Crossing fitness valleys via double substitutions within codons.
Archaea
Bacteria
DNA context
Double substitutions
Natural selection
Short-term evolution
Journal
BMC biology
ISSN: 1741-7007
Titre abrégé: BMC Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190720
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 12 2019
16 12 2019
Historique:
received:
26
08
2019
accepted:
20
11
2019
entrez:
18
12
2019
pubmed:
18
12
2019
medline:
12
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Single nucleotide substitutions in protein-coding genes can be divided into synonymous (S), with little fitness effect, and non-synonymous (N) ones that alter amino acids and thus generally have a greater effect. Most of the N substitutions are affected by purifying selection that eliminates them from evolving populations. However, additional mutations of nearby bases potentially could alleviate the deleterious effect of single substitutions, making them subject to positive selection. To elucidate the effects of selection on double substitutions in all codons, it is critical to differentiate selection from mutational biases. We addressed the evolutionary regimes of within-codon double substitutions in 37 groups of closely related prokaryotic genomes from diverse phyla by comparing the fractions of double substitutions within codons to those of the equivalent double S substitutions in adjacent codons. Under the assumption that substitutions occur one at a time, all within-codon double substitutions can be represented as "ancestral-intermediate-final" sequences (where "intermediate" refers to the first single substitution and "final" refers to the second substitution) and can be partitioned into four classes: (1) SS, S intermediate-S final; (2) SN, S intermediate-N final; (3) NS, N intermediate-S final; and (4) NN, N intermediate-N final. We found that the selective pressure on the second substitution markedly differs among these classes of double substitutions. Analogous to single S (synonymous) substitutions, SS double substitutions evolve neutrally, whereas analogous to single N (non-synonymous) substitutions, SN double substitutions are subject to purifying selection. In contrast, NS show positive selection on the second step because the original amino acid is recovered. The NN double substitutions are heterogeneous and can be subject to either purifying or positive selection, or evolve neutrally, depending on the amino acid similarity between the final or intermediate and the ancestral states. The results of the present, comprehensive analysis of the evolutionary landscape of within-codon double substitutions reaffirm the largely conservative regime of protein evolution. However, the second step of a double substitution can be subject to positive selection when the first step is deleterious. Such positive selection can result in frequent crossing of valleys on the fitness landscape.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Single nucleotide substitutions in protein-coding genes can be divided into synonymous (S), with little fitness effect, and non-synonymous (N) ones that alter amino acids and thus generally have a greater effect. Most of the N substitutions are affected by purifying selection that eliminates them from evolving populations. However, additional mutations of nearby bases potentially could alleviate the deleterious effect of single substitutions, making them subject to positive selection. To elucidate the effects of selection on double substitutions in all codons, it is critical to differentiate selection from mutational biases.
RESULTS
We addressed the evolutionary regimes of within-codon double substitutions in 37 groups of closely related prokaryotic genomes from diverse phyla by comparing the fractions of double substitutions within codons to those of the equivalent double S substitutions in adjacent codons. Under the assumption that substitutions occur one at a time, all within-codon double substitutions can be represented as "ancestral-intermediate-final" sequences (where "intermediate" refers to the first single substitution and "final" refers to the second substitution) and can be partitioned into four classes: (1) SS, S intermediate-S final; (2) SN, S intermediate-N final; (3) NS, N intermediate-S final; and (4) NN, N intermediate-N final. We found that the selective pressure on the second substitution markedly differs among these classes of double substitutions. Analogous to single S (synonymous) substitutions, SS double substitutions evolve neutrally, whereas analogous to single N (non-synonymous) substitutions, SN double substitutions are subject to purifying selection. In contrast, NS show positive selection on the second step because the original amino acid is recovered. The NN double substitutions are heterogeneous and can be subject to either purifying or positive selection, or evolve neutrally, depending on the amino acid similarity between the final or intermediate and the ancestral states.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the present, comprehensive analysis of the evolutionary landscape of within-codon double substitutions reaffirm the largely conservative regime of protein evolution. However, the second step of a double substitution can be subject to positive selection when the first step is deleterious. Such positive selection can result in frequent crossing of valleys on the fitness landscape.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31842858
doi: 10.1186/s12915-019-0727-4
pii: 10.1186/s12915-019-0727-4
pmc: PMC6916188
doi:
Substances chimiques
Codon
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Intramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
105Références
J Mol Evol. 1980 Dec;16(2):111-20
pubmed: 7463489
Genetics. 2017 May;206(1):363-376
pubmed: 28280056
Mol Biol Evol. 1993 Mar;10(2):271-81
pubmed: 8487630
Genome Res. 2014 Sep;24(9):1445-54
pubmed: 25079859
J Mol Biol. 2001 Sep 14;312(2):335-46
pubmed: 11554790
Q Rev Biol. 2014 Sep;89(3):225-52
pubmed: 25195318
Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Jun;30(6):1315-25
pubmed: 23447710
J Mol Evol. 1982;18(5):360-9
pubmed: 7120431
J Mol Evol. 1981;17(6):368-76
pubmed: 7288891
Hum Mutat. 2015 Nov;36(11):1034-8
pubmed: 26172832
Curr Biol. 2011 Jun 21;21(12):1051-4
pubmed: 21636278
Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Jun;37(11):3774-87
pubmed: 19380376
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jan 4;45(D1):D210-D218
pubmed: 28053163
J Hered. 2011 Jan-Feb;102(1):130-8
pubmed: 20696667
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Aug 20;110(34):E3171-8
pubmed: 23918358
Mol Biol Evol. 1985 Mar;2(2):150-74
pubmed: 3916709
J Mol Evol. 1993 Jan;36(1):96-9
pubmed: 8433381
PLoS One. 2008;3(11):e3714
pubmed: 19005564
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 9;109(41):E2774-83
pubmed: 22991466
Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 Jul;40(Web Server issue):W580-4
pubmed: 22661579
Nature. 2004 Jun 3;429(6991):558-62
pubmed: 15175752
Science. 2000 Feb 18;287(5456):1283-6
pubmed: 10678838
Cell Cycle. 2011 Apr 1;10(7):1073-85
pubmed: 21406975
PLoS Biol. 2014 Aug 26;12(8):e1001935
pubmed: 25157590
Mol Biol Evol. 1986 Sep;3(5):418-26
pubmed: 3444411
Nat Ecol Evol. 2018 Aug;2(8):1280-1288
pubmed: 29967485
Nat Rev Genet. 2012 Mar 28;13(5):303-14
pubmed: 22456349
PLoS Genet. 2016 Nov 15;12(11):e1006315
pubmed: 27846220
J Theor Biol. 2009 Aug 7;259(3):613-20
pubmed: 19394348
Nature. 1976 Sep 23;263(5575):285-9
pubmed: 958482
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Nov 15;113(46):13109-13113
pubmed: 27799560
Mol Cell. 2000 Dec;6(6):1491-9
pubmed: 11163221
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Dec 19;103(51):19396-401
pubmed: 17164328
Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Jul-Aug;42(4):247-58
pubmed: 17687667
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Sep 6;102(36):12849-54
pubmed: 16118275
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1987 Jul;84(14):4944-8
pubmed: 3474635
Nature. 1989 Apr 6;338(6215):467-8
pubmed: 2494457
Sci Rep. 2017 Sep 29;7(1):12422
pubmed: 28963504
Science. 2003 Nov 21;302(5649):1401-4
pubmed: 14631042
Nucleic Acids Res. 2008 Jan;36(Database issue):D202-5
pubmed: 17998252
Sci Am. 1979 Nov;241(5):98-100, 102, 108 passim
pubmed: 504979
Genome Inform. 2005;16(1):22-33
pubmed: 16362903
Annu Rev Genet. 2015;49:243-67
pubmed: 26631512
Environ Mol Mutagen. 2012 Dec;53(9):777-86
pubmed: 22965922
PLoS Genet. 2011 Feb;7(2):e1001315
pubmed: 21383965
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Oct 23;104(43):16992-7
pubmed: 17940029
Sci Rep. 2018 Jun 18;8(1):9260
pubmed: 29915293