Abstract
Mutation is often said to be random. Although it must be true that mutation is ignorant about the adaptive needs of the organism and thus is random relative to them as a rule, mutation is not truly random in other respects. Nucleotide substitutions, deletions, insertions, inversions, duplications and other types of mutation occur at different rates and are effected by different mechanisms. Moreover the rates of different mutations vary from organism to organism. Differences in mutational biases, along with natural selection, could impact gene and genome evolution in important ways. For instance, several recent studies have suggested that differences in insertion/deletion biases lead to profound differences in the rate of DNA loss in animals and that this difference per se can lead to significant changes in genome size. In particular, Drosophila melanogaster appears to have a very high rate of deletions and the correspondingly high rate of DNA loss and a very compact genome. To assess the validity of these studies we must first assess the validity of the measurements of indel biases themselves. Here I demonstrate the robustness of indel bias measurements in Drosophila, by comparing indel patterns in different types of nonfunctional sequences. The indel pattern and the high rate of DNA loss appears to be shared by all known nonfunctional sequences, both euchromatic and heterochromatic, transposable and non-transposable, repetitive and unique. Unfortunately all available nonfunctional sequences are untranscribed and thus effects of transcription on indel bias cannot be assessed. I also discuss in detail why it is unlikely that natural selection for or against DNA loss significantly affects current estimates of indel biases.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Yampolsky L. Y. and Stoltzfus A.: Evol. Dev. 3 (2001): 73-83.
Stoltzfus A.: J. Mol. Evol. 49 (1999): 169-181.
Li W. H., Wu C. I. and Luo C. C.: J. Mol. Evol. 21 (1984): 58-71.
Gojobori T., Li W. H. and Graur D.: J. Mol. Evol. 18 (1982): 360-369.
Bensasson D., Zhang D.-X., Hartl D. L. and Hewitt G. M.: Trends Ecol. Evol. 16 (2001): 314-321.
Petrov D. A., Lozovskaya E. R. and Hartl D. L.: Nature 384 (1996): 346-349.
Petrov D. A. and Hartl D. L.:Mol. Biol. Evol. 15 (1998): 293-302.
Petrov D. A. et al.: Science 287 (2000): 1060-1062.
Bensasson D. et al.: Mol. Biol. Evol. 18 (2001): 246-253.
Petrov D. A.: Trends Genet. 17 (2001): 23-28.
Petrov D. A. and Hartl D. L.: Gene 205 (1997): 279-289.
Hardies S. C. et al.: Mol. Biol. Evol. 3 (1986): 109-125.
Luan D. D., Korman M. H., Jacubczak J. L. and Eickbush T. H.: Cell 72 (1993): 595-605.
Lathe W. C., Burke W. D., Eickbush D. G. and Eickbush T. H.: Mol. Biol. Evol. 12 (1995): 1094-1105.
Burke W. D., Malik H. S., Lathe W. C., 3rd and Eickbush T. H.: Nature 392 (1998): 141-142.
Weiner A. M., Deininger P. L. and Efstratiadis A.: Annu. Rev. Biochem. 55 (1986): 631-661.
Malik H. S., Burke W. D. and Eickbush T. H.: Mol. Biol. Evol. 16 (1999): 793-805.
Hutchison III C. A. et al.: In: Berg D. E. and Howe M. M. (eds), Mobile DNA. American Society for Microbiology, 1989, pp. 593-617.
Petrov D. A., Schutzman J. L., Hartl D. L. and Lozovskaya E. R.: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92 (1995): 8050-8054.
Graur D., Shuali Y. and Li W. H.: J. Mol. Evol. 28 (1989): 279-285.
Gu X. and Li W.-H.: J. Mol. Evol. 40 (1995): 464-473.
Ophir R. and Graur D.: Gene 205 (1997): 191-202.
Robertson H. M. and Martos R.: Gene 205 (1997): 219-228.
Sharp P. M. and Li W.-H.: J. Mol. Evol. 28 (1989): 398-402.
Bensasson D., Zhang D. X. and Hewitt G. M.:Mol. Biol. Evol. 17 (2000): 406-415.
Jensen S. and Heidmann T.: EMBO J. 10 (1991): 1927-1937.
Pelisson A., Finnegan D. J. and Bucheton A.: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88 (1991): 4907-4910.
Lozovskaya E. R., Nurminsky D. I., Petrov D. A. and Hartl D. L.: Genes Genet. Syst. 74 (1999): 201-207.
Lozovskaya E. R., Scheinker V. S. and Evgen'ev M. B.: Genetics 126 (1990): 619-623.
Petrov D. A., Chao Y.-C., Stephenson E. C. and Hartl D. L.: Mol. Biol. Evol. 15 (1998): 1562-1567.
Pritchard J. K. and Schaeffer S.W.: Genetics 147 (1997): 199-208.
Ramos-Onsins S. and Aguade M.: Genetics 150 (1998): 157-171.
Robin G. C., Russell R. J., Cutler D. J. and Oakeshott J. G.: Mol. Biol. Evol. 17 (2000): 563-575.
Selker E. U.: Trends Genet. 13 (1997): 296-301.
Birchler J. A., Pal-Bhadra M. and Bhadra U.: Nat. Genet. 21 (1999): 148-149.
Pal-Bhadra M., Bhadra U. and Birchler J. A.: Cell 90 (1997): 479-490.
Yoder J. A., Walsh C. P. and Bestor T. H.: Trends Genet. 13 (1997): 335-340.
Henikoff S. and Matzke M. A.: Trends Genet. 13 (1997): 293-295.
Swofford D. L.: PAUP: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (and Other Methods). Version 4, Sinauer Associatesx, 2001.
Russo C. A. M., Takezaki N. and Nei M.: Mol. Biol. Evol. 12 (1995): 391-404.
de Laat W. L., Jaspers N. G. and Hoeijmakers J. H.: Genes Dev 13 (1999): 768-785.
de Cock J. G. et al.: Nucl. Acids Res. 20 (1992): 4789-4793.
van der Helm P. J., Klink E. C., Lohman P. H. and Eeken J. C.: Mutat. Res. 383 (1997): 113-124.
Sekelsky J. J., Brodsky M. H. and Burtis K. C.: J. Cell. Biol. 150 (2000): F31-F36.
Comeron J. M. and Kreitman M.: Genetics 156 (2000): 1175-1190.
Charlesworth B.: Nature 384 (1996): 315-316.
Petrov D. A. and Hartl D. L.: J. Hered. 91 (2000): 221-227.
Robertson H. M.: Genome Res. 10 (2000): 192-203.
Kirik A., Salomon S. and Puchta H.: Embo. J. 19 (2000): 5562-5566.
Adams M. D. et al.: Science 287 (2000): 2185-2195.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Petrov, D.A. DNA loss and evolution of genome size in Drosophila . Genetica 115, 81–91 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016076215168
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016076215168