of human genetic disease.

**The narrow range of tolerance of deviations from optimum characteristics and the significant effects of mutations give rise to a substantial degree of epistasis for fitness. Moreover, mutations simultaneously affect function, stability, aggregation and degradation. For these reasons, mutations might be selectively beneficial on some genetic backgrounds and deleterious on others.

**Mutations that change function often do so at the cost of protein stability and aggregation. Compensatory mutations therefore function by relieving the biophysical strain that is introduced by adaptive mutations.

**We propose a new model of protein evolution that is reminiscent of a constrained ‘random walk’ through fitness space, which is based on the fitness consequences and distribution of mutational effects on function, stability, aggregation and degradation.

**This model can account for both the micro-evolutionary events that are studied by biochemists and the long-term patterns of protein evolution that are observed by evolutionary biologists.

—–

Taken as a whole, recent findings from biochemistry and evolutionary biology indicate that our understanding of protein evolution is incomplete, if not fundamentally flawed. The neutral theory of molecular evolution1, which states that all mutations that reach FIXATION in a population are selectively neutral, appeals to evolutionary geneticists in part because it can account for the approximately constant rate of protein evolution. However, its premise that most missense mutations are selectively neutral has been systematically rejected by protein biochemists, who recognize instead that almost all missense mutations have large biophysical effects2. Indeed, nucleotide sequence analyses have uncovered pervasive positive selection for amino-acid replacements3?5.

Another important challenge to evolutionary theory, which emphasizes the independent and additive effects of mutations, arises from studies of compensatory evolution. Here the deleterious effects of mutations are rapidly and effectively compensated by conditionally beneficial mutations. Compensatory mutations often occur in the same gene as the initial deleterious mutation, are common in ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION6?8 and have an important role in many human diseases9. There are currently no models that reconcile the constant rate of protein evolution with the biochemical reality that missense mutations have large, context-dependent effects and that few, if any, are selectively neutral.

There is a growing appreciation of the role that the biophysical properties of protein stability, aggregation and degradation have in FITNESS and disease10 TABLE 1. Moreover, these properties have been identified as significant factors in many cases of adaptive8,11,12 and compensatory evolution13?15. These properties ? and not function ? seem to be the forces driving much of protein evolution.

Here we review the literature on biophysics as it relates to molecular evolution, with a particular focus on how missense mutations affect protein stability and aggregation. We then develop a biophysical model of protein evolution that helps to explain such diverse phenomena as compensatory mutation, the dynamics of molecular adaptation and the rate of protein evolution. Throughout this review, we bring together the fields of protein biophysics and molecular evolution by highlighting the shared questions, complementary techniques and important results concerning protein evolution that have come from both fields.

Comments
"selection. If the mice created by Nobrega et al. were just 0.01% less fit, natural selection would easily weed them out. Just because they couldn’t detect a difference in growth rate, doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist (DaveScot would call it an argument from ignorance). " 3% of a nearly 3 to 4 giga base pair genome is a huge number. We're talking on the order of 90 to 120 million base pairs. Even if it had a 1% decrease in fitness for 120 million base pairs, each base pair in isoloation would be on average a selective disadvantage of only 1%/120,000,000, meaning it's too dilute to be detected or too weak to prevent change. That's a crude analysis, and there are even more problems which I don't have energy to get into. The arguments from ignorance come from the Darwinists: "you can't prove Darwinism wrong therefore Darwinism is true".scordova
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
"10 raised to the 77th power is thus 10^77." Thanks. That should help. :) ^ 4 = :) :) :) :)MGD
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
"DaveScot would call it an argument from ignorance" No, Logic 101 calls it an argument from ignorance. Enroll should you ever get to college.DaveScot
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
MGD Ascii tradition uses an up arrow to denote powers. 10 raised to the 77th power is thus 10^77. Even talking about RM "searching" sequence space for functional proteins is a misnomer. A search implies a goal. Random mutation isn't a goal. It's an aimless wandering. Using the term "search" implies there's a solution being sought for a problem. At best random mutation creates solutions that are seeking a problem. Sort of like the discovery of teflon. Chemists were seeking something else (I forget what) when they stumbled onto the formula for teflon. They noticed it had some unique properties then went about finding problems those properties might solve - a solution looking for a problem. Random mutation doesn't even do that as it has no way of testing newly formulated proteins for efficacy at some task. What's supposed to happen - every new protein is tried out to see how it works as a neurotransmitter, antibiotic, gas transport, coagulent, ad infinitum? Hardly. And that's only one protein. In reality most biologic functions are carried out by suites of proteins working together in concert. The whole concept of RM+NS finding the sequences for these proteins is ridiculous on the face of it. RM+NS is categorically an argument from ignorance. No other mechanism for the synthesis of interdependent protein complexes has been discovered so, as Sherlock Holmes put it "When you've ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the answer". The problem is there IS one other possibility aside from RM+NS and that's intelligent agency. In Paley's time (watchmaker argument circa 1800) until the late 20th century intelligent agency in directed, goal oriented synthesis of novel proteins was just a theoretical possibility. Not any more. Now it has been proven possible by modern biochemists and genetic engineers tinkering with genes to produce novel proteins and exploring the properties of the resultant molecules. The holy grail of being able to predict those properties from any arbitrary amino acid sequence hasn't quite been acheived but there's no reason to believe it is an unsolvable problem. It's this recent experimental work proving that genes can be purposely manipulated by intelligent agents that has given a new life and strong legs to the old watchmaker argument. It's no longer a question of whether intelligent agency CAN guide evolution but rather DID it guide evolution. Here's where Dembski comes along with a scientific process (well, actually mathematical process applied to scientific data) that claims to be able to reliably distinguish the work of intelligent agency from the work of chance and necessity. Chance worshippers are understandably apoplectic that their own hard earned data has falsified the very core of their materialist faith.DaveScot
October 9, 2005
October
10
Oct
9
09
2005
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Salvador, "Results from systematic null mutations of all genes on chromosome V of S. cerevisiae show that almost 40% of all yeast genes have little or no detectable effect on growth rate in 5 different environments" (from A. Wagner. 2000. Nature Genetics. 24:355-361.) I think the work by Nobrega et al. just goes to show that the laboratory does not capture all the vagaries of the environments that organisms find themselves competing in. Additionally, a yeast (or a mouse) that is 99.99% as fit as wildtype will look like wildtype in the lab, but will be effectively lethal in the eyes of natural selection. If the mice created by Nobrega et al. were just 0.01% less fit, natural selection would easily weed them out. Just because they couldn't detect a difference in growth rate, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist (DaveScot would call it an argument from ignorance).cambion
October 8, 2005
October
10
Oct
8
08
2005
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
More from the same article: "In the second scenario, neo-Darwinists envisioned novel genes and proteins arising by numerous successive mutations in the preexisting genetic text that codes for proteins. To adapt Dawkins's metaphor, this scenario envisions gradually climbing down one functional peak and then ascending another. Yet mutagenesis experiments again suggest a difficulty. Recent experiments show that, even when exploring a region of sequence space populated by proteins of a single fold and function, most multiple-position changes quickly lead to loss of function (Axe 2000). Yet to turn one protein into another with a completely novel structure and function requires specified changes at many sites. Indeed, the number of changes necessary to produce a new protein greatly exceeds the number of changes that will typically produce functional losses. Given this, the probability of escaping total functional loss during a random search for the changes needed to produce a new function is extremely small--and this probability diminishes exponentially with each additional requisite change (Axe 2000). Thus, Axe's results imply that, in all probability, random searches for novel proteins (through sequence space) will result in functional loss long before any novel functional protein will emerge. Blanco et al. have come to a similar conclusion. Using directed mutagenesis, they have determined that residues in both the hydrophobic core and on the surface of the protein play essential roles in determining protein structure. By sampling intermediate sequences between two naturally occurring sequences that adopt different folds, they found that the intermediate sequences “lack a well defined three-dimensional structure.” Thus, they conclude that it is unlikely that a new protein fold via a series of folded intermediates sequences (Blanco et al. 1999:741)." See original article for citations.MGD
October 8, 2005
October
10
Oct
8
08
2005
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
"I’m willing to accept the former (until the data comes in) on purely intuitive grounds…" Is intuition anything like faith? My intuitions are quite different. "Cassette mutagenesis experiments performed during the early 1990s suggest that the probability of attaining (at random) the correct sequencing for a short protein 100 amino acids long is about 1 in 1065 (Reidhaar-Olson & Sauer 1990, Behe 1992:65-69). This result agreed closely with earlier calculations that Yockey (1978) had performed based upon the known sequence variability of cytochrome c in different species and other theoretical considerations. More recent mutagenesis research has provided additional support for the conclusion that functional proteins are exceedingly rare among possible amino acid sequences (Axe 2000, 2004). Axe (2004) has performed site directed mutagenesis experiments on a 150-residue protein-folding domain within a B-lactamase enzyme. His experimental method improves upon earlier mutagenesis techniques and corrects for several sources of possible estimation error inherent in them. On the basis of these experiments, Axe has estimated the ratio of (a) proteins of typical size (150 residues) that perform a specified function via any folded structure to (b) the whole set of possible amino acids sequences of that size. Based on his experiments, Axe has estimated his ratio to be 1 to 1077. Thus, the probability of finding a functional protein among the possible amino acid sequences corresponding to a 150-residue protein is similarly 1 in 1077." from: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 That's 10 to the 77th power,I dont know how to fix the exponents.MGD
October 8, 2005
October
10
Oct
8
08
2005
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
PaV, I guess I should have made myself more clear, because this is isn't what I was trying to get at. The basic idea is that we don't want to calculate the chances that evolution by natural selection produces this particular kinase (or, as you put 1 of the million possible sequences that produce an equivalent kinase), but instead we want to calculate the chances that evolution by natural selection produces *something*. My point was that in a given timeframe, RM+NS might only have a 1 in a million chance of producing a protein kinase, but will have a very good chance of producing something new and complicated and interesting. Asking what are the chances that evolution by natural selection arrived at this particular state of the world (or an isometric equivalent), is asking the wrong question. Things could have turned out any number of different ways. "Yet the kinds of probabilistic calculations that ID makes–and I see no reason to think them far-fetched–would say that the chance of one such kinase coming about, strictly by chance, would be in the order of 10^-150. " The chances of creating a random protein 100 amino-acids long and having it be match exactly to some specified sequence are indeed astronomically small. In this case, (1/20)^100 = 7.9 x 10^-131. However, this is not what evolution by natural selection must accomplish. Proteins are built from other proteins (novel proteins often built from gene duplicates). The protein sequences that encode a digestive enzyme and a protein kinase may be very similar. In other words, natural selection begins with many seeds in search space, all of which are known to have some function. These functional proteins are likely to lie near other functional proteins (just from protein folding arguments). If randomly changing 3 amino-acids of this digestive enzyme (though keep in mind it could have been any other protein in the genome) gives a little bit of kinase function (and that little bit of function is advantageous), then natural selection will take over from here and mold the novel kinase to have greater and greater activity, by just flipping one amino-acid at a time. As long as functional proteins of different varieties lie somewhat near each other in search space, natural selection should do okay finding novel variants. However, if functional proteins are randomly assigned to the search space, natural selection will frustrated in its high climbing attempts (I believe this is roughly the argument of No Free Lunch). I'm willing to accept the former (until the data comes in) on purely intuitive grounds...cambion
October 8, 2005
October
10
Oct
8
08
2005
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
Dave Scott wrote: "Salvador The root of the “problem” is that chance worshippers haven’t been able to imagine any mechanism other than natural selection that has the ability to conserve DNA sequences over long periods of time. " Exactly! That is why the researchers who did the knockout experiments were astonished. These "conserved" regions should have been utterly scrambled by now! There are some possible explanations, some more palatable than others: 1. The convered regions are enforced through some sort of error correcting mechanism, but then this raises the deeper question, WHY? And how could such an enforcement mechanism evolve in the first place, and then it must somehow still square with the molecular clock and hierarchical patterns! Do we have a hierachically architected enforcement mechanimsm that spans all the species. At some point this looks no different than appeals to astrology or (gasp) intelligent design. 2. If the enforcement mechanism exists, then this is going to absolutely overturn evolutionary biology which relies on a certain degree of undirected variability. Enforcement of patterns at this scale is anathema to organic evolution! 3. Front loaded evolution or special creation, but I'm not about to touch special creation today! Salvadorscordova
October 8, 2005
October
10
Oct
8
08
2005
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
cambion: "For example, with enough information, you could theoretically calculate the chance that RM+NS would have brought a particular protein into being, let’s say a novel protein kinase involved in a signally cascade. Let’s say we find that this chance is 1 in a million. The difficulty here is that there could be a million other possible proteins each with a 1 in a million chance of being arrived upon by RM+NS. Just because the chance of this particular realization is low, does not mean the chance of any realization is low." Well, this is the nub of the issue. You seem to suggest that maybe a "million" possible configurations could serve as a "kinase." And, so, I'm just guessing, I suppose you want to say that if there is a million (10^6) such viable permutations, and the chance of one such permutation coming about is one in a million, then 10^6 X 10^-6=1. Yet the kinds of probabilistic calculations that ID makes--and I see no reason to think them far-fetched--would say that the chance of one such kinase coming about, strictly by chance, would be in the order of 10^-150. When you multiply this by 10^6, it's still 10^-144. This is unimaginably small. How do you get around such calculations?PaV
October 8, 2005
October
10
Oct
8
08
2005
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
DaveScot, ((I only said I didn't want to talk to you if you continued to ignore my explanation of neutral evolution in a subset of sequences. I should have given up on coming to a common understanding regarding this a while ago. It would have saved me a lot of frustration.)) One parting volley though... Your "front-loaded" theory of evolution goes something like: Step 1: Intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy / universe create an uber-genome and enclose it in a very special 'first egg'. Step 2: One (or more) of these 'first eggs' land on earth somewhere around ~3.7 billion years ago. Step 3: The information contained within this uber-genome unfolds into the phylogeny of life on earth, eventually resulting in additional intelligent life. How do you explain the existence of the first designers? Many ID folks can just turn to metaphysical arguments for the existence of 'first mover.' You, however, do not have that luxury. If these first designers were the products of evolution by natural selection (or by a yet undiscovered natural mechanism), that would mean that natural selection had to have worked in their case. And if it worked for them, why can't it have worked for us?cambion
October 8, 2005
October
10
Oct
8
08
2005
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Salvador The root of the "problem" is that chance worshippers haven't been able to imagine any mechanism other than natural selection that has the ability to conserve DNA sequences over long periods of time. Intelligent agency however can conserve anything it wants to conserve. Intelligent agency doesn't depend on death or disability as the sole error detection mechanism. Error checking mechanisms of any arbitrary reliability can be applied to any desired data by intelligent agency. The nature of the data is not restricted to immediate life critical kinds as it is with natural selection. Such error detection is basic stuff for any intelligent agents familiar with computer architecture. ;-) Unfortunately for them chance worshippers a priori rule out intelligent agency in nature. They'll spin their wheels forever trying to spin a gross concoction of ad hoc crappola trying to explain what's readily, easily, and intuitively obvious to anyone that isn't bound by chance worship. It's really pretty darn funny watching them spin in circles. Who says epicycles died when Copernicus was born? They're alive and well in evolution today. ROFLMAO!DaveScot
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT
For anyone not in denial: Functional protein classes required for (theoretical) minimal free living cell: translation ribosome structure biogenesis transcription replication recombination repair metabolism chaperone functions secretion cell division cell wall biogenesis Every cell in the human body (excepting red blood cells) contains all the genes required to construct all the protein classes described above. Ergo, you can get a bacterial genome from a human genome but the converse is not true as bacterial genomes don't contain genetic information for specialized cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. Anyone in denial can talk to the hand. Thanks.DaveScot
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
Cambion says "I don’t want to talk to you" Wonderful. I don't want to talk to you either. Sounds like a win-win deal. Let's leave it there. You have my permission to declare unilateral victory too if you feel like injecting a bit of humor.DaveScot
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT
There is a looming problem for netural theory which the selectionists are all too happy to point out: http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041018/full/041018-7.html Here is what happens to mice with 3% of there genome knocked out through genetic engineering. These "conserved" regiouns were believed to be absolute proof of selection value. Well there's a problem. It didn't seem to create any selective effect when the regions were knocked out. "More than 90% the genome of organisms such as mice and humans does not appear to code for any proteins. And yet this DNA shows striking similarities between species. If they had no function, over time mutations would scramble the sequences. Why have these bits of the genome remained so highly conserved?" (I apologize that this article is only for purchase from Nature, but it was the best I could do.) These regions have been empirically shown to have low selective value. I alluded to the problem above with low interspecific (within the same species) divergences, but here is a failure for neutral theory. As I said, both neturalists and selectionists have found fatal flaws in each others theories. There is Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) of each theory, and I believe that is by design. Salvadorscordova
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
DaveScot, If it is "inconsequential" anyway, will you agree with my explanation of the patterns of substitutions at synonymous and ancestral repeats in the mouse and human genomes?cambion
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
For example, with enough information, you could theoretically calculate the chance that RM+NS would have brought a particular protein into being, let's say a novel protein kinase involved in a signally cascade. Let's say we find that this chance is 1 in a million. The difficulty here is that there could be a million other possible proteins each with a 1 in a million chance of being arrived upon by RM+NS. Just because the chance of this particular realization is low, does not mean the chance of any realization is low.cambion
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
My comments don't seem to want to post...cambion
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
PaV, I'm glad we seem to be on the same page regarding the ability of natural selection to prune disadvantageous phenotypes. Thus giving a dynamic genome, but static phenotype (as long as the environment doesn't change too horribly). A very short (and incomplete) answer to your very important question: "But if NS maintains this equilibria, then how does the genome come into existence in the first place?" This is where all the action is. The window that natural selection acts upon is very narrow. It only sees what is immediately advantageous. Can a long series of immediately advantageous mutations move a genome from one adaptive (as in fit to its environment) phenotype to a novel adaptive phenotype of greater complexity? This is very complicated question. Demonstrating conclusively one way or the other will be incredibly difficult. And the probability calculations become very tricky do to the fact that the sequence of events could have conceivably happened any number of ways. It just so happens that we saw this particular realization.cambion
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
Testing...cambion
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
Inconsequential noise is, by definition, without consequence. Anything without consequence is not worth belaboring. There's random noise in the universe. It's all over the place. Things of interest are signal, not random noise. The only thing you do with noise is figure out how to subtract, cancel, or otherwise ignore it so you can see the signal. Subtract all point mutations which, despite decades of focus, have not been demonstrated to do anything in particular that's constructive. Subtract the random noise and focus on what's left over. Therein lies the answers.DaveScot
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
The gene hypothesis of evolution is pure speculation still alive today merely through inertia. At one time over-anxious scientists thought everything was regulated by coding genes. This naive early assumption has been proven quite false. The marked difference between species is chromosomal and positional in nature. Science has little understanding of position effect yet. An important clue in how speciation really takes place is the demonstrated ability of XX females to reproduce asexually and/or develop into perfectly functional males without a Y chromosome. Everything required for reproduction is contained in the female genome. Speciation in the fossil record appears to be a matter of saltation. There is no fossil record of continual gradual change nor is there any continuum of extant species today separated by miniscule phenotypical differences. The mechanism is still a mystery but semi-meiosis (meiosis interruptus if you will) appears to me to be the only plausible candidate mechanism for saltation. Unfortunately science has been blinded by all-powerful gene theories of one flavor or another where all major organic change is accomplished by accumulation of miniscule coding gene mutations. No amount of evidence to the contrary seems able to shake this entrenched belief. Faith is indeed a powerful thing. Multitudinous point mututations between genes can accumulate without speciation and relatively few point mutations can exist between different species. There is virtually no correlation between speciation and number of different point mutations. There is strong correlation between point mutations and total elapsed time. There is also a stronge correlation between speciation and total elapsed time. The two dots don't logically connect. Speciation via accumulation of point mutations over time is a non sequitur. Point mutations accumulate over time, different species accumulate over time, but there is no demonstrated connection between the two.DaveScot
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
The 'neutral theory' (not my word for it) as it applies to protein sequences is complicated and weird. I have never denied that. There are many competing explanations regarding what is going on with protein sequence change. I'm just trying to find some common ground here. Presenting the one of the simplest evolutionary models that I know of: neutral evolution at synonymous sites and ancestral repeats. Here, there is no debate (within the scientific community). And I am not trying to say that these changes are anything more than "inconsequential noise". I'm just seeking to explain some of the patterns we see in the genomic data. Your lambasting of the neutral theory of protein evolution does not speak to the issue at hand...cambion
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
cambion wrote: "Almost all mutations that result in a change in phenotype will be neutral and hence will not drift to fixation. Natural will prune them, before they ever get that far. Thus, the genome is dynamic, but the phenotype is static." You seem to be saying that the genome and phenome are in static equilibrium (more or less) due to the work of natural selection(I'll assume you meant to say this in sentence 2). But if NS maintains this equilibria, then how does the genome come into existence in the first place? I think you'd probably answer that this happens as the genome walks itself through the genomic search space until the genome finds the right environment and vice-versa. But, in fact, that's what ID would refute. There doesn't even exist the possibility of making such a "random walk" since the relevant search space is so large.PaV
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
DaveScot, What exactly are you saying here ? The neutral theory is effectively a null hypothesis. Are you saying that you don't agree with Kimura's results about the behavior of a neutral mutation in a population such as results shown here http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/47/6/713.pdf ? tauttautologydna
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Neutral drift has not been shown to be either more than than inconsequential noise or less than an important motive force in diversification - obfuscatory jingoistic technobabble notwithstanding. It began as a legitimate scientific hypothesis based upon a belief that so-called neutral mutations (which are presumed be neutral by lack of evidence to the contrary, not demonstrated to be neutral) occur at a constant rate. It has since been demonstrated that these mutations do not proceed at a constant rate. Instead of abandoning the hypothesis as proper science does with hypotheses that don't pan out, it is getting propped up by ad hoc modifications that explain its failed predictions. Evolution in general is a huge conglomeration of ad hoc explanations on an order that would make paranormal researchers blush. Neutral evolution is a smaller example of the larger problem.DaveScot
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Oops... Almost all mutations that result in a change in phenotype will be neutral and hence will not drift to fixation. ---> Almost all mutations that result in a change in phenotype will lose fitness and hence will not drift to fixation.cambion
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
DaveScot, I don't want to talk to you until you engage my explanation of neutral evolution in synonymous sites and ancestral repeats in the mouse and human genomes. Just saying "I showed all kinds of holes" will not cut it. You can either concede that data fits a model of neutral evolution at synonymous sites, or you can show me how I am mistaken. Keep in mind that neutral evolution at a subset of sites in the mouse and human genomes would in no way invalidate your theory of "font-loaded" evolution. I would just like to know that we can discuss this little concrete thing and actually get some where in conveying are viewpoints to one another... That said, I'll cheat a bit and respond to your previous post (but no more until you finally address neutral evolution): "While you can’t get a human genome from a bacteria without adding code you can certainly get a bacteria from a human genome without adding code." This is patently false. Bacteria have many unique non-homologous genes when compared to eukaryotes, and those genes that are shared differ considerably. I suspect that amount of code that would needed to go from a human genome to a bacterial genome is roughly 70%-80% the size of a bacterial genome. "A good way of looking at genomes is imagining they’re like a deck of cards and species are like hands of cards. You don’t need a new deck to get a new species, you just need to shuffle and deal a new hand. There’s a nearly infinite number of unique hands that can be dealt." If your shuffling analogy were true, it would provide strong evidence against evolution by natural selection, and support for some sort of "front-loaded" evolution. However, this is not what we see. Each genome is unique, there are some base pairs that are the same and there some that are different. But even when two organisms share a gene (by common ancestry) that gene will have diverged in sequence between the two species. I think that a branching process is a much better metaphor than a deck of cards.cambion
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
I was actually trying my very best to give a decent figure for the amount of DNA that would need to be present in the uber-genome. "3% of the human genome codes." If you say that only the protein coding genes and their regulatory regions are important for creating an organism, the amount of DNA required drops substantially (the mouse genome paper estimates that 5% of the human genome is functional). However, I think DaveScot might argue that the other 95% is absolutely necessary... I was, of course, saying that the entire genome is specified. "Between chimps and humans there’s less than 3% difference in the coding portions (genes)." It's true. But this actually adds up pretty quickly. Almost half of the base pairs between mice and humans have altered, that is 1.65 billion base pairs for just 90 million years. I was really trying to be conservative in this regard by using the yeast genome as a template, as it contains basically no junk DNA and is *one thousand* times smaller than the human genome. So, I was hoping that using the really small genome would balance out the base pairs that are shared between species. Also, these calculations were not at all taking into account the program that would be necessary to specify when and how to implement changes in the genome. I would assume that this program would have to be fairly bulky, but I don't know. So that, overall, I would stick to my estimate of 400,000 the size of the human genome, but there are so many factors here that it basically makes it impossible to say for sure.cambion
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
PaV, I would really love to be able to find a little common ground for us to stand on. I was trying to present the neutral evolution of a subset of sites in the mouse and human genomes as a very concrete example of something we do know about how evolution works (when you start talking about genes and functions ala the "missense" paper, things get a lot more complicated). As you point out, drift is a very powerful force in shaping genomes, essentially causing genomes to explore the space of sequences that map to the same phenotype. If we compare the human and chimp genomes, we find around 30 million base pair differences (that's using the commonly cited 99% identical figure - I actually haven't checked to see what the chimp genome paper says). I would wager that 29 million 990 thousand make no phenotypic difference. Only around 10 thousand are meaningful. Neutral evolution moves genome sequence much more quickly than natural selection is able to (see Haldane's Dilemma). "Now, if you like, you can work in the theory of punctuated equilibria into this as well, saying that PE represents “neutral” mutations which, in a small, isolated population confers fitness in the new, and different, environment the population now finds itself in." I don't think that these neutral mutations end up conferring fitness in novel environments. I would guess that PE is brought about by how selection acts upon organisms that fill stable niches in complex ecosystems. Most of the time, selection acts to maintain morphological form (and hence ecological niche), but sometimes things get pushed around and niches are created, lost or changed. Then selection acts to adapt the organism to the new status quo. However, evolution of species and morphological change is not really my thing... "But this is so transitory a situation that it boggles my mind how organisms could maintain their identity over time." Almost all mutations that result in a change in phenotype will be neutral and hence will not drift to fixation. Natural will prune them, before they ever get that far. Thus, the genome is dynamic, but the phenotype is static.cambion
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply