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
Evolution is a theory in crisis. Nothing in biology makes sense in light of an unguided, unplanned process where cumulative random mutation plus natural selection results in diversification of life.DaveScot
October 6, 2005
October
10
Oct
6
06
2005
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to the Neutral Theory; it at least has an honest-to-the-facts starting-off point. But, as this "Missense" article shows, most mutations can be considered "neutral" since, at the proteosome level "fitness values" are changing all the time(at the cellular level). Now, if the fitness level of neutral mutations are zero--that is, they confer NO advantage/increase of fitness to the individual, then, how can these "mutations" become "fixed" in the population? It's nothing but drift. 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. But this is so transitory a situation that it boggles my mind how organisms could maintain their identity over time. In other words, this pretty much represents what Darwin himself thought of the evolutionary process--lots of variation acted upon by the environment; but, of course, the fossil record is not one of huge numbers of intermediates, but rather one of enormous periods of "stasis". Additionally, this "neutrality", even as cambion pointed out himself in places, is a denial, effectively, of NS as a drving force in evolution.PaV
October 6, 2005
October
10
Oct
6
06
2005
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
Dave Scott: Your last post forms the gist of the argument I was going to make. 3% of the human genome codes. Between chimps and humans there's less than 3% difference in the coding portions (genes). So there's a whole heck of a lot of room for more information.PaV
October 6, 2005
October
10
Oct
6
06
2005
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
"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." Well, I may misunderstand your point here, but you aren't going to get a nitrogen-fixing bacteria. The machinery of nitrogen fixation is bacteria specific.tautologydna
October 6, 2005
October
10
Oct
6
06
2005
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
The calculation is utter crap and demonstrates either great ignorance or great dishonesty of the subject at hand. 200 genomes the size of a human genome is adequate for at least 200 phenotypic representative from 200 distinct phyla. Since the human is larger than average it would actually be more than that. But that's just the beginning of how wrong Cambion was. A large fraction of all genomes are common between all living things and smaller genomes are subsets of the larger ones. 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. 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. I suspect Cambion realizes this and is simply dishonest.DaveScot
October 6, 2005
October
10
Oct
6
06
2005
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
Cambion wrote: "1.2 x 10^15 x 660 daltons x 1.66053886 x 10^-27 kg/dalton = 1.315 x 10^-9 kg or 1.315 ng in uber-dubia’s genome without compression So, without compression, we need a genome of around 400,000 times the size of modern day humans. I would say that this number would not be biologically feasible, one would need cells the size of beanbags… " I disagree with this calculation. If you're lurking, please respond before I go on.PaV
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT
Hi Salvador, I think you are confused about the molecular clock. The molecular clock is a null hypothesis for protein evolution. Evolutionary biologists reject the clock for protein sequences all the time when doing phylogenetics. No one is surprised by that. Another aspect of the clock that people find interesting is the fact that it is "overdispersed". If mutation were to happen according to a Poisson process, then the variance should be equal to the mean. This is often not the case. Here is an interesting reference about the "overdispersed clock" that might interest you. http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/154/3/1403 Take care.tautologydna
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
For those not in denial... http://kimura.tau.ac.il/graur/ArticlesPDFs/graurandmartin2004.pdf Reading the entrails of chickens: molecular timescales of evolution and the illusion of precision Dan Graur1 and William Martin2 1Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-5001, USA 2Institut fu¨ r Botanik III, Heinrich-Heine Universita¨t Du¨ sseldorf, Universita¨ tsstraße 1, 40225 Du¨ sseldorf, Germany For almost a decade now, a team of molecular evolutionists has produced a plethora of seemingly precise molecular clock estimates for divergence events ranging from the speciation of cats and dogs to lineage separations that might have occurred ,4 billion years ago. Because the appearance of accuracy has an irresistible allure, non-specialists frequently treat these estimates as factual. In this article, we show that all of these divergence-time estimates were generated through improper methodology on the basis of a single calibration point that has been unjustly denuded of error. The illusion of precision was achieved mainly through the conversion of statistical estimates (which by definition possess standard errors, ranges and confi- dence intervals) into errorless numbers. By employing such techniques successively, the time estimates of even the most ancient divergence events were made to look deceptively precise. For example, on the basis of just 15 genes, the arthropod–nematode divergence event was ‘calculated’ to have occurred 1167 6 83 million years ago (i.e. within a 95% confidence interval of ,350 million years). Were calibration and derivation uncertainties taken into proper consideration, the 95% confidence interval would have turned out to be at least 40 times larger (,14.2 billion years). --more at link --anyone in a state of denial can talk to the hand :-)DaveScot
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
Hartl also points out in his book that molecular clocks must tick at a different rate for each protein! Thus we actually must invoke multiple molecular clocks! Further, the generation cycles for organisms is not the same. Fruit flies regenerate faster than humans. The clocks must have some mysterious mechanism to adjust mutation rates to the varying generation cycles. Or maybe, as Denton suggests, this should not even be a serious scientific theory if it needs this much jury rigging to keep it afloat. It is little more than a tautology that is trying to explain away the apparent design in the typological isolation between organisms. Further, a question I have outstanding, and tried to get some post-docs to look at is that "living fossils" like sharks have very low interspecific divergences in the very DNA loci that are supposedly subject to a neutral selection. This seems to be a contradiction to the molecular clock hypothesis (a fact the selectionists are all too happy to point out to the neturalists!). The selectionist and neutralist camps continue find fatal flaws in each others theories. We will see how this plays out. I think more surprises are in store. I believe the sequence divergences were designed to resist purely naturalistic origins, and thus the molecular clock will ultimately fail as a hypothesis. Salvadorscordova
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
DaveScot, You are obviously a very smart guy. It makes me sad that you are so content to live a dream world of your creation, rather than interfacing the facts of the natural world around you. Your theory of "front-loaded evolution" is indeed possible, but in the same way that it is possible that invisible blue fairies exist all over the world, but we just have no means of detecting them. You posit quantum molecular computers, error-free replication mechanisms, and functions in noncoding DNA that operate on geologic timescales. None of these things have any evidence whatsoever of actually existing. Your theories have no basis in the scientific method that has brought us so far in the last 300 years. When I finally cornered you about neutral evolution in junk DNA in the human and mouse genomes, you decided to put your fingers in your ears and run. It doesn't give me much faith in your future dealings the scientific theory and argument... Still, I hope that some day you take the blinders off. Take care, - cambioncambion
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
In comment #32 I outlined my theory behind the evolution neutral junk DNA (4-fold synonymous sites + noncoding ancestral repeats). Your responses: Non-exact match between spontaneous mutation rate and rate of neutral evolution: Your last words on the subject: "Oops - that’ll teach me to drink and calculate. My burst. The numbers differ by a factor of 2. Let me read your link again. At any rate, you asked me for an example of an organism with enough DNA to be a preprogrammed ancestor to everything..." You dropped the argument, thus conceding that a factor of 2 is within the margin of experimental error. Rate of neutral fixation: You said: "Surely you’re not asking me to believe that almost all mutations become fixed?" and "I have a problem with high percentage of fixation in population of neutral mutations. These should fix at a low rate unless in small isolated populations and/or increase fitness." I gave you the population genetic theory, showing that spontaneous mutation rate equals the rate of neutral evolution. You have not given a rebuttal to Kimura's equations. Fossil calibration: You said: "How do we know that the human and mouse clock rates differ by a factor of 2? Because we’ve calibrated it with a 75 Myr FOSSIL dated divergence date." I showed how the factor of two is arrived at independently to fossil estimates using consensus sequence of ancestral repeats. Also that the date from the fossils corresponds to the experimental determination of spontaneous mutation rate (i.e. no calibration, instead confirmation). You have made no rebuttals to these points. Synonymous mutation and function: You said: "I have a problem with the assumption that point mutations that don’t change the amino acid specified are indeed neutral." I responded with: "You need a more concrete criticism than, 'well… they could have some function.'" Indeed, arguing that something exists without any evidence of it is against how science works. You have made no rebuttal here. Variable molecular clocks: You said: "The clocks for different genes and different organisms exhibit a high degree of variabilitly." I gave you a peer-reviewed article in a high-class journal showing that the clock rates for neutral mutations (in this case synonymous mutations) do NOT differ significantly between mammalian species and genes with a genome. You have not rebutted this argument. Increased mutation rate in response to stress in prokaryotes: You said: "This unpredicatable variance in molecular clocks may be due to a changing environment." I responded: "showed how spontaneous mutation of neutral sequence can elegantly explain the genomic divergences between mouse and human. How exactly does this speak to my presentation?" Indeed, you would need to posit that this also occurs in eukaryotes (with no evidence of such). Also, I showed that there was little variance in the silent clock. You have made no rebuttal here. Conclusion: You haven't shown a single hole in my argument.cambion
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
DaveScot, Cambion is right here, I think. For one, in those type of sequences, there is tons of evidence that they are behaving according to neutral theory. Under a Wright-Fisher population model, there is an expected neutral "site frequency distribution" . ie, the frequency of singletons in a sample, doubletons etc. The polymorphism in those sequences behave as one would expect if they were neutral. If a piece of junk DNA were deleterious, it would be at low frequency due to the action of natural selection. If they were advantageous, they would be expected to rise to high frequency quickly. However, many of these insertions appear to be at frequencies within populations that would be expected if they were neutral. Second, while in theory, for error correction, your strategy "Compute an arbitrarily long CRC during replication and if it doesn’t match the original you trash the copy" is full proof, do you have any idea how energetically expensive it would be to replicate an entire genome, scan against the old copy, then trash the new copy if there is a single mistake ? There would be no reproduction at all ! Furthermore, even if that were energetically feasible (which it isn't), think of the time frame required ? It takes about 1 minute for dna polymerase to replicate a strand of dna about 2 kb long in a pcr reaction. What happens if there is a mutation in the ORIGINAL copy that occurs during replication - the copy that is supposedly scanned ? Then, what template do you use to correct from ? Best regards.tautologydna
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
I showed all kinds of holes. You are in denial. Conversation over.DaveScot
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
You're right that "Going from “no known function” to “no function” is a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance." However, that is not what I did. The logic goes: 1. These sequences have no known function. 2. Sequences with no known function should evolve at a rate equal to the rate of spontaneous mutation (ala Kimura). 3. Measured rates of evolution of these sequences correspond nicely to the rate of spontaneous mutation. Thus, we can conclude that they have no function. What is so difficult here? Also, you just said: "You started out calling it “junk DNA” and when I called you to the carpet on that you changed to 'neutral sequences' " You didn't call me on anything. Just a few comments up in #58 I say: "repeated sequences in the noncoding “junk” DNA behave just like we would predict functionless DNA to behave" I've been using "neutral sequences" and "junk DNA" interchangably. You still haven't shown a single hole in my explanation of the patterns of evolution in junk DNA in the mouse and human genomes.cambion
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
DaveScot: "They vary by gene, by selection pressure, by fixation rate, by reproductive rate, by environmental variables (think radiation and chemicals that increase germ cell mutation rate)." And species? If I'm not mistaken?Charlie
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
"to replicate DNA at an absolutely 0% rate of error incorporation is indeed a physical impossibility" Nothing is absolute but you can get to practically zero easily. Compute an arbitrarily long CRC during replication and if it doesn't match the original you trash the copy. Far more complex intracellular processes are routinely accomplished. There is absolutely no reason to deny a cell the ability to have practically 100% assured integrity of DNA copying if there is a compelling need. “what would be so bad about saying that some sequences in the human and mouse genomes appear to fit all of the data for neutral evolution?” What would be so bad about saying that some structures in the human and mouse genomes appear to fit all of the data for complex specified information? The data certainly does support this. It practically screams it. "I’ve presented a theory supported by the data" You've presented a theory chock full of assumptions I don't agree with and you cannot verify through experiment. Neutral sequences? Posh. You started out calling it "junk DNA" and when I called you to the carpet on that you changed to "neutral sequences" and continued right along with your just-so story. You don't know they're neutral. They have no known function. Going from "no known function" to "no function" is a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. Human and mouse molecular clocks in the first nature article you gave me say they differ in rate by a factor of two. Imagine how much they might differ between a mouse and a bird or a mouse and a salamander. Molecular clocks are pretty much useless. They vary by gene, by selection pressure, by fixation rate, by reproductive rate, by environmental variables (think radiation and chemicals that increase germ cell mutation rate). You appear to be in a complete state of denial regarding these problems. Historical biology is not an experimental science. Past evolution cannot be repeated and it cannot be observed. Theories that "appear" to fit the facts is as far as it goes but such theories will always be plagued by assumptions that cannot be verified. It's always going to be a narrative. Now there's nothing particularly unscientific about such narratives as long as they're presented as scientific narratives, theories only, and not presented as experimental fact.DaveScot
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
P.S. Please refrain from using phrases like "Hoist by your own petard" and "What, are you in high school and haven’t studied exponents yet?" It's really not conducive to the sort of discussion we're trying to have.cambion
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
DaveScot, First point, to replicate DNA at an absolutely 0% rate of error incorporation is indeed a physical impossibility. I takes a lot of energy to add addition layers of enzymatic error checking. You could have better error-checking, but never perfect within the energy constraints of a cell. This is not the real issue though... "What would be so bad about saying that some structures in the human and mouse genomes give all appearances of being intelligently designed?" Hmm... maybe I should be a bit more careful with more wording. I had intended the meaning of my statement to be: "what would be so bad about saying that some sequences in the human and mouse genomes appear to fit all of the data for neutral evolution?" The key point here being the data. I've presented a theory supported by the data of how this subset of sequences in mouse and human are evolving. I'm working completely from the observable natural world here. You keep positing undiscovered error-correction pathways, and undiscovered functions for what looks like neutral DNA. You *not* working from the observable world. Again... "What would be so bad about saying that some structures in the human and mouse genomes give all appearances of being intelligently designed?" This is simple, the data does not support such a conclusion. Still, you continue to skirt the question. Tell me why my story of neutral sequence evolution at 4-fold synonymous and ancestral repeat sites in the mouse and human genomes does not hold water.cambion
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
"what would be so bad about saying that some sequences in the human and mouse genomes give all appearances to be evolving neutrally?" What would be so bad about saying that some structures in the human and mouse genomes give all appearances of being intelligently designed? If appearances were reality there would be no debate. Even Dawkins, especially Dawkins, acknowledges the appearance of design. Hoist by your own petard.DaveScot
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
"It [practically perfect error detection] is a physical impossibility." Not only is it possible, it's really easy. Do the initials CRC mean anything to you?DaveScot
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
"It takes energy to run error correction." Yeah, so what? It takes energy to do just about anything. That doesn't stop things from getting done. "I showed how spontaneous mutation of neutral sequence can elegantly explain the genomic divergences between mouse and human." Huh? You didn't show they were spontaneous. That was an assumption. You didn't show the sequences were neutral. That too is an assumption. The genomic divergences cannot even begin to be explained by point mutations. For example, God only knows how many chromosomal rearrangements there have been in the two lineages. Assumption after assumption after assumption. None demonstrated by observation or experiment. A big just-so story.DaveScot
October 4, 2005
October
10
Oct
4
04
2005
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
DaveScot, The real question: what would be so bad about saying that some sequences in the human and mouse genomes give all appearances to be evolving neutrally? Why do you have trouble accepting this?cambion
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
"If the enviroment can modulate mutation rate then there’s really no such thing as random mutation." I showed how spontaneous mutation of neutral sequence can elegantly explain the genomic divergences between mouse and human. How exactly does this speak to my presentation?cambion
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
"It’s relatively easy to implement fool-proof error detection and correction in code sequences." The killer here is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It takes energy to run error correction. There are many layers of error correction that take place when DNA is being replicated, these drop the rate of spontaneous mutation to around 10^-9 per base pair. This is an amazingly low number. So, you would have to posit more layer of error correction for our "special" sequences. These layers take up energy, but also can never fuller eleminate the incorporation of errors into the genome. It is a physical impossibility. Also, positing this extra layer of "special" error correction when no evidence at all that exists is contrary to the makings of good science. You cannot just say "well... there could be some special enzymes that do special (thermodynamically impossible) things." Finally, let's say there is an extra layer or three of error correction. Let's say these layers reduce the spontaneous mutation rate one thousand fold, ending up with a rate of around 10^-12. If this were the case a region of DNA reserved for future implementation would still break down on geological timescales. After a billion years of microbial evolution (about 10^11 generations at a conservative 100 generations per year), 1 in 10 sites of our reserved sequence will be mutated. And this rate of mutation will occur in each branch of the phylogeny independently, further increasing target size.cambion
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
"The clocks for different genes and different organisms exhibit a high degree of variabilitly." Actually, the rates of silent (not changing the amino-acid sequence) substitution are very similar between different genes / organisms. This is from a recent article on the subject (Kumar and Subramanian. 2002. Mutation rates in mammalian genomes. PNAS 99: 803-808): "We have conducted a computational analysis of 5,669 genes (17,208 sequences) from species representing major groups of placental mammals to characterize the extent of mutation rate differences among genes in a genome and among diverse mammalian lineages. We find that mutation rate is approximately constant per year and largely similar among genes. Similarity of mutation rates among lineages with vastly different generation lengths and physiological attributes points to a much greater contribution of replication-independent mutational processes to the overall mutation rate." In addition, they conclude: "In conclusion, our results argue against the widely held notion about large differences in mutation rates among genes in a genome and among major mammalian lineages. This approximate similarity of mutation rates among genes and among lineages is likely to be important for estimating divergence time for closely related species, testing for selection by comparative sequence analysis, inferring coalescent times, and understanding the mutational processes that govern evolution of mammalian genomes."cambion
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
"I have a problem with the assumption that point mutations that don’t change the amino acid specified are indeed neutral." I don't think you've thought your reasoning through here. You say: "A frame shift can cause a redundant mutation to become one that specifies a different amino acid." If this occurs, the second (frameshift) mutation will be what is selected against, not the initial synonymous mutation. You need a more concrete criticism than, "well... they could have some function."cambion
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
DaveScot, It seems that you are skirting the question... I presented a nice simple evolutionary theory to explanation the observed patterns of evolution of 4-fold synonymous sites and ancestral repeats in noncoding DNA. The rates coincide very nicely with observed experimental rate of spontaneous mutation, just as the theory predicts. Why do not accept this explanation of the evolution of this subset of DNA? To address your concerns: "I have a problem with high percentage of fixation in population of neutral mutations." Population genetics deals with exactly this issue, showing exactly how likely it is to fix a new mutation of a given fitness effect. The theory behind it is rather beautiful in my opinion, drawing heavily on Kolmogorov's equations of heat diffusion (the diffusion of a gene through a population ends up being very similar to the diffusion of heat through a pipe). The neutral case is very simple, I showed you the math earlier. What was your specific problem with it? You say: "These [neutral mutations] should fix at a low rate." Kind of, the chance of fixation of any given mutation is low. As I said earlier, that chance is 1/2N. So, with a population of a million individuals the chance of new neutral mutation fixing is just 5 x 10^-7. However, as each individual in the population is a possible target for a new mutation, this offsets the low chance of any particular neutral mutant fixing. Again, as I said before, the rate of neutral mutation equals the rate of spontaneous mutation. I don't think any open-minded person could possibly argue with this statement. I'd suggest that you read Hartl's Principals of Population Genetics, it's compact and covers all of this stuff. I suspect that you'd enjoy the math...cambion
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
Cambion Prokaryotes have been found to increase mutation rates of certain genes in response to survival stress from the environment. Go to the comments at the following link where I addressed this a few months ago. http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/?p=404 If the enviroment can modulate mutation rate then there's really no such thing as random mutation. A prediction of this would be that molecular clocks will show much variance by gene in the same species and in homologous genes in disparate species. This is in fact what has been observed. This unpredicatable variance in molecular clocks may be due to a changing environment. I have a problem presuming that eukaryotes are denied any survival tools available to prokaryotes.DaveScot
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
Cambion I have a problem with high percentage of fixation in population of neutral mutations. These should fix at a low rate unless in small isolated populations and/or increase fitness. Here's how it works: bad mutation doesn't hang around, neutral mutations may get lucky and become fixed, beneficial mutations have good chance of fixation. I have a problem with the assumption that point mutations that don't change the amino acid specified are indeed neutral. Transcription edits via introns, extrons, and whatever other mechanisms have been identified (which is unlikely to be a comprehensive list at this point in time) include frame shifts. A frame shift can cause a redundant mutation to become one that specifies a different amino acid. The clocks for different genes and different organisms exhibit a high degree of variabilitly. UNPREDICTABLE variability. Clearly we don't exaclty what, how, and how much various factors effect these so-called molecular clocks. It's relatively easy to implement fool-proof error detection and correction in code sequences. We've done as much in computer systems where we really care about data integrity. Presumably front-loaded evolution would impliment error-detection and correction on code being reserved for future use.DaveScot
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
DaveScot, At this point, are you willing to believe that 4-fold synonymous sites (sites within coding sequence that do not change the amino acid produced) and repeated sequences in the noncoding "junk" DNA behave just like we would predict functionless DNA to behave, evolving in a clock-like fashion at a rate equal to the rate of spontaneous mutation? Also, do you have a response to my point about how random mutation will cause any piece of the genome that does not serve an immediate function to randomly mutate (and thus break down any function meant to be employed at a later time)? I think that this shows it is quite impossible to encode a phylogeny (even a small one) into an ancestral uber-genome.cambion
October 3, 2005
October
10
Oct
3
03
2005
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply