Abstract

One of the long-standing mysteries of evolutionary genomics is the source of the wide phylogenetic diversity in genome nucleotide composition (G + C versus A + T), which must be a consequence of interspecific differences in mutation bias, the efficiency of selection for different nucleotides or a combination of the two. We demonstrate that although genomic G + C composition is strongly driven by mutation bias, it is also substantially modified by direct selection and/or as a by-product of biased gene conversion. Moreover, G + C composition at fourfold redundant sites is consistently elevated above the neutral expectation—more so than for any other class of sites.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Sueoka, N. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 48, 582–592 (1962).

  2. 2.

    Gu, X., Hewett-Emmett, D. & Li, W. H. Genetica 102–103, 383–391 (1998).

  3. 3.

    Chen, S. L., Lee, W., Hottes, A. K., Shapiro, L. & McAdams, H. H. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 3480–3485 (2004).

  4. 4.

    Lynch, M. The Origin of Genome Architecture. Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, 2007.

  5. 5.

    Rocha, E. P. C. & Feil, E. J. PLoS Genet. 6, e1001104 (2010).

  6. 6.

    Hershberg, R. & Petrov, D. A. PLoS Genet. 6, e1001115 (2010).

  7. 7.

    Hildebrand, F., Meyer, A. & Eyre-Walker, A. PLoS Genet. 6, e1001107 (2010).

  8. 8.

    Lynch, M. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 961–968 (2010).

  9. 9.

    Lynch, M. et al. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 704–714 (2016).

  10. 10.

    Li, W. H. J. Mol. Evol. 24, 337–345 (1987).

  11. 11.

    Bulmer, M. Genetics 129, 897–907 (1991).

  12. 12.

    McVean, G. A. T. & Charlesworth, B. Genet. Res. 74, 145–158 (1999).

  13. 13.

    Raghavan, R., Kelkar, Y. D. & Ochman, H. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 14504–14507 (2012).

  14. 14.

    Kelkar, Y. D., Phillips, D. S. & Ochman, H. G3 5, 1247–1252 (2015).

  15. 15.

    Marais, G., Mouchiroud, D. & Duret, L. Genet. Res. 81, 79–87 (2003).

  16. 16.

    Mancera, E., Bourgon, R., Brozzi, A., Huber, W. & Steinmetz, L. M. Nature 454, 479–485 (2008).

  17. 17.

    Galtier, N., Duret, L., Glemin, S. & Ranwez, V. Trends Genet. 25, 1–5 (2009).

  18. 18.

    Pessia, E. et al. Genome Biol. Evol. 4, 675–682 (2012).

  19. 19.

    Williams, A. L. et al. eLife 4, e04637 (2015).

  20. 20.

    Mugal, C. F., Weber, C. C. & Ellegren, H. Bioessays 37, 1317–1326 (2015).

  21. 21.

    Lassalle, F. et al. PLoS. Genet. 11, e1004941 (2015).

  22. 22.

    Lynch, M. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 18851–18856 (2012).

  23. 23.

    Long, H. et al. Genome Biol. Evol. 8, 3815–3821 (2016).

  24. 24.

    McKenna, A. et al. Genome Res. 20, 1297–1303 (2010).

  25. 25.

    DePristo, M. A. et al. Nat. Genet. 43, 491–498 (2011).

  26. 26.

    Van der Auwera, G. A. et al. Curr. Protoc. Bioinformatics 43, 11.10.1–33 (2013).

  27. 27.

    Thorvaldsdottir, H., Robinson, J. T. & Mesirov, J. P. Brief. Bioinform. 14, 178–192 (2013).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Support was provided by the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative awards W911NF-09-1-0444 and W911NF-14-1-0411 from the US Army Research Office to M.L., National Institutes of Health awards R01-GM036827 and R35-GM122566 to M.L., National Natural Science Foundation of China 31741071 to H.L., R01-GM51986 and R35-GM122556 to Y.V.B., F32-GM083581 to D.T.K. and National Science Foundation grant DOB 1442246 to J.T.L. We thank T. G. Doak, P. Keightley, K. Morris, R. Ness, I. Ruiz-Trillo, S. Simpson, W. K. Thomas, A. Uchimura and Z. Ye for providing strains and/or technical help in data acquisition. We thank L. Duret for helpful comments.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Hongan Long, Way Sung and Sibel Kucukyildirim contributed equally to this work.

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Evolution and Marine Biodiversity, KLMME, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China

    • Hongan Long
  2. Department of Bioinformatics and Genomics, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC, USA

    • Way Sung
  3. Department of Biology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

    • Sibel Kucukyildirim
  4. Center for Mechanisms of Evolution, Arizona State University, PO Box 877701, Tempe, AZ, USA

    • Emily Williams
    • , Wanfeng Guo
    •  & Michael Lynch
  5. Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    • Samuel F. Miller
    • , Caitlyn Patterson
    • , Colin Gregory
    • , Chloe Strauss
    • , Casey Stone
    • , Cécile Berne
    • , David Kysela
    • , William R. Shoemaker
    • , Jay T. Lennon
    •  & Yves V. Brun
  6. Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

    • Mario E. Muscarella
  7. School of Life Sciences and Partner State Key Laboratory of Agrobiotechnology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong

    • Haiwei Luo

Authors

  1. Search for Hongan Long in:

  2. Search for Way Sung in:

  3. Search for Sibel Kucukyildirim in:

  4. Search for Emily Williams in:

  5. Search for Samuel F. Miller in:

  6. Search for Wanfeng Guo in:

  7. Search for Caitlyn Patterson in:

  8. Search for Colin Gregory in:

  9. Search for Chloe Strauss in:

  10. Search for Casey Stone in:

  11. Search for Cécile Berne in:

  12. Search for David Kysela in:

  13. Search for William R. Shoemaker in:

  14. Search for Mario E. Muscarella in:

  15. Search for Haiwei Luo in:

  16. Search for Jay T. Lennon in:

  17. Search for Yves V. Brun in:

  18. Search for Michael Lynch in:

Contributions

H.L., W.S., and M.L. conceived and designed the study, performed the data analyses and wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to data collection and provided input to the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Lynch.

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Tables 1–6

    Table 1 shows details of mutation datasets used in this study. Tables 2 and 3 list mutations from 12 microbial organisms that are first reported here. Table 4 shows results of linear regressions involving genome G/C content vs the expectations based on mutation bias. Table 5 gives parameters from regressions of selection coefficients at different genomic sites, as well as those of selection coefficients vs the mutation bias m. Table 6 shows the relationship between expression level and G/C content within 17 organisms.

  2. Life Sciences Reporting Summary

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0425-y

Further reading