Abstract
The hypothesis of 'selfish DNA' is tested for the case of animals using the relation between genome size and conservation status of a given species. In contrast to plants, where the larger genome was previously shown to increase the likelihood of extinction, the picture is more complicated in animals. At the within-families and within-orders levels, the larger genome increases the risk of extinction only in reptiles and birds (which have the smallest genomes among tetrapods). In fishes and amphibians, the effect is caused by the higher taxonomic levels (above order). In several phylogenetic lineages of anamniotes, there is a correlation between a higher fraction of threatened species and a lower number of extant species in a lineage with the larger genome. In mammals, no effect was observed at any taxonomic level. The obtained data support the concept of hierarchical selection. It is also shown that, in plants and reptiles, the probability of being threatened increases from less than 10% to more than 80% with the increase in genome size, which can help in establishing conservation priorities.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (87.9 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Bennett M. D. Plant genome values: how much do we know? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Mar 3;95(5):2011–2016. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.5.2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Doolittle W. F., Sapienza C. Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution. Nature. 1980 Apr 17;284(5757):601–603. doi: 10.1038/284601a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gregory T. Ryan. A bird's-eye view of the C-value enigma: genome size, cell size, and metabolic rate in the class aves. Evolution. 2002 Jan;56(1):121–130. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00854.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Olmo E. Reptiles: a group of transition in the evolution of genome size and of the nucleotypic effect. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2003;101(2):166–171. doi: 10.1159/000074174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Orgel L. E., Crick F. H. Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite. Nature. 1980 Apr 17;284(5757):604–607. doi: 10.1038/284604a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rohr Jason R., Madison Dale M. Dryness increases predation risk in efts: support for an amphibian decline hypothesis. Oecologia. 2003 Mar 4;135(4):657–664. doi: 10.1007/s00442-003-1206-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Szarski H. Cell size and the concept of wasteful and frugal evolutionary strategies. J Theor Biol. 1983 Nov 21;105(2):201–209. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(83)80002-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Venter J. C., Adams M. D., Myers E. W., Li P. W., Mural R. J., Sutton G. G., Smith H. O., Yandell M., Evans C. A., Holt R. A. The sequence of the human genome. Science. 2001 Feb 16;291(5507):1304–1351. doi: 10.1126/science.1058040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vinogradov A. E. Buffering: a possible passive-homeostasis role for redundant DNA. J Theor Biol. 1998 Jul 27;193(2):197–199. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1997.0629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vinogradov A. E. Genome size and GC-percent in vertebrates as determined by flow cytometry: the triangular relationship. Cytometry. 1998 Feb 1;31(2):100–109. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0320(19980201)31:2<100::aid-cyto5>3.0.co;2-q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vinogradov Alexander E., Anatskaya Olga V. Phenological resonance and quantum life history. J Theor Biol. 2004 Jun 7;228(3):417–420. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vinogradov Alexander E. Selfish DNA is maladaptive: evidence from the plant Red List. Trends Genet. 2003 Nov;19(11):609–614. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2003.09.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]