Skip Navigation


Genome Biology and Evolution Advance Access originally published online on April 30, 2009
Genome Biology and Evolution (2009) Vol. 2009:13; doi:10.1093/gbe/evp001 published on May 22, 2009
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrowOA All Versions of this Article:
2009/0/13    most recent
evp001v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Email alerts
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pink, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Hurst, L. D.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Pink, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Hurst, L. D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2009 The Authors
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Evidence That Replication-Associated Mutation Alone Does Not Explain Between-Chromosome Differences In Substitution Rates

Catherine J. Pink*,4, Siva K. Swaminathan*,1,4, Ian Dunham{dagger},2, Jane Rogers{dagger},3, Andrew Ward* and Laurence D. Hurst*

* Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, Somerset, United Kingdom
{dagger} The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom

E-mail: l.d.hurst{at}bath.ac.uk.


   Abstract

Since Haldane first noticed an excess of paternally derived mutations, it has been considered that most mutations derive from errors during germ line replication. Miyata et al. (1987) proposed that differences in the rate of neutral evolution on X, Y, and autosome can be employed to measure the extent of this male bias. This commonly applied method assumes replication to be the sole source of between-chromosome variation in substitution rates. We propose a simple test of this assumption: If true, estimates of the male bias should be independent of which two chromosomal classes are compared. Prior evidence from rodents suggested that this might not be true, but conclusions were limited by a lack of rat Y-linked sequence. We therefore sequenced two rat Y-linked bacterial artificial chromosomes and determined evolutionary rate by comparison with mouse. For estimation of rates we consider both introns and synonymous rates. Surprisingly, for both data sets the prediction of congruent estimates of {alpha} is strongly rejected. Indeed, some comparisons suggest a female bias with autosomes evolving faster than Y-linked sequence. We conclude that the method of Miyata et al. (1987) has the potential to provide incorrect estimates. Correcting the method requires understanding of the other causes of substitution that might differ between chromosomal classes. One possible cause is recombination-associated substitution bias for which we find some evidence. We note that if, as some suggest, this association is dominantly owing to male recombination, the high estimates of {alpha} seen in birds is to be expected as Z chromosomes recombine in males.

Keywords: male-mutation bias, male-driven evolution, mutation, recombination, introns, rodents

Accepted March 5, 2009


1 Present address: Biotechnology and Toxicology Division, Environment Protection Training and Research Institute, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India.

2 Present address: European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL)-European Bioinformatics Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

3 Present address: John Innes Centre, Norwich Research Park, Colney, Norwich, United Kingdom.

4 These authors contributed equally.

Zhang Jianzhi, Associate Editor


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.