Access
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Letter
Nature 437, 1149-1152 (20 October 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04107; Received 23 May 2005; Accepted 2 August 2005
Open Innovation Challenges
-
Novel Approaches to Protecting Maize from Insect Damage
The Seeker is looking for novel approaches to protecting maize from insect damage. This Challenge re...
-
Single-cell Analysis Platform
This Challenge is looking for novel approaches to analyzing changes at a single-cell level. This is...
nature jobs
Postdoctoral Opportunity in Cancer Research - Molecular Biologist / Molecular Pathologist, at the IARC / WHO in Lyons, France : Lyons, France
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC / WHO)
- Lyon 69008 France
Postdoctoral Fellowship in Medical Microbiology / Immunology
- Lund University
- Lund, Sweden
Adaptive evolution of non-coding DNA in Drosophila
Peter Andolfatto1
- Section of Ecology, Behavior and Evolution, Division of Biological Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA
Correspondence to: Peter Andolfatto1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.A. (Email: pandolfatto@ucsd.edu).
Abstract
A large fraction of eukaryotic genomes consists of DNA that is not translated into protein sequence, and little is known about its functional significance. Here I show that several classes of non-coding DNA in Drosophila are evolving considerably slower than synonymous sites, and yet show an excess of between-species divergence relative to polymorphism when compared with synonymous sites. The former is a hallmark of selective constraint, but the latter is a signature of adaptive evolution, resembling general patterns of protein evolution in Drosophila1, 2. I estimate that about 40–70% of nucleotides in intergenic regions, untranslated portions of mature mRNAs (UTRs) and most intronic DNA are evolutionarily constrained relative to synonymous sites. However, I also use an extension to the McDonald–Kreitman test3 to show that a substantial fraction of the nucleotide divergence in these regions was driven to fixation by positive selection (about 20% for most intronic and intergenic DNA, and 60% for UTRs). On the basis of these observations, I suggest that a large fraction of the non-translated genome is functionally important and subject to both purifying selection and adaptive evolution. These results imply that, although positive selection is clearly an important facet of protein evolution, adaptive changes to non-coding DNA might have been considerably more common in the evolution of D. melanogaster.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS
These links to content published by NPG are automatically generated.
NEWS AND VIEWS
Evolutionary biology Fruitfly genome is not junkNature News and Views (20 Oct 2005)
Evolutionary biology A plastic genomeNature News and Views (10 Dec 1998)
See all 3 matches for News And Views
