Weak selection revealed by the whole-genome comparison of the X chromosome and autosomes of human and chimpanzee.
The effect of weak selection driving genome evolution has attracted much attention in the last decade, but the task of measuring the strength of such selection is particularly difficult. A useful approach is to contrast the evolution of X-linked and autosomal genes in two closely related species in a whole-genome analysis. If the fitness effect of mutations is recessive, X-linked genes should evolve more rapidly than autosomal genes when the mutations are advantageous, and they should evolve more slowly than autosomal genes when the mutations are deleterious. We found synonymous substitutions on the X chromosome of human and chimpanzee to be less frequent than those on the autosomes. When calibrated against substitutions in the intergenic regions and pseudogenes to filter out the differences in the mutation rate and ancestral population size between X chromosomes and autosomes, X-linked synonymous substitutions are still 10% less frequent. At least 90% of the synonymous substitutions in human and chimpanzee are estimated to be deleterious, but the fitness effect is weaker than the effect of genetic drift. However, X-linked nonsynonymous substitutions are approximately 30% more frequent than autosomal ones, suggesting the fixation of advantageous mutations that are recessive.
Lu
Jian
J
Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
Wu
Chung-I
CI
D000818:Animals; D041321:Chromosomes, Human, X; D020862:GC Rich Sequence; D015894:Genome, Human; D006801:Humans; D009154:Mutation; D002679:Pan troglodytes / Q000235:genetics*; D011110:Polymorphism, Genetic; D012641:Selection, Genetic; D026801:Synteny
Genetics. 2001 Jul;158(3):1227-34
11454770
Genetics. 2000 Sep;156(1):297-304
10978293
Nature. 2002 Feb 28;415(6875):1024-6
11875569
Genetics. 2002 Mar;160(3):1179-89
11901132
Nature. 2002 Apr 4;416(6880):531-4
11932744
Nature. 2002 Apr 11;416(6881):624-6
11948348
Genetics. 2002 Sep;162(1):501-19
12242257
Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Oct;19(10):1816-9
12270910
Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Dec;19(12):2142-9
12446806
Science. 2003 Dec 12;302(5652):1960-3
14671302
Curr Biol. 2004 Jan 20;14(2):150-4
14738738
J Mol Evol. 2003;57 Suppl 1:S154-64
15008412
Evolution. 2004 Mar;58(3):656-60
15119449
Genet Res. 1966 Dec;8(3):269-94
5980116
Nature. 1973 Nov 9;246(5428):96-8
4585855
Genet Res. 1974 Feb;23(1):23-35
4407212
Theor Popul Biol. 1976 Dec;10(3):254-75
1013905
J Mol Evol. 1980 Dec;16(2):111-20
7463489
J Mol Evol. 1987;26(1-2):1-6
3125329
Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1987;52:863-7
3454295
Genetics. 1989 Nov;123(3):579-84
2599368
Methods Enzymol. 1990;183:63-98
2156132
J Mol Evol. 1993 Jan;36(1):96-9
8433381
Genet Res. 1994 Jun;63(3):213-27
8082838
Genetics. 1995 Feb;139(2):1067-76
7713409
Theor Popul Biol. 1995 Oct;48(2):198-221
7482371
Nat Rev Genet. 2001 Jul;2(7):549-55
11433361
Genetics. 1996 Nov;144(3):1297-307
8913769
Nature. 1997 Mar 27;386(6623):388-92
9121553
Genetica. 1998;102-103(1-6):83-90
9720273
Genome Res. 1998 Sep;8(9):967-74
9750195
Nature. 1999 Jan 28;397(6717):344-7
9950425
Gene. 1999 Sep 30;238(1):39-51
10570982
Nature. 2002 Feb 28;415(6875):1022-4
11875568