This page has been archived and is no longer updated
The flexible genome
Author: Ralph Greenspan
Keywords
Keywords for this Article
Add keywords to your Content
Save
|
Cancel
Share
|
Cancel
Revoke
|
Cancel
Rate & Certify
Rate Me...
Rate Me
!
Comment
Save
|
Cancel
Flag Inappropriate
The Content is
Objectionable
Explicit
Offensive
Inaccurate
Comment
Flag Content
|
Cancel
Delete Content
Reason
Delete
|
Cancel
Close
Full Screen
"PERSPECTIVES models were generally drawn as pathways, an analogy that originated in biochemical genetics and has since driven virtually all the genetic analysis of complex phenotypes. Now, however, as each new suppressor screen increases the number of constituents, and their interrelationships become more complicated and less exclusive, murkiness has again returned 3 . Difficulties arise because of the cir- cuitousness of the path from gene to pheno- type ? a problem that is particularly acute in the study of behaviour. Not only are behavioural phenotypes very sensitive to non-genetic influences, but also the highly interconnected network of the nervous sys- tem sets up an additional layer of complexi- ty between the gene and the realization of the phenotype. The quandary presented by all these issues calls for a fresh look at our assumptions about genetic analysis and a consideration of how well our current con- cepts serve us. Ex uno plura Specificity has been the shibboleth of modern biology. The concept of molecular specificity, for sequence and for macromolecular struc- ture, formed the basis of the molecular biolo- gy revolution during the 1950s and 1960s (REF. 4). Together with concepts that emerged from studies of enzyme?substrate and lig- and?receptor interactions, an important shift in thinking took place at that time towards a view of biological mechanisms as an assem- bly of pieces, each with its own specific and restricted part to play. During the subsequent decades, even before the techniques of molecular biology flowed into field after field, the concept of specificity dominated much of the thinking. Especially in the study of mutations that affect development, neurophysiology and behaviour, it became standard to claim speci- ficity of phenotype as a justification for bio- logical importance, even if such specificity did not stand up to closer scrutiny (TABLE 1). But it was not always so. What made the shift towards specificity a revolution was that it supplanted a previous world-view, one in which biological mechanisms were highly fluid and interactive processes 5?7 . To the extent that the components of this process were imagined ? and imagine them was about all one could do back then ? they had to be versatile. Early ideas of protein function A principal assumption underlying contemporary genetic analysis is that the normal function of a gene can be inferred directly from its mutant phenotype. The interactivity among genes that is now being revealed calls this assumption into question and indicates that there might be considerable flexibility in the capacity of the genome to respond to diverse conditions. The reservoir for much of this flexibility resides in the nonspecificity and malleability of gene action. Historians say that a key element in Thomas Hunt Morgan?s success was his decision to separate the question of the transmission of heritable traits from that of the mechanism of their realization 1,2 . By concentrating exclusively on the transmission of traits, the original fly researchers were able to focus on the association of genes with chromosomes and on the position of loci relative to each other. The mechanism of realization of a trait ? the connection between gene and phenotype ? was left to later generations (that is, us). The lion?s share of effort in addressing the relationship between gene and pheno- type has gone into isolating mutants that deviate drastically from normal, and then into studying their molecular characteristics and interactions. When relatively few genes were known (around the mid-1970s), it was difficult to imagine mechanisms through which phenotypes might be produced. There was simply not enough to go on. As more genes were identified, sensible and logical models could be constructed to rep- resent their interactions and roles. The NATURE REVIEWS | GENETICS VOLUME 2 | MAY 2001 | 383 The flexible genome Ralph J. Greenspan OPINION Table 1 | Examples of revealed pleiotropy in Drosophila Mutant Initial specific Gene product Ultimate extent of phenotype pleiotropy dunce Associative cAMP Embryonic patterning, conditioning 45 phosphodiesterase 46 female fertility 47 latheo Associative ORC homologue 49 Imaginal disc formation, conditioning 48 cell proliferation in CNS 49 optomotor-blind Optomotor response 50 , T-box transcription General optic-lobe development of motion- factor 51 development, wing, leg and detecting neurons abdominal patterning 11,52 no-action-potential Nerve conduction 53 RNA-helicase Male viability, regulation of homologue 54 X-linked genes 55 no-receptor- Photoreceptor PI-phospholipase C 57 Circadian rhythms 58 , potential-A potential 56 olfaction 59 (cAMP, cyclic AMP; CNS, central nervous system; ORC, origin of replication; PI, phosphatidylinositol.) � 2001 Macmillan Magazines Ltd 384 | MAY 2001 | VOLUME 2 www.nature.com/reviews/genetics PERSPECTIVES search for early embryonic patterning mutants in Drosophila missed many crucial genes despite the fact that it met the criterion for saturation. This was due not only to the important role of maternal genes in the for- mation of the embryonic axes, but also, more importantly for this discussion, to the fact that many of the relevant loci did not happen to mutate to a phenotype that was restricted enough to be picked out. Eventually, mutants in this more refractory class of genes were found by using several strategies: screens for enhancer or suppressor mutations, in which a starting mutation sensitizes the system to fur- ther genetic perturbations 20 ; screens of inser- tional mutations in which an inserted reporter gene shows tissue-specific expression (so called ?enhancer traps? 21 ); and screens of insertional mutations that were designed to cause overexpression of the gene that neigh- bours the insertion site (so-called ?EP? lines 22 ). Many of the loci that have been identified using these approaches are pleiotropic genes, such as Notch and Ras, that have a significant role in many other processes besides those that underlie the phenotype under considera- tion and that cannot mutate so readily to a sufficiently ?specific? phenotype. But this does not account for all the missed genes. Some of the relevant mutants are silent by themselves and show an abnormal phenotype only in conjunction with a mutation at another locus; the sensitized background is a prerequi- site for seeing the defect 20 . The ensuing proliferation of identified genes creates problems of interpretation, such as which genes are most important and how they all interconnect. (The consequences of these developments for scientific discourse were recently discussed in this journal 3 .) Not the least of these problems is the diminishing value of the pathway analogy. Rather than running in linear paths, the increasing com- plexity of relationships among genes is better described as a distributed network. Some genes produce more damage than others when mutated, but this depends heavily on the context of other alleles that are present, and so it is difficult to arrange them in a sim- ple order of importance. The interactions that have defined various pathways are not wrong, just not exhaustive. They are part of a much larger picture. Behaviour: an extreme case Pleiotropy has been the hallmark of hunts for behavioural mutants all along. As mentioned above, most behavioural mutants in the fly are the result of rare, phenotypically specific alleles of genes that act more widely 10,11 . Behavioural mutants are also extremely The search for genes has been a chief concern of geneticists since variants first began to be mapped ? the more, the better, for filling in spaces along chromosomes, regardless of phe- notype. The quest has become more directed during the past several decades of develop- mental and behavioural genetics. The guiding assumption has been that mutants reveal the key constituents and that they will explain the underlying mechanisms. There is no doubt that this approach has been successful in expanding and shaping our view of when, where and how genes function 13 . Central to this world-view is the genetic pathway, originally modelled in conjunction with the enzymatic transformations of inter- mediary metabolism 14 . The extension of the analogy beyond metabolism made its debut in phage morphogenesis 15 , in which it repre- sented the sequential assembly of a phage par- ticle. In more contemporary studies, it has been further adapted to represent several kinds of processes, including pattern forma- tion 16 and cell-fate determination 17 . It has even been stretched to apply to morpho- genetic events 18 and, in behavioural studies, to phases in memory consolidation 19 . The aspiration of this approach, based again on the phage morphogenesis work, is saturation mutagenesis for variants that ?specifically? affect the phenotype in question. Sadly, this might have been applicable only to phage morphogenesis. We now know that the postulated, albeit wrongly, that antibodies could adapt to the shape of an antigen or that enzymes were constantly changing in their substrate specificity. In the realm of gene action, there was the recognition that genes were versatile. Certain mutations clearly affected many different aspects of the phenotype of the organism and were thus categorized as pleiotropic 8,9 . Their existence did not run counter to the pre- vailing ideology. All these ideas were quickly put aside with the advent of molecular biology and the realization that ?sequence is destiny?. The search then began for specifically dedicated molecules and genes. The expectation of finding specificity was so strong that pleiotropy was sufficient grounds for dis- missing the importance of a gene 10 . The first signs of trouble came with the attempts to identify all the genetic steps in a develop- mental pathway. In analyses of the vulva in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans and the compound eye in Drosophila, it became clear that whereas a few genes were indeed specific to a pathway, many other equally crucial ones were not. In some cases, these other genes, more ubiquitous in their action, were already known as mutants that affect different developmental events, such as the Notch gene in Drosophila,or were known as homologues of mammalian cellu- lar oncogenes, such as Ras. The mutant phe- notypes of these genes alone were not very informative, but their involvement was revealed through interactions with genes that were already implicated in vulva or eye development. Pleiotropy could not be ignored. Mutations of neural development and of behaviour have always been particularly sub- ject to downgrading if found to be pleiotrop- ic 10 . But most of the interesting mutants ini- tially described as specific have ultimately had their true pleiotropic nature revealed 10,11 (TABLE 1). As a result, we have been forced into treating the subject more seriously. It might well turn out that pleiotropy is intrinsically important to the genetic construction of behaviour and that it follows from the funda- mental network nature of gene interactions and of the nervous system. Too many genes ?Too many notes.? Joseph II?s comment upon hearing Mozart?s The Abduction from the Seraglio. ?There are just as many notes, ? neither more nor less, as are required.? Mozart?s reply. Amadeus by Peter Schaffer 12 Phenotypic scor e Expected a + + b Observed a + + b Figure 1 | Genetic epistasis. Interactions among a set of genes can be sensitively measured by constructing trans-heterozygotes between mutant alleles a and b (that is, by generating an individual of genotype a+/+ b) of different loci and then scoring them for quantitative phenotypes, such as behavioural scores. (Quantitative traits are influenced by a large number of genes, often of small individual effect.) An interaction is deemed to be significant if the observed score deviates statistically from the expected score. Expected scores are calculated on the basis of a measure of the average interactivity of each allele (?general combining activity? 29 ) with all of the others. � 2001 Macmillan Magazines Ltd PERSPECTIVES capacity to produce the same result by differ- ent strategies, in contrast to a redundant sys- tem in which the same result is produced by the same strategy. The technical term for this kind of system is ?degeneracy? 34 , most familiar in reference to the genetic code, but more recently expanded to describe a fundamental property of biological systems in the context of nervous system function and developmen- tal biology 34?36 . When an element is knocked out in such a system, adjustments are made, the system takes on a different configuration, and alternative solutions can be used (FIG. 2b). sensitive to variations in the genetic back- ground ? the natural, genetic heterogeneity in laboratory stocks (also referred to as ?mod- ifiers?). Not only do experiments need to be conducted such that mutants and controls are on the same background, but also mutant phenotypes will often fade over time as the result of unintended selection for such modi- fiers. The dependence of mutant phenotypes on the strain background has been well doc- umented for learning mutants in the mouse 23 . The spontaneous disappearance of mutant phenotypes in long-term cultures, well known at the level of folklore, has been reported for mutations that affect learning and mushroom body development in the fly 24 . It is presumed to be the result of sponta- neous selection for modifying alleles that are present in the population. The sensitivity to genetic background is a special case of the more general observation that mild genetic differences can produce large phenotypic effects on behaviour 25,26 . Such extreme sensi- tivity to subtle genetic variation, and the ubiquitous presence of the requisite varia- tion, argues strongly against any sort of linear pathway model for the action of genes on behaviour. It is unlikely that the variation needed to cause ?background effects? would be found so often if only a narrow set of ded- icated genes could interact with each other. Apart from sensitivity to the background, gene interactivity in behaviour also shows up in conventional suppressor screens 27 : in tests of double mutants in which each one has a pronounced effect on its own 28 ; and in more sensitive tests, between mutants that are too mild to exert much effect on their own (known as epistasis). The latter tests for epistatic interactions are perhaps the most important for the current discussion because they rely on quantitative phenotypes and so can reveal subtle interactions (FIG. 1). Such gene interactivity has been shown for a set of recessive olfactory mutants 29 . Because the mutants were isolated indepen- dently of each other, and thus were not selected for interactions (as they would have been in a suppressor screen), there was no a priori expectation that they should show a high level of interactivity, but they did. These characteristics imply a highly interconnected, highly interactive system ? a network rather than a pathway. Is behaviour an extreme case of such inter- activity? It is certainly not the only phenotype to show subtle effects in such tests. A set of randomly generated, transposable P-element insertions in Drosophila produced significant epistatic effects on metabolic enzyme activi- ties 30 . In this case, the phenotype tested was not the criterion on which the strains were chosen (that is, at random). Nonetheless, most combinations affected the measured enzyme activities. The high degree of interac- tivity shown between genes that are chosen at random argues even more forcefully for a wide-ranging, highly interconnected system. Where behaviour might be exceptional is in the sensitivity of the macroscopic pheno- type to these subtle perturbations. As a result, even mild genetic variants might not be silent. This is nothing other than the same sensitivity to genetic background described earlier for behavioural mutations. The only difference is that here the experimenter is cre- ating the background differences such that the modifiers are defined loci. E pluribus pauca Characterization of the gene system as a network helps to explain some of the phe- nomena discussed above: the non-pathway- like relationship between elements, the syn- ergistic interactions between so many elements, and the great sensitivity to genetic background. This network of genes, in turn, must operate through the networks of cellu- lar machinery and anatomy in the nervous system to influence behaviour 31 . Filtration through successive networks provides greater potential for interactivity and synergy. Networks do not function in the same way as pathways. Network elements can take on new roles as conditions change. They are more versatile, less narrowly determined. In such a system, the same output can be produced in various ways. This property, particularly when discussed in the context of knockout muta- tions with no apparent effect, has often been called redundancy 32 . But the compensation that occurs in a network after removal of ele- ments is not redundancy. Redundancy implies substitution of identical elements to preserve the same overall structure, as well as the same outcome. And there are certainly occasional cases of actual substitution that involve dupli- cated genes 33 . A more general mechanism, however, lies in the potential for biological net- works to respond with broader adjustments. Sometimes this preserves the initial outcome (that is,?no phenotype? 25 ), other times it pro- duces a new outcome. Either way, the system recruits available elements and makes changes. The pleiotropy of so many genes, and the access to the range of gene functions that it confers, contributes to this recruiting ability. These systems characteristically have many non-identical elements (for example, genes) that are highly interconnected, but with non- uniform patterns of connectivity (FIG. 2a). This type of connectivity gives the elements the NATURE REVIEWS | GENETICS VOLUME 2 | MAY 2001 | 385 Output Z b Knockout Preserved interaction Interaction not preserved Reversed sign of interaction New interaction X a Positive interaction Negative interaction Output Z Figure 2 | Gene network interactions. Interactions in (a) a hypothetical gene network, and in (b) the same network with one gene knocked out. When one element of the system is changed (?knocked out?), the rest of the system changes in response. In this instance, the output (Z) is unchanged, illustrating the phenomenon of degeneracy. Under different conditions, the output might be different, producing a mutant phenotype in some cases, or a new emergent property in others. ?Positive? and ?negative? refer to whether a phenotype improves or degrades as a result of the interaction. ?Reversed sign? refers to a change in the direction of effect in that interaction. � 2001 Macmillan Magazines Ltd 386 | MAY 2001 | VOLUME 2 www.nature.com/reviews/genetics PERSPECTIVES ties. When these changes are not subtle, as in knockout mutants, the system-wide respons- es are likely to be great. The responses might be masked by the success of the system in using alternate strategies to preserve the out- put, but the mechanism used to achieve that outcome is nonetheless different. This cre- ates interpretive difficulties in analysing null mutations, recalling those previously encountered in interpreting brain lesions 44 . When a system is highly interactive, func- tions that are missing after a lesion cannot be accurately assigned to the missing element in any restrictive or exclusive sense. Reference must also be made to how the rest of the sys- tem has changed in response. It might serve us better to treat network events as aggre- gate, system-wide phenomena (system states) rather than as individual events or isolable pathways. Isaac Newton might have liked the neat view of biological systems made up of dedi- cated components, with causal roles that can be studied in isolation, and in which particular starting conditions give rise to uniquely predictable responses. Charles Darwin, by contrast, might have felt more at home with the idea of a complex, emergent system made up of many non-identical components, with non-exclusive roles, non- exclusive relationships, several ways of pro- ducing any given output, and a great deal of slop along the way. We have been Newtonians for the past several decades in our thinking about gene action. It is time to become Darwinians. Ralph J. Greenspan is at The Neurosciences Institute, 10,640 John Jay Hopkins Drive, San Diego, California 92121, USA. e-mail: greenspan@nsi.edu Links DATABASE LINKS Notch | Ras | dunce | latheo | optomotor-blind | no-action-potential | no-receptor-potential-A ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIFE SCIENCES Morgan, Thomas Hunt 1. Allen, G. E. Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Man and His Science (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1978). 2. Kohler, R. E. Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life (Chicago Univ. Press, Chicago, 1994). 3. Lawrence, P. Science or alchemy? Nature Rev. Genet. 2, 139?142 (2001). 4. Judson, J. F. The Eighth Day of Creation (Simon & Schuster, New York, 1979). 5. Jennings, H. S. Behavior of the Lower Organisms (Indiana Univ. Press, Bloomington, 1906). 6. Goldschmidt, R. Physiological Genetics (McGraw?Hill, New York, 1938). 7. Weiss, P. in Analysis of Development (eds Willier, B., Weiss, P. & Hamburger, V.) 346?401 (W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1955). 8. Morgan, T. H. Genetics and Embryology (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1934). 9. Wright, T. R. F. The genetics of embryogenesis in Drosophila. Adv. Genet. 15, 261?395 (1970). 10. Hall, J. C. in Flexibility and Constraint in Behavioral The relationships that have been defined as pathways are no doubt real, but they need not be invariant. Their relationships are embedded in broader and more plastic net- works that can be reconfigured depending on the immediate circumstances. Their ability to do this will be a function of the available components and their pleiotropy, as well as of the external conditions around the cell and its past history. Some parts of the system will no doubt show greater flexibility than others. Multicellularity also increases plasticity in the responses of a system. If interactions are available between cells that are them- selves non-identical, then the reservoir of possible adjustments and combinations increases exponentially. The degree of responsiveness to perturbation seen in a yeast cell is amplified many times over in a metazoan with many cell types and organ systems, each of which is dynamic in its own right. When the complexity of the nervous system is added into the equation, the potential emerges for new capabilities in response to genetic changes. The science of genetics was founded on the premise that genes are stable and separable 42 . This principle does not preclude the ability of the entire gene system ? the genome ? from showing flexibility and versatility as a funda- mental aspect of its operation. Newton might not have liked Darwin If the orderly steps of the pathway analogy no longer present a viable picture, and if instead we must come to grips with a more diverse, interconnected and non-exclusive view of biological mechanisms, then certain assump- tions must be let go. One of these is that every gene (and, implicitly, every protein) has evolved to fulfil some particular function ? sometimes referred to as the ?Panglossian par- adigm? 43 . The widespread finding of pleiotropy militates against this view, as does the ability of biological networks to reconfig- ure and improvise many strategies towards the same end. Nor is such a view commensu- rate with the randomness and messiness of evolution. There are neither ?too many notes? nor are there ?just as many notes, neither more nor less, as are required.? Evolution has found a third way. An assumption borrowed from physics that also falls by the wayside is that we can treat subsets of any system in isolation and still preserve its essential, invariant proper- ties. The high degree of interactivity as revealed, for example, in tests of epistasis and in global monitoring of gene and protein expression, indicates that even subtle changes to such a system can alter its proper- Network adjustments occur even after rela- tively mild perturbations. This has already been indicated by the sensitivity of genetic tests for epistasis 29,30 (FIG. 1), and has been reaffirmed in the global monitoring of gene and protein expression. Changes in nutritional state pro- duce widespread changes in gene expression and protein populations in yeast 37,38 , as do viable knockout mutations in the mouse 39 and even subtle, hypomorphic mutations in the fly (J. Minden and R.J.G., unpublished observa- tions). A previous characterization of redun- dancy as ?investigator inadequacy? 10 is consis- tent with the current discussion. If the system is not actually functioning in the same way, then a diligent investigator can reveal that fact through appropriate perturbations. ?Robust?,?buffered? and ?emergent? are epi- thets frequently applied to biological net- works, which reflect the ability of these net- works to survive perturbations 40,41 . Feedback loops and back-up pathways have been invoked to account for these properties. Feedback loops are generally quite local in their effects, unlike the more wide-ranging gene interactions that have been detected 29,30 . Back-up pathways are even more problemat- ic, requiring selection both for the specific pathways and also for their back-up path- ways. This, in turn, requires a degree of evolu- tionary directedness and specificity 32 that is hard to reconcile with what we know about the imprecision of evolution. A more flexible and fluid view of the relationships among these signalling and regulatory systems (for example, FIG. 2) allows for the same net result without invoking a predetermined mecha- nism for it. The malleability and versatility of gene networks and their ability to ?find new solutions? when constituents are changed, help to account for the properties of robust- ness, buffering and emergence. ?The science of genetics was founded on the premise that genes are stable and separable. This principle does not preclude the ability of the entire gene system ? the genome ? from showing flexibility and versatility as a fundamental aspect of its operation.? � 2001 Macmillan Magazines Ltd PERSPECTIVES optic lobe development: isolation and characterization of the gene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 89, 1199?1203 (1992). 52. Kopp, A. & Duncan, I. Control of cell fate and polarity in the adult abdominal segments of Drosophila by optomotor-blind. Development 124, 3715?3726 (1997). 53. Wu, C.-F., Ganetzky, B., Jan, L. Y., Jan, Y.-N. & Benzer, S. A Drosophila mutant with a temperature-sensitive block in nerve conduction. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 75, 4047?4051 (1978). 54. Lee, C. G., Chang, K. A., Kuroda, M. I. & Hurwitz, J. The NTPase/helicase activities of Drosophila maleless, an essential factor in dosage compensation. EMBO J. 16, 2671?2681 (1997). 55. Kernan, M. J., Kuroda, M. I., Kreber, R., Baker, B. S. & Ganetzky, G. nap ts , a mutation affecting sodium channel activity in Drosophila, is an allele of mle, a regulator of X chromosome transcription. Cell 66, 949?959 (1991). 56. Pak, W. L., Grossfield, W. J. & Arnold, K. S. Mutants of the visual pathway of Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 227, 518?520 (1970). 57. Bloomquist, B. T. et al. Isolation of a putative phospholipase C gene of Drosophila, norpA, and its role in phototransduction. Cell 54, 723?733 (1988). 58. Dushay, M. S., Rosbash, M. & Hall, J. C. The disconnected visual system mutations in Drosophila melanogaster drastically disrupt circadian rhythms. J. Biol. Rhythms 4, 1?27 (1989). 59. Riesgo-Escovar, J., Raha, D. & Carlson, J. R. Requirement for a phospholipase C in odor response: overlap between olfaction and vision in Drosophila. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 92, 2864?2868 (1995). Acknowledgements Helpful comments on the manuscript were provided by C. Deutsch, G. Edelman, J. Gally, J. Hall and F. Jones, for which I am very grate- ful. I thank K. McCarthy for assistance with Latin grammar. Systems (eds Greenspan, R. J. & Kyriacou, C. P.) 15?28 (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994). 11. Pflugfelder, G. O. Genetic lesions in Drosophila behavioural mutants. Behav. Brain Res. 95, 3?15 (1998). 12. Shaffer, P. Amadeus (Harper & Row, New York, 1980). 13. Lawrence, P. A. The Making of a Fly (Blackwell Science, Oxford, 1992). 14. Beadle, G. W. & Tatum, E. L. Genetic control of biochemical reactions in Neurospora. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 27, 499?506 (1941). 15. Wood, W. B. & Edgar, R. S. Building a bacterial virus. Sci. Am. 217, 60?74 (1967). 16. Nusslein-Volhard, C., Frohnhofer, H. G. & Lehmann, R. Determination of anteroposterior polarity in Drosophila. Science 238, 1675?1681 (1987). 17. Jan, Y. N. & Jan, L. Y. Genetic control of cell fate specification in Drosophila peripheral nervous system. Annu. Rev. Genet. 28, 373?393 (1994). 18. Leptin, M. Gastrulation in Drosophila: the logic and the cellular mechanisms. EMBO J. 18, 3187?3192 (1999). 19. Tully, T., Preat, T., Boynton, S. C. & Del Vecchio, M. Genetic dissection of consolidated memory in Drosophila. Cell 79, 35?47 (1994). 20. Simon, M. A., Botwell, D. L., Dodson, G. S., Laverty, T. R. & Rubin, G. M. Ras1 and a putative guanine nucleotide exchange factor perform crucial steps in signalling by the sevenless protein tyrosine kinase. Cell 67, 701?716 (1991). 21. O?Kane, C. & Gehring, W. J. Detection in situ of genomic regulatory elements in Drosophila. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 84, 9123?9127 (1987). 22. Rorth, P. A modular misexpression screen in Drosophila detecting tissue-specific phenotypes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 12418?12422 (1996). 23. Gerlai, R. Gene-targeting studies of mammalian behavior: is it the mutation or the background genotype? Trends Neurosci. 19, 177?181 (1996). 24. de Belle, J. S. & Heisenberg, M. Expression of Drosophila mushroom body mutations in alternative genetic backgrounds: a case study of the mushroom body miniature gene (mbm). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 9875?9880 (1996). 25. Osborne, K. A. et al. Natural behavior polymorphism due to a cGMP-dependent protein kinase of Drosophila. Science 277, 834?836 (1997). 26. Greenspan, R. J. A kinder, gentler genetic analysis of behavior: dissection gives way to modulation. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 7, 805?811 (1997). 27. Pereira, H. S., Macdonald, D. E., Hilliker, A. J. & Sokolowski, M. B. Chaser (Csr), a new gene affecting larval foraging behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 141, 263?270 (1995). 28. Griffith, L. C., Wang, J., Zhong, Y., Wu, C. F. & Greenspan, R. J. Calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II and potassium channel subunit eag similarly affect plasticity in Drosophila. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 91, 10044?10048 (1994). 29. Fedorowicz, G. M., Fry, J. D., Anholt, R. R. & Mackay, T. F. Epistatic interactions between smell-impaired loci in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 148, 1885?1891 (1998). 30. Clark, A. G. & Wang, L. Epistasis in measured genotypes: Drosophila P-element insertions. Genetics 147, 157?163 (1997). 31. Greenspan, R. J. & Tully, T. in Flexibility and Constraint in Behavioral Systems (eds Greenspan, R. J. & Kyriacou, C. P.) 65?80 (Dahlem Konferenzen, Berlin, 1994). 32. Cooke, J., Nowak, M. A., Boerlijst, M. & Maynard-Smith, J. Evolutionary origins and maintenance of redundant gene expression during metazoan development. Trends Genet. 13, 360?362 (1997). 33. Misawa, H. et al. Contrasting localizations of MALS/LIN- 7 PDZ proteins in brain and molecular compensation in knockout mice. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 8264?9272 (2001). 34. Tononi, G., Sporns, O. & Edelman, G. M. Measures of degeneracy and redundancy in biological networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 3257?3262 (1999). 35. Edelman, G. M. in The Mindful Brain (eds Edelman, G. M. & Mountcastle, V. B.) 51?100 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978). 36. Edelman, G. M. Topobiology (Basic Books, New York, 1989). 37. Wodicka, L., Dong, H., Mittmann, M., Ho, M.-H. & Lockhart, D. J. Genome-wide expression monitoring in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature Biotechnol. 15, 1359?1367 (1997). 38. Futcher, B., Latter, G. I., Monardo, P., McLaughlin, C. S. & Garrels, J. I. A sampling of the yeast proteome. Mol. Cell Biol. 19, 7357?7368 (1999). 39. Livesey, F. J., Furukawa, T., Steffen, M. A., Church, G. M. & Cepko, C. L. Microarray analysis of the transcriptional network controlled by the photoreceptor homeobox gene Crx. Curr. Biol. 10, 301?310 (2000). 40. Barkai, N & Leibler, S. Robustness in simple biochemical networks. Nature 387, 913?917 (1997). 41. Bhalla, U. S. & Iyengar, R. Emergent properties of networks of biological signaling pathways. Science 283, 381?387 (1999). 42. Harwood, J. Styles of Scientific Thought: The German Genetics Community 1900?1933 (Chicago Univ. Press, Chicago, 1993). 43. Gould, S. J. & Lewontin, R. C. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205, 581?598 (1979). 44. Farah, M. J. Neuropsychological inference with an interactive brain: a critique of the ?locality? assumption. Behav. Brain Sci. 17, 43?61 (1994). 45. Dudai, Y., Jan, Y.-N., Byers, D., Quinn, W. G. & Benzer, S. dunce, a mutant of Drosophila deficient in learning. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 73, 1684?1688 (1976). 46. Byers, D., Davis, R. L. & Kiger, J. A. Jr Defect in cyclic AMP phosphodiesterase due to the dunce mutation of learning in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 289, 79?81 (1981). 47. Bellen, H. J., Gregory, B. K., Olsson, C. L. & Kiger, J. A. Jr Two Drosophila learning mutants, dunce and rutabaga, provide evidence of a maternal role for cAMP in embryogenesis. Dev. Biol. 121, 432?444 (1987). 48. Boynton, S. & Tully, T. latheo, a new gene involved in associative learning and memory in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 131, 655?672 (1992). 49. Pinto, S. et al. latheo encodes a subunit of the origin recognition complex and disrupts neuronal proliferation and adult olfactory memory when mutant. Neuron 23, 45?54 (1999). 50. Heisenberg, M., Wonneberger, R. & Wolf, R. optomotor- blind H31 ? a Drosophila mutant of the lobula plate giant neurons. J. Comp. Physiol. A 124, 287?296 (1978). 51. Pflugfelder, G. O. et al. The lethal(1)optomotor-blind gene of Drosophila melanogaster is a major organizer of NATURE REVIEWS | GENETICS VOLUME 2 | MAY 2001 | 387 Predicting adaptive evolution Robin M. Bush OPINION Phylogenetic trees reconstruct past evolution and can provide evidence of past evolutionary pressure on genes and on individual codons. In addition to tracing past evolutionary events, molecular phylogenetics might also be used to predict future evolution. Our ability to verify adaptive hypotheses using phylogenetics has broad implications for vaccine design, genomics and structural biology. It is well documented that some genes evolve more quickly than others; for instance, in the human species, certain his- tone genes are highly conserved, whereas immunoglobulin loci are extremely poly- morphic 1 . A lack of genetic variation might indicate the occurrence of purifying selec- tion ? a force that preserves the adapted condition and that is therefore typically observed in functionally important genes. By contrast, extensive variation in genes indicates that the encoded protein might benefit from undergoing amino-acid replacements. Such positive selection has been recently observed in genes that have an adaptive function. Until now, it has been difficult to link the patterns of molecular variation to the selective pressures responsi- ble for them. However, in some systems, notably in viral species, sufficient sequence data now exist to test adaptive hypotheses directly using phylogenetic analysis. Phylogenetic trees are a graphic means of reconstructing evolution on the basis of similarity between the characters of the individuals under study; the length of a hor- izontal branch on the tree reflects the amount of change between an individual and its nearest ancestor (BOX 1). Evolutionary pressure on a gene or codon can be detected by comparing the rates of synonymous (silent) and non-synonymous (amino-acid changing, or non-silent) nucleotide substi- tutions across the branches of a tree. In the absence of selection, the synonymous and non-synonymous substitution rates should be equal (FIG. 1a). Most coding genes show an � 2001 Macmillan Magazines Ltd "
Add Content to Group
|
Bookmark
|
Keywords
|
Flag Inappropriate
share
Close
Digg
Facebook
MySpace
Google+
Comments
Close
Please Post Your Comment
*
The Comment you have entered exceeds the maximum length.
Submit
|
Cancel
*
Required
Comments
Please Post Your Comment
No comments yet.
Save Note
Note
View
Public
Private
Friends & Groups
Friends
Groups
Save
|
Cancel
|
Delete
Please provide your notes.
Next
|
Prev
|
Close
|
Edit
|
Delete
Genetics
Gene Inheritance and Transmission
Gene Expression and Regulation
Nucleic Acid Structure and Function
Chromosomes and Cytogenetics
Evolutionary Genetics
Population and Quantitative Genetics
Genomics
Genes and Disease
Genetics and Society
Cell Biology
Cell Origins and Metabolism
Proteins and Gene Expression
Subcellular Compartments
Cell Communication
Cell Cycle and Cell Division
Scientific Communication
Career Planning
Loading ...
Scitable Chat
Register
|
Sign In
Visual Browse
Close
Comments
CloseComments
Please Post Your Comment