Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 2003 Nov;165(3):1221–1232. doi: 10.1093/genetics/165.3.1221

Protein evolution and codon usage bias on the neo-sex chromosomes of Drosophila miranda.

Doris Bachtrog 1
PMCID: PMC1462847  PMID: 14668377

Abstract

The neo-sex chromosomes of Drosophila miranda constitute an ideal system to study the effects of recombination on patterns of genome evolution. Due to a fusion of an autosome with the Y chromosome, one homolog is transmitted clonally. Here, I compare patterns of molecular evolution of 18 protein-coding genes located on the recombining neo-X and their homologs on the nonrecombining neo-Y chromosome. The rate of protein evolution has significantly increased on the neo-Y lineage since its formation. Amino acid substitutions are accumulating uniformly among neo-Y-linked genes, as expected if all loci on the neo-Y chromosome suffer from a reduced effectiveness of natural selection. In contrast, there is significant heterogeneity in the rate of protein evolution among neo-X-linked genes, with most loci being under strong purifying selection and two genes showing evidence for adaptive evolution. This observation agrees with theory predicting that linkage limits adaptive protein evolution. Both the neo-X and the neo-Y chromosome show an excess of unpreferred codon substitutions over preferred ones and no difference in this pattern was observed between the chromosomes. This suggests that there has been little or no selection maintaining codon bias in the D. miranda lineage. A change in mutational bias toward AT substitutions also contributes to the decline in codon bias. The contrast in patterns of molecular evolution between amino acid mutations and synonymous mutations on the neo-sex-linked genes can be understood in terms of chromosome-specific differences in effective population size and the distribution of selective effects of mutations.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (190.2 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Adams M. D., Celniker S. E., Holt R. A., Evans C. A., Gocayne J. D., Amanatides P. G., Scherer S. E., Li P. W., Hoskins R. A., Galle R. F. The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster. Science. 2000 Mar 24;287(5461):2185–2195. doi: 10.1126/science.287.5461.2185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Akashi H. Molecular evolution between Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans: reduced codon bias, faster rates of amino acid substitution, and larger proteins in D. melanogaster. Genetics. 1996 Nov;144(3):1297–1307. doi: 10.1093/genetics/144.3.1297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Akashi H., Schaeffer S. W. Natural selection and the frequency distributions of "silent" DNA polymorphism in Drosophila. Genetics. 1997 May;146(1):295–307. doi: 10.1093/genetics/146.1.295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bachtrog D., Charlesworth B. Reduced levels of microsatellite variability on the neo-Y chromosome of Drosophila miranda. Curr Biol. 2000 Sep 7;10(17):1025–1031. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(00)00656-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bachtrog Doris. Adaptation shapes patterns of genome evolution on sexual and asexual chromosomes in Drosophila. Nat Genet. 2003 Jun;34(2):215–219. doi: 10.1038/ng1164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bachtrog Doris, Charlesworth Brian. Reduced adaptation of a non-recombining neo-Y chromosome. Nature. 2002 Mar 21;416(6878):323–326. doi: 10.1038/416323a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Begun D. J., Aquadro C. F. Levels of naturally occurring DNA polymorphism correlate with recombination rates in D. melanogaster. Nature. 1992 Apr 9;356(6369):519–520. doi: 10.1038/356519a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Begun David J. Protein variation in Drosophila simulans, and comparison of genes from centromeric versus noncentromeric regions of chromosome 3. Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Feb;19(2):201–203. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Betancourt Andrea J., Presgraves Daven C. Linkage limits the power of natural selection in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 7;99(21):13616–13620. doi: 10.1073/pnas.212277199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bulmer M. Codon usage and intragenic position. J Theor Biol. 1988 Jul 8;133(1):67–71. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(88)80024-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Caballero A. On the effective size of populations with separate sexes, with particular reference to sex-linked genes. Genetics. 1995 Feb;139(2):1007–1011. doi: 10.1093/genetics/139.2.1007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Carvalho A. B., Dobo B. A., Vibranovski M. D., Clark A. G. Identification of five new genes on the Y chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Oct 30;98(23):13225–13230. doi: 10.1073/pnas.231484998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Charlesworth B., Charlesworth D. The degeneration of Y chromosomes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2000 Nov 29;355(1403):1563–1572. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2000.0717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Charlesworth B. The evolution of chromosomal sex determination and dosage compensation. Curr Biol. 1996 Feb 1;6(2):149–162. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(02)00448-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Charlesworth B. The evolution of sex chromosomes. Science. 1991 Mar 1;251(4997):1030–1033. doi: 10.1126/science.1998119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Eyre-Walker A., Keightley P. D. High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids. Nature. 1999 Jan 28;397(6717):344–347. doi: 10.1038/16915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Eyre-Walker Adam, Keightley Peter D., Smith Nick G. C., Gaffney Daniel. Quantifying the slightly deleterious mutation model of molecular evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Dec;19(12):2142–2149. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Felsenstein J. The evolutionary advantage of recombination. Genetics. 1974 Oct;78(2):737–756. doi: 10.1093/genetics/78.2.737. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hill W. G., Robertson A. The effect of linkage on limits to artificial selection. Genet Res. 1966 Dec;8(3):269–294. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hudson R. R., Kreitman M., Aguadé M. A test of neutral molecular evolution based on nucleotide data. Genetics. 1987 May;116(1):153–159. doi: 10.1093/genetics/116.1.153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kliman R. M., Hey J. Reduced natural selection associated with low recombination in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Biol Evol. 1993 Nov;10(6):1239–1258. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lahn B. T., Pearson N. M., Jegalian K. The human Y chromosome, in the light of evolution. Nat Rev Genet. 2001 Mar;2(3):207–216. doi: 10.1038/35056058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lucchesi J. C. Gene dosage compensation and the evolution of sex chromosomes. Science. 1978 Nov 17;202(4369):711–716. doi: 10.1126/science.715437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lynch M., Blanchard J. L. Deleterious mutation accumulation in organelle genomes. Genetica. 1998;102-103(1-6):29–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Marais Gabriel, Piganeau Gwenaël. Hill-Robertson interference is a minor determinant of variations in codon bias across Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans genomes. Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Sep;19(9):1399–1406. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Marín I., Siegal M. L., Baker B. S. The evolution of dosage-compensation mechanisms. Bioessays. 2000 Dec;22(12):1106–1114. doi: 10.1002/1521-1878(200012)22:12<1106::AID-BIES8>3.0.CO;2-W. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. McDonald J. H., Kreitman M. Adaptive protein evolution at the Adh locus in Drosophila. Nature. 1991 Jun 20;351(6328):652–654. doi: 10.1038/351652a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. McVean G. A., Charlesworth B. The effects of Hill-Robertson interference between weakly selected mutations on patterns of molecular evolution and variation. Genetics. 2000 Jun;155(2):929–944. doi: 10.1093/genetics/155.2.929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. McVean G. A., Vieira J. Inferring parameters of mutation, selection and demography from patterns of synonymous site evolution in Drosophila. Genetics. 2001 Jan;157(1):245–257. doi: 10.1093/genetics/157.1.245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Sharp P. M., Li W. H. An evolutionary perspective on synonymous codon usage in unicellular organisms. J Mol Evol. 1986;24(1-2):28–38. doi: 10.1007/BF02099948. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Steinemann M., Steinemann S. Enigma of Y chromosome degeneration: neo-Y and neo-X chromosomes of Drosophila miranda a model for sex chromosome evolution. Genetica. 1998;102-103(1-6):409–420. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Steinemann M., Steinemann S., Lottspeich F. How Y chromosomes become genetically inert. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Jun 15;90(12):5737–5741. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.12.5737. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Steinemann M., Steinemann S., Pinsker W. Evolution of the larval cuticle proteins coded by the secondary sex chromosome pair: X2 and neo-Y of Drosophila miranda: I. Comparison at the DNA sequence level. J Mol Evol. 1996 Oct;43(4):405–412. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Steinemann S., Steinemann M. The Amylase gene cluster on the evolving sex chromosomes of Drosophila miranda. Genetics. 1999 Jan;151(1):151–161. doi: 10.1093/genetics/151.1.151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Stenico M., Lloyd A. T., Sharp P. M. Codon usage in Caenorhabditis elegans: delineation of translational selection and mutational biases. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994 Jul 11;22(13):2437–2446. doi: 10.1093/nar/22.13.2437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Tajima F. Simple methods for testing the molecular evolutionary clock hypothesis. Genetics. 1993 Oct;135(2):599–607. doi: 10.1093/genetics/135.2.599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Takano-Shimizu T. Local changes in GC/AT substitution biases and in crossover frequencies on Drosophila chromosomes. Mol Biol Evol. 2001 Apr;18(4):606–619. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003841. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Weinreich D. M., Rand D. M. Contrasting patterns of nonneutral evolution in proteins encoded in nuclear and mitochondrial genomes. Genetics. 2000 Sep;156(1):385–399. doi: 10.1093/genetics/156.1.385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Wright F. The 'effective number of codons' used in a gene. Gene. 1990 Mar 1;87(1):23–29. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(90)90491-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Yi Soojin, Bachtrog Doris, Charlesworth Brian. A survey of chromosomal and nucleotide sequence variation in Drosophila miranda. Genetics. 2003 Aug;164(4):1369–1381. doi: 10.1093/genetics/164.4.1369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Zurovcova M., Eanes W. F. Lack of nucleotide polymorphism in the Y-linked sperm flagellar dynein gene Dhc-Yh3 of Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. Genetics. 1999 Dec;153(4):1709–1715. doi: 10.1093/genetics/153.4.1709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES