Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 1998 Jan 22;265(1391):121–127. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0272

The evolution of concerted evolution

L D Hurst, N G C Smith
PMCID: PMC1688865

Abstract

Concerted evolution is a consequence of processes that convert copies of a gene in a multigene family into the same copy. Here we ask whether this homogenization may be adaptive. Analysis of a modifier of homogenization reveals (1) that the trait is most likely to spread if interactions between deleterious mutations are not strongly synergistic; (2) that selection on the modifier is of the order of the mutation rate, hence the modifier is most likely to be favoured by selection when the species has a large effective population size and/or if the modifier affects many genes simultaneously; and (3) that linkage between the genes in the family, and between these genes and the modifier, makes invasion of the modifier easier, suggesting that selection may favour multigene families being in clustered arrays. It follows from the first conclusion that genes for which mutations may often be dominant or semi-dominant should undergo concerted evolution more commonly than others. By analysis of the mouse knockout database, we show that mutations affecting growth-related genes are more commonly associated with dominant lethality than expected by chance. We predict then that selection will favour homogenization of such genes, and possibly others that are significantly dosage dependent, more often than it favours homogenization in other genes. The first condition is almost the opposite of that required for the maintenance of sexual reproduction according to the mutation-deterministic theory. The analysis here therefore suggests that sexual organisms can simultaneously minimize both the effects of deleterious, strongly synergistically, interacting mutations and those that interact either weakly synergistically, multiplicatively, or antagonistically, assuming the latter class belong to a multicopy gene family. Recombination and an absence of homogenization are efficient in purging deleterious mutations in the former class, homogenization and an absence of recombination are efficient at minimizing the costs imposed by the latter classes.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (311.3 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Barlow D. P. Gametic imprinting in mammals. Science. 1995 Dec 8;270(5242):1610–1613. doi: 10.1126/science.270.5242.1610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barton N. H. A general model for the evolution of recombination. Genet Res. 1995 Apr;65(2):123–145. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300033140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bengtsson B. O. The effect of biased conversion on the mutation load. Genet Res. 1990 Jun;55(3):183–187. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300025519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Charlesworth B., Hartl D. L. Population Dynamics of the Segregation Distorter Polymorphism of DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER. Genetics. 1978 May;89(1):171–192. doi: 10.1093/genetics/89.1.171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Charlesworth B. Mutation-selection balance and the evolutionary advantage of sex and recombination. Genet Res. 1990 Jun;55(3):199–221. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300025532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Drouin G., de Sá M. M. The concerted evolution of 5S ribosomal genes linked to the repeat units of other multigene families. Mol Biol Evol. 1995 May;12(3):481–493. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Elder J. F., Jr, Turner B. J. Concerted evolution of repetitive DNA sequences in eukaryotes. Q Rev Biol. 1995 Sep;70(3):297–320. doi: 10.1086/419073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Elena S. F., Lenski R. E. Test of synergistic interactions among deleterious mutations in bacteria. Nature. 1997 Nov 27;390(6658):395–398. doi: 10.1038/37108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fisher E., Scambler P. Human haploinsufficiency--one for sorrow, two for joy. Nat Genet. 1994 May;7(1):5–7. doi: 10.1038/ng0594-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Haig D. Genetic conflicts in human pregnancy. Q Rev Biol. 1993 Dec;68(4):495–532. doi: 10.1086/418300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hillis D. M., Moritz C., Porter C. A., Baker R. J. Evidence for biased gene conversion in concerted evolution of ribosomal DNA. Science. 1991 Jan 18;251(4991):308–310. doi: 10.1126/science.1987647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hurst L. D. Embryonic growth and the evolution of the mammalian Y chromosome. I. The Y as an attractor for selfish growth factors. Heredity (Edinb) 1994 Sep;73(Pt 3):223–232. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1994.127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hurst L. D. Further evidence consistent with Stellate's involvement in meiotic drive. Genetics. 1996 Feb;142(2):641–643. doi: 10.1093/genetics/142.2.641. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hurst L. D. Is Stellate a relict meiotic driver? Genetics. 1992 Jan;130(1):229–230. doi: 10.1093/genetics/130.1.229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hurst L. D., McVean G. T. Growth effects of uniparental disomies and the conflict theory of genomic imprinting. Trends Genet. 1997 Nov;13(11):436–443. doi: 10.1016/s0168-9525(97)01273-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hutson V., Law R. Four steps to two sexes. Proc Biol Sci. 1993 Jul 22;253(1336):43–51. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1993.0080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kacser H., Burns J. A. The molecular basis of dominance. Genetics. 1981 Mar-Apr;97(3-4):639–666. doi: 10.1093/genetics/97.3-4.639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kondrashov A. S. Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature. 1988 Dec 1;336(6198):435–440. doi: 10.1038/336435a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kondrashov A. S. Deleterious mutations as an evolutionary factor. 1. The advantage of recombination. Genet Res. 1984 Oct;44(2):199–217. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300026392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Liao D., Pavelitz T., Kidd J. R., Kidd K. K., Weiner A. M. Concerted evolution of the tandemly repeated genes encoding human U2 snRNA (the RNU2 locus) involves rapid intrachromosomal homogenization and rare interchromosomal gene conversion. EMBO J. 1997 Feb 3;16(3):588–598. doi: 10.1093/emboj/16.3.588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Liu J. P., Baker J., Perkins A. S., Robertson E. J., Efstratiadis A. Mice carrying null mutations of the genes encoding insulin-like growth factor I (Igf-1) and type 1 IGF receptor (Igf1r). Cell. 1993 Oct 8;75(1):59–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ohta T. The mutational load of a multigene family with uniform members. Genet Res. 1989 Apr;53(2):141–145. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300028020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Otto S. P., Feldman M. W. Deleterious mutations, variable epistatic interactions, and the evolution of recombination. Theor Popul Biol. 1997 Apr;51(2):134–147. doi: 10.1006/tpbi.1997.1301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Otto S. P., Goldstein D. B. Recombination and the evolution of diploidy. Genetics. 1992 Jul;131(3):745–751. doi: 10.1093/genetics/131.3.745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Pavelitz T., Rusché L., Matera A. G., Scharf J. M., Weiner A. M. Concerted evolution of the tandem array encoding primate U2 snRNA occurs in situ, without changing the cytological context of the RNU2 locus. EMBO J. 1995 Jan 3;14(1):169–177. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1995.tb06987.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rice W. R. Sexually antagonistic genes: experimental evidence. Science. 1992 Jun 5;256(5062):1436–1439. doi: 10.1126/science.1604317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Schlötterer C., Tautz D. Chromosomal homogeneity of Drosophila ribosomal DNA arrays suggests intrachromosomal exchanges drive concerted evolution. Curr Biol. 1994 Sep 1;4(9):777–783. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(00)00175-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Slatkin M. Interchromosomal biased gene conversion, mutation and selection in a multigene family. Genetics. 1986 Mar;112(3):681–698. doi: 10.1093/genetics/112.3.681. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Sun F. L., Dean W. L., Kelsey G., Allen N. D., Reik W. Transactivation of Igf2 in a mouse model of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. Nature. 1997 Oct 23;389(6653):809–815. doi: 10.1038/39797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Weir B. S., Ohta T., Tachida H. Gene conversion models. J Theor Biol. 1985 Sep 7;116(1):1–8. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(85)80127-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Wilkie A. O. The molecular basis of genetic dominance. J Med Genet. 1994 Feb;31(2):89–98. doi: 10.1136/jmg.31.2.89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhou Y. H., Ragan M. A. Characterization of the polyubiquitin gene in the marine red alga Gracilaria verrucosa. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1995 Apr 4;1261(2):215–222. doi: 10.1016/0167-4781(95)00006-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES