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
cambion I didn't mean to say the blueprint of technologic civilization is in the seed. However, a blueprint that more or less inevitably evolves into a big brained technophilic animal with an instinct to explore the proverbial undiscovered country doesn't seem unreasonable. The ontogeny parallel however doesn't take chance into account. The developmental sequence of any individual organism is very strictly defined from egg to adult. You only get chickens from chicken eggs.DaveScot
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT
Oops. Correction to 55. "within a bacterial *cell* (not nucleus). Bacteria don't have nuclei. Silly me.DaveScot
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
cambion The Voyager spacecraft, launched I think in the 1970's, officially left the solar system not long ago and is in interstellar space. I'd be willing to bet some tough microbial spores hitched a ride on it. Without targeting the likelyhood of it splashing down somewhere those spores could germinate, multiply, and evolve is vanishingly small. But I think it illustrates the concept of how seeds of life can spread through the galaxy and the minimal technology it takes to do it. Isn't science great! Here's one of my all-time favorite books within lies chapters that explore the limits of the physically possible according to known laws of physics. I'm an engineer and our mantra is "anything that is physically possible is a problem bounded by only time and money". I read this book in 1987 and it's probably the most influential technology tome I've ever read. :-) http://www.foresight.org/EOC/ Another area of interest is quantum computing (I'm a retired computer engineer). Check out some of these links: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=qubits+%22protein+folding%22+ Interestingly, the first quantum computing elements, developed at IBM, use the spin states of carbon atoms in amino acids as the quantum storage elements. A quantum computer capable of predicing how an arbitrary protein sequence will fold will fit handily in a bacterial nucleus. Quantum computers can do amazing things with very few logic elements. Imagine that mobile elements flitting around the DNA molecule doing poorly understood things might be computing elements in action. One of my fonder speculations is that the intelligence responsible for the appearance of design is built right into cells in the form of quantum computers. That doesn't say how the hypothetical biological computer evolved but it sure takes care of the subsequent appearance of complex specified information.DaveScot
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT
DaveScot, In response to #53. I think that's quite a brilliant idea actually. Except I wouldn't go as far as saying the blueprint for technological civilization is built in the first arriving egg. However, I can imagine the properties of DNA as a (more or less) perfect genetic material being selected for (or possibly engineered). An up-and-coming civilization could shoot rockets full of sturdy bacteria off in all directions of the galaxy, with the knowledge that upon arrival at a decent enough planet, that these bacteria would eventually terraform it through evolution by natural selection.cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
Oh, and let me reiterate one thing. I don't at all deny the statement that “Dating phylogenetic divergences via molecular clocks remains seriously inaccurate, and ultimately relies primarily on fossil benchmarks.” However, you keep in mind where it's coming from. The people making this claim are systematists concerned with describing the phylogeny of a particular clade of, let's say, beetles. There systematists for basically every group of organism. It's kindof a cottage industry. They want robust phylogenies with as little work as possible (i.e. they cannot sequence whole genomes), so they try to find a few slowly evolving readily sequencable genes with which to base their phylogenies upon. This will not work very well to give a clock for (at least) a couple of reasons. First off, there is the huge variability of a Poisson process (as I discussed earlier), making the confidence intervals of their divergence dates huge. Additionally, they are using protein sequence (this is cheaper and easier, as well as necessary when dealing with ancient phylogenies - say over 200 million years), and proteins evolve. A neutral mutation occuring at this base pair, may alter the landscape of available subsequent mutations. Even though the molecular clock was first discussed using protein sequence, I don't think it's actually a valid hypothesis for protein sequence. However, the evidence clearly shows that it does work for functionless sequence.cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT
cambion If you're interested in astrobiology google up "GHZ" or "galactic habitable zone". Recent dead tree SciAm article tipped me off then I read more on the web. Here's an idea I'm not sure where I read. Suppose the goal of phylogeny isn't rational man, per se, but rather any organism that can develop technology to spread to another planet. Consider, the goal of all life seems to be (roughly) find resources needed to reproduce then reproduce. Now, the earth and any other planet has a finite length of time when it can support life. If life can't find a way to a newer planet before the older planet expires then it dies without reproducing. So seeds of life that have the innate ability to terraform planets and produce technologic civilizations that can send more seeds out to new planets actually follows an established pattern but again, like comparing ontogeny to phlogeny, the patterns are on vastly different scales. I have a real hard time ignoring patterns in nature that repeat on different scales like that. I don't think the similarities are mere coincidence.DaveScot
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
That is exactly why I brought in the experimentally determined spontaneous rate of mutation. If the numbers from comparing what we know to be neutral sequences (which should evolve at the spontaneous mutation rate ala Kimura) don't match up with the observed spontaneous rates of mutation, then we would have a problem with clock. Here we see evolutionary theory presenting a remarkably elegant and consistent story regarding the evolution of neutral genomic sequences (saying nothing about functional sequences). Also, you missed an important piece of the paper that I quoted: "Ancestral repeats provide a powerful measure of neutral substitution rates, on the basis of comparing thousands of current copies to the inferred consensus sequence of the ancestral element." Here's how it works: There is an parasitic element which takes off in the genome of the human-mouse ancestor. Eventually the human-mouse gets things under control, although the remnants of these elements remain as "ancestral repeats." So, we have bunch of copies of one sequence in the mouse-human ancestor. If that sequence is AAATTT (which we determine by taking the consensus of the thousands of present day sequences), and a particular mouse sequence is ATATGG, we can infer three changes on the mouse lineage, regardless of what is happening on the human lineage. Thus, we know the human clock ticks half as fast as the mouse clock without any need whatsoever for fossil calibration. In theory, this very same technique could be extended to more mammalian genomes to estimate clock rates along every branch of the phylogeny.cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
Back to molecular clocks... I put forward: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=151321 "Dating phylogenetic divergences via molecular clocks remains seriously inaccurate, and ultimately relies primarily on fossil benchmarks." Cambion responds: Nature 420: 520-562 "Assuming a speciation time of 75 Myr, the average substitution rates would have been 2.2 x 10^-9 and 4.5 x 10^-9 in the human and mouse lineages, respectively." This actually confirms the serious inaccuracy and need for fossil dating calibration. The key is that the human lineage clock ticks half as fast as the mouse lineage clock. 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. Now suppose we want to know when the line ending in wolves diverged? How do we know how fast the wolf clock ticks when we know that the molecular clock rates of different species can vary wildly? Any answer we get that relies on a molecular clock will be seriously inaccurate unless we calibrate the wolf clock speed with the fossil record.DaveScot
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT
DaveScot, You make a good point. When I said theory, I meant an explanation of a plethora of facts as we see them. There is theory of abiogenesis + evolution by natural selection and there is the theory of extraterrestrial origin + blueprinted complexity. Both are theories. Whether they differ in their validity is another point entirely. For me, the theory of blueprinted complexity is both unwarrented (I believe evolution by natural selection + some general principals of order ala Stuart Kauffman can explain the path life took from the first egg to the preset biosphere) and impossible (as a genetist I don't see how such a program could operate within the genomic framework over billion year timescales while being constantly bombarded by mutation). However, I am actually a closet supporter of the extraterrestrial origin of the first DNA-based egg. The 600 million years from Earth's formation to the first fossil evidence of cellular life seems just too short for me. The complexity of the simplest prokaryote too vast. By allowing abiogenesis to occur elsewhere in the galaxy / universe during the previous 15 billion years the universe has been around, expands the possibility space greatly. I hadn't given too much thought to the relative chance of accidental vs. targetted arrival, but I think that is an interesting point...cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
"You have a theory for how things work, and I respect that." No, you misunderstand. I claim there's more than one explanation for the fossil and molecular evidence. Some explain the evidence better than others. None are proven beyond a doubt. Standard evolution doesn't have a monopoly on the evidence nor on scientific explanations of same. There's a latin expression "omne vivo ex ovum". It means everything comes from an egg. If you trace backwards from any living creature there is an unbroken cell line back to an original egg - this is the definition of common descent. Presumably the egg in this case is 3.5 billion years old and came onto the scene shortly (in geological time) after the earth cooled off enough so it didn't get vaporized. Given the minimal identified complexity of the simplest free-living cell there doesn't appear to be near enough time for the complexity to have been produced on the earth by any known evolutionary mechanism. Moreover, all the interesting stuff in evolution after the first free-living cell took place in the last 500 million years and most of the modern phyla appeared in fully diversified form in a span of 50 million years. This also seems a rather short timespan. These problems go away, or at least aren't as difficult to explain, by the straightforward assumption that the first cell that appeared on the earth didn't originate on the earth and, like any other egg, contained blueprints of much greater complexity than what's expressed in the single egg cell. I know of no physical laws that in any way, shape, or form forbid life from evolving prior to the earth's formation and being transported to the earth. And it better fits the empirical evidence. Estimates of the global habitable zone where abiogenesis is reasonably possible include many millions of solar systems ranging in age up to about 4 billion years older than ours. So now instead of 500 million years for abiogenesis on a single planet we have 4 billion years on millions of planets. That's a lot more opportunity. The biggest problem thus far identified in astrobiology explanation of origins is that the earth is a TINY target for a LUCA to hit by accident from another solar system. According to estimates I've read the chance is so remote that the only reasonable possibility is that the LUCA arrived here in a targeted manner. So we're STILL ending up with the evidence pointing to design even after expanding the breeding ground for abiogenesis by orders of magnitude.DaveScot
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
I'd just like to make sure we're on the same page here... Since it is impossible for an uber-genome to specify every base pair in the entire phylogeny of life, we are instead going to consider an uber-genome that only specifies some of the major transitions in morphological form that have occured in the history of life. A situation where all real novelty comes from design and RM+NS plays only a supporting role. I cannot argue against this in a purely mass action way (yes an uber-genome would contain the information specifying 1000 major transitions). However, I don't think that this could have occured. Here it goes: There is a relatively high rate of DNA mutation (including base pair substitutions, deletions and rearrangements). This rate is high enough that after around 75 million years of independent evolution almost half of all (0.46-0.47) "neutral" sites differ between the human and mouse genomes. (Also note that this rate of neutral evolution is very slow - because of the extremely long generation times of mammals compared to microorganisms). A mutation that hits a "neutral" site, will randomly fix with a chance of 1/2N. This is, of course, unless that site is somehow useful to the organism. In your situtation, we must have many many sites in the uber-organism that possess no immediate function (they are reserved for later implementation). How can this uber-organism avoid having these sites washed away by the recurrent action of mutation? I cannot think of a way...cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
Cool, I love population genetics. No, I'm not asking you to believe that all mutations that arise become fixed, but that result can be explained amazingly elegantly. Kimura (1968 Nature: 217:624-626) famously showed that the rate of mutations arising in a population will be: 2 (in diploid organisms such as human and mouse) x N (population size) x mu (mutation rate) x row (chance of fixation of mutation) Now, if mutations are strictly neutral than they have a 1 / 2N chance of becoming fixed in the population (think of this as a random draw with the chance of fixation equal to the current frequency - so that if a neutral mutation is currently at 50% frequency it will have a 50% chance to be fixed and a 50% chance to be lost - a new mutation necessarily starts out at 1 / 2N frequency) So, we get: 2 x N x mu x (1/2N) = mu And there we have it, the rate of neutral molecular evolution equals the rate of spontaneous mutation.cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
We're not done with our lesson in molecular clocks by a long shot.DaveScot
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
"You need it to be everything, or otherwise you need evolution by RM + NS. And if RM + NS works for everything else, why can’t it work for the 200 equally complx but radically different organisms? I’m still waiting…" 200 times a human genome should be enough for a primary representative for at least 200 distinct phyla. Since there's a lot of duplication between phyla, and many phyla are far simpler than mammals, the number would probably be more like 1000 distinctly different organisms. Furthermore, I never claimed RM+NS doesn't do anything. That's a straw man. Clearly it does function at the microevolutionary scale so the complete genome for every species that ever lived is not a requirement.DaveScot
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT
DaveScot, I just read your post #23 (somehow missed it earlier). I quite liked it. I have to say that I've enjoyed this discussion so far. It's very interesting to talk about alternative truth statements. You have a theory for how things work, and I respect that. I wish more or the ID folk would try to make that brand of statements. I think it cuts much closer to the nature of science that way.cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
Hmmm... okay, reading your links again. From the Mouse Genome Project the divergence from the ancestral consensus sequence in the common ancestor and the extant mouse & human are measuring mutation rate from mutations that became fixed in the population. The spontaneous mutation rate measured in extant mice by Drake that you point out as quite close appears to be all mutations, not mutations that become fixed. Surely you're not asking me to believe that almost all mutations become fixed?DaveScot
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
Yes, but I asked for an organism with enough DNA to be a proprogrammed ancestor to *everything.* You need it to be everything, or otherwise you need evolution by RM + NS. And if RM + NS works for everything else, why can't it work for the 200 equally complx but radically different organisms? I'm still waiting... So, are we done with our lesson in molecular clocks then?cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
At any rate, you asked me for an example of an organism with enough DNA to be a preprogrammed ancestor to everything. I gave you an examples of an extant organism with 200 times the DNA of a human. Clearly that's sufficient quantity to build a human plus at least 200 other equally complex but radically different organisms. Why not just acknowledge I gave what you asked for?DaveScot
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
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.DaveScot
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
cambion "Oh, one thing, scientists (in all disciplines) commonly use the “within an order of magnitude” metric to assess whether two measures are congruent. This situation exceeds that." Unfortunately the two numbers you said are "close" differ by a factor of 40. What, are you in high school and haven't studied exponents yet?DaveScot
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
Oh, one thing, scientists (in all disciplines) commonly use the "within an order of magnitude" metric to assess whether two measures are congruent. This situation exceeds that.cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
A 2.44 fold difference is not "quite a close match"? You are crazy. That's amazingly close considering we're dealing with 9! orders of magnitude. No experimental study can be exact. It's an amazingly close match. Also, you did not respond to the point that "junk" DNA and 4-fold synonymous sites show between 0.46 and 0.47 substitutions per site. How do you explain this? Try again...cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
cambion "spontaneous mutation measured in laboratory mice as “1.1 x 10^-8″quite a close match to the observed rate of evolutionary change." "the average substitution rates would have been 2.2 x 10^-9 and 4.5 x 10^-9 in the human and mouse lineages, respectively." 4.5*10^-9 and 1.1*10^-8 aren't "quite a close match" in my book - sorry - try againDaveScot
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
As long as covering all the bases, I should respond to your point that “I don’t buy the lame explanation that a.dubia is carrying around almost 700 BILLION base pairs of junk DNA. C-value doesn’t correspond with complexity but it sure as hell corresponds with nucleus size in eukaryotes and nucleus size corresponds with cell size and cell size corresponds with time it takes for cell division and cell division time corresponds with energy required for cell division and energy required for cell division corresponds to competitive fitness. A.dubia should have been eaten alive (literally) by its smaller, faster, nimbler, more efficient competitors if there’s no survival value in all that extra DNA.” Here you placing the evolutionary explanation of the 700 billion base pairs of junk DNA in A. dubia to the pan-selectionist paradigm. I do not believe selection to be all powerful. It has to contend with a number of limitations and constraints. I strongly suspect that if you looked at the genome of A. dubia you would find it choke full of the same sequence repeated and over and over. Some genetic parasite that got loose and ran wild. This happens a lot, and is pretty well understood (for a review go to Hurst, G. D. D., and J. H. Werren. 2001. The role of selfish genetic elements in eukaryotic evolution. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2: 597–606. http://sunflower.bio.indiana.edu/~clively/L567/readings/Hurst&Werren%202001.pdf). I also suspect that A. dubia has lost fitness due to it’s inability to control its genomic parasites. It may even be on its way to extinction because of this (the review discusses a similar scenario). Natural selection is selecting the parasites to replicate faster and faster (those that replicate more leave more descendants in the genome), while at the same time selecting for A. dubias that can control the spread of the parasites. Finally, as long as we’re flowing through arguments, you should respond to my calculation of an uber-dubia genome size of 400,000 times that human, or otherwise “concede by default.” jimbo, To respond to your point about specifying information in the uber-genome… Even if the uber-genome does not specify every base pair in all of the millions of genomes that flow from it, there still has to be a mechanism by which these base pairs are selected. You could just say that it’s random which base pairs get thrown in, and the ones that work stick around, but that sounds awful familar doesn’t it?cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
So, we see large swaths of “junk” DNA (these are regions that used to be active parasitic elements, but have since degraded), show a very consistent trend in their rate of molecular evolution. Also, if this isn’t enough, note that (also from the mouse genome paper): “Having established the neutral substitution rate by examining aligned ancestral repeats, we then investigated a second class of potentially neutral sites: fourfold degenerate sites in codons of genes. Fourfold degenerate sites are subject to selection in invertebrates, such as Drosophila, but the situation is unclear for mammals. We examined alignments between fourfold degenerate codons in orthologous genes. The fourfold degenerate codons were defined as GCX (Ala), CCX (Pro), TCX (Ser), ACX (Thr), CGX (Arg), GGX (Gly), CTX (Leu) and GTX (Val). Thus for Leu, Ser and Arg, we used four of their six codons. Only fourfold degenerate codons in which the first two positions were identical in both species were considered, so that the encoded amino acid was identical. Slightly fewer than 2 million such sites were studied, defined in the human genome from about 9,600 human RefSeq cDNAs and aligned to their mouse orthologues. The observed sequence identity in four-fold degenerate sites was 67%, and the estimated number of substitutions per site, between 0.46 and 0.47, was similar to that in the ancestral repeat sites (see Supplementary Information).” So, what we see is that “junk” noncoding DNA evolves at the same rate as 4-fold synonymous sites (where changing the nucleotide has no effect on the sequence of the protein produced), and that this rate closely corresponds with the rate of spontaneous mutation measured in the laboratory. What more do you want?cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Okay, this is getting weird. Can't see it any more. I'm going to post it again. I apologize for confusing things... -------------------------------------------------------------- DaveScot, I wasn’t aware of the rules of the debate we had going. Didn’t know a formal flow-through was necessary. Oh well… I said earlier: “When a molecular clock is run with lots and lots of data (say a full genome, as they’ve done with human-mouse and other comparisons), the large variance is swamped out by all the signal and estimates that very closely match the fossil record are arrived upon.” You have asked me to cough up some links. So be it… This is from the mouse genome paper (Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium. 2002. Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature 420: 520-562). I bet you can find the whole paper on Google scholar if you care to look, but the relevant section is below: “Ancestral repeats provide a powerful measure of neutral substitution rates, on the basis of comparing thousands of current copies to the inferred consensus sequence of the ancestral element. The large copy number and ubiquitous distribution of ancestral repeats overcome issues of local variation in substitution rates (see below). Most notably, differences in divergence levels are not affected by phylogenetic assumptions, as the time spent by an ancestral repeat family in either lineage is necessarily identical. The median divergence levels of 18 subfamilies of interspersed repeats that were active shortly before the human–rodent speciation (Table 6) indicates an approximately twofold higher average substitution rate in the mouse lineage than in the human lineage, corresponding closely to an early estimate by Wu and Li. In human, the least-diverged ancestral repeats have about 16% mismatch to their consensus sequences, which corresponds to approximately 0.17 substitutions per site. In contrast, mouse repeats have diverged by at least 26–27% or about 0.34 substitutions per site, which is about twofold higher than in the human lineage. The total number of substitutions in the two lineages can be estimated at 0.51. Below, we obtain an estimate of a combined rate of 0.46–0.47 substitutions per site, on the basis of an analysis that counts only substitutions since the divergence of the species (see Supplementary Information concerning the methods used). Assuming a speciation time of 75 Myr, the average substitution rates would have been 2.2 x 10^-9 and 4.5 x 10^-9 in the human and mouse lineages, respectively. This is in accord with previous estimates of neutral substitution rates in these organisms.” So, here note that Drake et al. 1998 (http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/148/4/1667) give the rate of spontaneous mutation measured in laboratory mice as “1.1 x 10^-8″, quite a close match to the observed rate of evolutionary change.cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
There comment appears to be back up. Please ignore #31. Sorry about that...cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
This is very strange... I wrote a very long comment (#30) a couple of hours ago, it showed up in my browser even, but now I'm not seeing it. Any suggestions on what's going on?cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
DaveScot, I wasn't aware of the rules of the debate we had going. Didn't know a formal flow-through was necessary. Oh well... I said earlier: "When a molecular clock is run with lots and lots of data (say a full genome, as they’ve done with human-mouse and other comparisons), the large variance is swamped out by all the signal and estimates that very closely match the fossil record are arrived upon." You have asked me to cough up some links. So be it... This is from the mouse genome paper (Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium. 2002. Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature 420: 520-562). I bet you can find the whole paper on Google scholar if you care to look, but the relevant section is below: "Ancestral repeats provide a powerful measure of neutral substitution rates, on the basis of comparing thousands of current copies to the inferred consensus sequence of the ancestral element. The large copy number and ubiquitous distribution of ancestral repeats overcome issues of local variation in substitution rates (see below). Most notably, differences in divergence levels are not affected by phylogenetic assumptions, as the time spent by an ancestral repeat family in either lineage is necessarily identical. The median divergence levels of 18 subfamilies of interspersed repeats that were active shortly before the human–rodent speciation (Table 6) indicates an approximately twofold higher average substitution rate in the mouse lineage than in the human lineage, corresponding closely to an early estimate by Wu and Li. In human, the least-diverged ancestral repeats have about 16% mismatch to their consensus sequences, which corresponds to approximately 0.17 substitutions per site. In contrast, mouse repeats have diverged by at least 26–27% or about 0.34 substitutions per site, which is about twofold higher than in the human lineage. The total number of substitutions in the two lineages can be estimated at 0.51. Below, we obtain an estimate of a combined rate of 0.46–0.47 substitutions per site, on the basis of an analysis that counts only substitutions since the divergence of the species (see Supplementary Information concerning the methods used). Assuming a speciation time of 75 Myr, the average substitution rates would have been 2.2 x 10^-9 and 4.5 x 10^-9 in the human and mouse lineages, respectively. This is in accord with previous estimates of neutral substitution rates in these organisms." So, here note that Drake et al. 1998 (http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/148/4/1667) give the rate of spontaneous mutation measured in laboratory mice as "1.1 x 10^-8", quite a close match to the observed rate of evolutionary change. So, we see large swaths of "junk" DNA (these are regions that used to be active parasitic elements, but have since degraded), show a very consistent trend in their rate of molecular evolution. Also, if this isn't enough, note that (also from the mouse genome paper): "Having established the neutral substitution rate by examining aligned ancestral repeats, we then investigated a second class of potentially neutral sites: fourfold degenerate sites in codons of genes. Fourfold degenerate sites are subject to selection in invertebrates, such as Drosophila, but the situation is unclear for mammals. We examined alignments between fourfold degenerate codons in orthologous genes. The fourfold degenerate codons were defined as GCX (Ala), CCX (Pro), TCX (Ser), ACX (Thr), CGX (Arg), GGX (Gly), CTX (Leu) and GTX (Val). Thus for Leu, Ser and Arg, we used four of their six codons. Only fourfold degenerate codons in which the first two positions were identical in both species were considered, so that the encoded amino acid was identical. Slightly fewer than 2 million such sites were studied, defined in the human genome from about 9,600 human RefSeq cDNAs and aligned to their mouse orthologues. The observed sequence identity in four-fold degenerate sites was 67%, and the estimated number of substitutions per site, between 0.46 and 0.47, was similar to that in the ancestral repeat sites (see Supplementary Information)." So, what we see is that "junk" noncoding DNA evolves at the same rate as 4-fold synonymous sites (where changing the nucleotide has no effect on the sequence of the protein produced), and that this rate closely corresponds with the rate of spontaneous mutation measured in the laboratory. What more do you want? As long as covering all the bases, I should respond to your point that "I don’t buy the lame explanation that a.dubia is carrying around almost 700 BILLION base pairs of junk DNA. C-value doesn’t correspond with complexity but it sure as hell corresponds with nucleus size in eukaryotes and nucleus size corresponds with cell size and cell size corresponds with time it takes for cell division and cell division time corresponds with energy required for cell division and energy required for cell division corresponds to competitive fitness. A.dubia should have been eaten alive (literally) by its smaller, faster, nimbler, more efficient competitors if there’s no survival value in all that extra DNA." Here you placing the evolutionary explanation of the 700 billion base pairs of junk DNA in A. dubia to the pan-selectionist paradigm. I do not believe selection to be all powerful. It has to contend with a number of limitations and constraints. I strongly suspect that if you looked at the genome of A. dubia you would find it choke full of the same sequence repeated and over and over. Some genetic parasite that got loose and ran wild. This happens a lot, and is pretty well understood (for a review go to Hurst, G. D. D., and J. H. Werren. 2001. The role of selfish genetic elements in eukaryotic evolution. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2: 597–606. http://sunflower.bio.indiana.edu/~clively/L567/readings/Hurst&Werren%202001.pdf). I also suspect that A. dubia has lost fitness due to it's inability to control its genomic parasites. It may even be on its way to extinction because of this (the review discusses a similar scenario). Natural selection is selecting the parasites to replicate faster and faster (those that replicate more leave more descendants in the genome), while at the same time selecting for A. dubias that can control the spread of the parasites. Finally, as long as we're flowing through arguments, you should respond to my calculation of an uber-dubia genome size of 400,000 times that human, or otherwise "concede by default." jimbo, To respond to your point about specifying information in the uber-genome... Even if the uber-genome does not specify every base pair in all of the millions of genomes that flow from it, there still has to be a mechanism by which these base pairs are selected. You could just say that it's random which base pairs get thrown in, and the ones that work stick around, but that sounds awful familar doesn't it?cambion
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
cambion "Also, if the whole point of this phylogenetic program is to end up at humans, it seems like a pretty nonsensical way of going about it…" Nonsensical from a human point of view because human engineers usually like to see the completion of the projects they start before they die. Suppose the hypothetical designer is immortal and/or doesn't mark the passage of time the way we do and a billion year gestation period is not a concern. Or suppose that there are milestones that have to be satisfied to reach your goal such as first oxygenating the atmosphere so land animals with fast metabolisms can emerge then building up large fossil fuel reserves so they have a ready supply of energy to build a technological civilization. It appears to me that the second paragraph is apt if not the first too. The earth needed terraforming before rational man could build a civilization. Terraforming takes a long time. You owe me some links supporting your claims about molecular clocks too if you wish to not concede by default.DaveScot
October 2, 2005
October
10
Oct
2
02
2005
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply