Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 1998 Oct;150(2):767–775. doi: 10.1093/genetics/150.2.767

The correlation between synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions in Drosophila: mutation, selection or relaxed constraints?

J M Comeron 1, M Kreitman 1
PMCID: PMC1460343  PMID: 9755207

Abstract

Codon usage bias, the preferential use of particular codons within each codon family, is characteristic of synonymous base composition in many species, including Drosophila, yeast, and many bacteria. Preferential usage of particular codons in these species is maintained by natural selection acting largely at the level of translation. In Drosophila, as in bacteria, the rate of synonymous substitution per site is negatively correlated with the degree of codon usage bias, indicating stronger selection on codon usage in genes with high codon bias than in genes with low codon bias. Surprisingly, in these organisms, as well as in mammals, the rate of synonymous substitution is also positively correlated with the rate of nonsynonymous substitution. To investigate this correlation, we carried out a phylogenetic analysis of substitutions in 22 genes between two species of Drosophila, Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. subobscura, in codons that differ by one replacement and one synonymous change. We provide evidence for a relative excess of double substitutions in the same species lineage that cannot be explained by the simultaneous mutation of two adjacent bases. The synonymous changes in these codons also cannot be explained by a shift to a more preferred codon following a replacement substitution. We, therefore, interpret the excess of double codon substitutions within a lineage as being the result of relaxed constraints on both kinds of substitutions in particular codons.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (92.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Akashi H. Inferring weak selection from patterns of polymorphism and divergence at "silent" sites in Drosophila DNA. Genetics. 1995 Feb;139(2):1067–1076. doi: 10.1093/genetics/139.2.1067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Akashi H. Synonymous codon usage in Drosophila melanogaster: natural selection and translational accuracy. Genetics. 1994 Mar;136(3):927–935. doi: 10.1093/genetics/136.3.927. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Aota S., Ikemura T. Diversity in G + C content at the third position of codons in vertebrate genes and its cause. Nucleic Acids Res. 1986 Aug 26;14(16):6345–6355. doi: 10.1093/nar/14.16.6345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernardi G., Bernardi G. Compositional constraints and genome evolution. J Mol Evol. 1986;24(1-2):1–11. doi: 10.1007/BF02099946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Comeron J. M. A method for estimating the numbers of synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions per site. J Mol Evol. 1995 Dec;41(6):1152–1159. doi: 10.1007/BF00173196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Comeron J. M., Aguadé M. Synonymous substitutions in the Xdh gene of Drosophila: heterogeneous distribution along the coding region. Genetics. 1996 Nov;144(3):1053–1062. doi: 10.1093/genetics/144.3.1053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Filipski J. Correlation between molecular clock ticking, codon usage fidelity of DNA repair, chromosome banding and chromatin compactness in germline cells. FEBS Lett. 1987 Jun 15;217(2):184–186. doi: 10.1016/0014-5793(87)80660-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fitch W. M. Rate of change of concomitantly variable codons. J Mol Evol. 1971;1(1):84–96. doi: 10.1007/BF01659396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Grosjean H., Fiers W. Preferential codon usage in prokaryotic genes: the optimal codon-anticodon interaction energy and the selective codon usage in efficiently expressed genes. Gene. 1982 Jun;18(3):199–209. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(82)90157-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ikemura T. Codon usage and tRNA content in unicellular and multicellular organisms. Mol Biol Evol. 1985 Jan;2(1):13–34. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kimura M. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol. 1980 Dec;16(2):111–120. doi: 10.1007/BF01731581. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kliman R. M., Hey J. The effects of mutation and natural selection on codon bias in the genes of Drosophila. Genetics. 1994 Aug;137(4):1049–1056. doi: 10.1093/genetics/137.4.1049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Lipman D. J., Wilbur W. J. Interaction of silent and replacement changes in eukaryotic coding sequences. J Mol Evol. 1984;21(2):161–167. doi: 10.1007/BF02100090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Miyamoto M. M., Fitch W. M. Testing the covarion hypothesis of molecular evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 1995 May;12(3):503–513. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Moriyama E. N., Gojobori T. Rates of synonymous substitution and base composition of nuclear genes in Drosophila. Genetics. 1992 Apr;130(4):855–864. doi: 10.1093/genetics/130.4.855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Moriyama E. N., Hartl D. L. Codon usage bias and base composition of nuclear genes in Drosophila. Genetics. 1993 Jul;134(3):847–858. doi: 10.1093/genetics/134.3.847. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Mouchiroud D., Gautier C., Bernardi G. Frequencies of synonymous substitutions in mammals are gene-specific and correlated with frequencies of nonsynonymous substitutions. J Mol Evol. 1995 Jan;40(1):107–113. doi: 10.1007/BF00166602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ohta T., Ina Y. Variation in synonymous substitution rates among mammalian genes and the correlation between synonymous and nonsynonymous divergences. J Mol Evol. 1995 Dec;41(6):717–720. doi: 10.1007/BF00173150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Parsch J., Tanda S., Stephan W. Site-directed mutations reveal long-range compensatory interactions in the Adh gene of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Feb 4;94(3):928–933. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.3.928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Sharp P. M., Li W. H. On the rate of DNA sequence evolution in Drosophila. J Mol Evol. 1989 May;28(5):398–402. doi: 10.1007/BF02603075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sharp P. M., Li W. H. The rate of synonymous substitution in enterobacterial genes is inversely related to codon usage bias. Mol Biol Evol. 1987 May;4(3):222–230. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040443. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Sharp P. M., Tuohy T. M., Mosurski K. R. Codon usage in yeast: cluster analysis clearly differentiates highly and lowly expressed genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 1986 Jul 11;14(13):5125–5143. doi: 10.1093/nar/14.13.5125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Shields D. C., Sharp P. M., Higgins D. G., Wright F. "Silent" sites in Drosophila genes are not neutral: evidence of selection among synonymous codons. Mol Biol Evol. 1988 Nov;5(6):704–716. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Thompson J. D., Higgins D. G., Gibson T. J. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994 Nov 11;22(22):4673–4680. doi: 10.1093/nar/22.22.4673. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ticher A., Graur D. Nucleic acid composition, codon usage, and the rate of synonymous substitution in protein-coding genes. J Mol Evol. 1989 Apr;28(4):286–298. doi: 10.1007/BF02103424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Wang D., Marsh J. L., Ayala F. J. Evolutionary changes in the expression pattern of a developmentally essential gene in three Drosophila species. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Jul 9;93(14):7103–7107. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.14.7103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. White B. N., Tener G. M., Holden J., Suzuki D. T. Analysis of tRNAs during the development of Drosophila. Dev Biol. 1973 Jul;33(1):185–195. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(73)90173-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Wolfe K. H., Sharp P. M., Li W. H. Mutation rates differ among regions of the mammalian genome. Nature. 1989 Jan 19;337(6204):283–285. doi: 10.1038/337283a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Wolfe K. H., Sharp P. M. Mammalian gene evolution: nucleotide sequence divergence between mouse and rat. J Mol Evol. 1993 Oct;37(4):441–456. doi: 10.1007/BF00178874. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Zeng L. W., Comeron J. M., Chen B., Kreitman M. The molecular clock revisited: the rate of synonymous vs. replacement change in Drosophila. Genetica. 1998;102-103(1-6):369–382. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES