Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology

Accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations in mitochondrial protein-coding genes of large versus small mammals

Konstantin Popadin, Leonard V. Polishchuk, Leila Mamirova, Dmitry Knorre, and Konstantin Gunbin
PNAS August 14, 2007 104 (33) 13390-13395; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701256104
Konstantin Popadin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Leonard V. Polishchuk
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Leila Mamirova
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dmitry Knorre
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Konstantin Gunbin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by Tomoko Ohta, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Japan, and approved June 19, 2007 (received for review February 13, 2007)

View Full Text
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

After the effective size of a population, Ne , declines, some slightly deleterious amino acid replacements which were initially suppressed by purifying selection become effectively neutral and can reach fixation. Here we investigate this phenomenon for a set of all 13 mitochondrial protein-coding genes from 110 mammalian species. By using body mass as a proxy for Ne , we show that large mammals (i.e., those with low Ne ) as compared with small ones (in our sample these are, on average, 369.5 kg and 275 g, respectively) have a 43% higher rate of accumulation of nonsynonymous nucleotide substitutions relative to synonymous substitutions, and an 8–40% higher rate of accumulation of radical amino acid substitutions relative to conservative substitutions, depending on the type of amino acid classification. These higher rates result in a 6% greater amino acid dissimilarity between modern species and their most recent reconstructed ancestors in large versus small mammals. Because nonsynonymous substitutions are likely to be more harmful than synonymous substitutions, and radical amino acid substitutions are likely to be more harmful than conservative ones, our results suggest that large mammals experience less efficient purifying selection than small mammals. Furthermore, because in the course of mammalian evolution body size tends to increase and, consequently, Ne tends to decline, evolution of mammals toward large body size may involve accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations in mitochondrial protein-coding genes, which may contribute to decline or extinction of large mammals.

  • body mass
  • effective population size
  • substitution rates
  • purifying selection
  • body size-dependent extinction

Natural selection is more efficient in large populations. In a population of effective size Ne , mutations with selection coefficient s such that |s| < 1/Ne are effectively neutral, in the sense that their dynamics are affected mostly by random drift (1, 2). Effectively neutral nucleotide substitutions, both slightly deleterious and slightly beneficial, play a major role in evolution at the molecular level (3). Provided that the distribution of selection coefficient is independent of Ne , the fraction of mutations which are effectively neutral must be higher in populations with smaller Ne . Because selection is mostly purifying, in species with low Ne a larger fraction of slightly deleterious mutations can reach fixation.

Purifying selection affects nonsynonymous substitutions much stronger than synonymous substitutions (4–6). Indeed, when the ratio of the rate of nonsynonymous (amino acid changing) substitutions over the rate of synonymous (silent) substitutions, Ka /Ks , is <1, it is indicative of purifying selection on nonsynonymous substitutions and reflects its strength: the closer the Ka /Ks to 1, the weaker is the purifying selection (3). Another measure of the strength of purifying selection is the ratio of the rate of radical (presumably more harmful) over the rate of conservative (less harmful) amino acid substitutions, Kr /Kc (7, 8). Furthermore, because species with reduced population sizes experience less efficient purifying selection, they are expected to accumulate more deleterious mutations and thus to show a greater amino acid dissimilarity to its most recent ancestor. One measure of such dissimilarity is Grantham's distance (9), which is often used in the context of protein comparisons (10).

In this study, we analyze six molecular traits: Ka /Ks , four Kr /Kc ratios under various types of amino acid classification (based on volume, charge, polarity, and both polarity and volume), and Grantham's distance, all of which characterize, in a variety of ways, the efficiency of purifying selection. Our hypothesis is that at least some of these traits would increase with decreasing Ne , as a response to less efficient purifying selection in small populations. To test this hypothesis, we take advantage of an extensive set of complete mammalian mitochondrial genomes not available in the previous studies (8, 11–15). The choice of mitochondrial genome is motivated by its having a low effective population size due to uniparental inheritance, effective haploidy, and the absence of recombination. In addition, the probability of fixation of a slightly deleterious mutation with a given selection coefficient is so structured that it is particularly sensitive to changes in Ne when Ne is low (16). These features make the mitochondrial genome particularly suitable to study the rate of deleterious-mutation accumulation in relation to Ne (17, 18), although recurrent events of positive selection in mitochondrial DNA, as may be the case in invertebrates (19) but less likely in mammals (20), may hamper this dependence.

Because for most mammalian species no direct estimates of Ne are presently available, we use body mass W as a proxy for Ne , based on the nearly universal inverse relationship between body mass and population size (21–24). Thus, this study aims to determine the rate of accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations (expressed through Ka /Ks and Kr /Kc ) and the resulting amino acid dissimilarity between modern species and their most recent reconstructed ancestors (measured as Grantham's distance) in large versus small-bodied mammals and, by implication, in small versus large populations.

Results

Average Values of Nonsynonymous to Synonymous Nucleotide Substitutions, Ka/Ks , and of Radical to Conservative Amino Acid Substitutions, Kr/Kc .

All species-specific values of Ka /Ks are well below 1 (typically 0.03–0.06, Table 1). These values indicate that most nonsynonymous substitutions (at least 94–97%) produced by mutation process are subject to purifying selection and thus are deleterious. The majority of our Kr /Kc values are also <1, and none is considerably larger than 1 (Table 1), which indicates stronger purifying selection against radical substitutions.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Averages, standard errors, and parameters of ordinary linear and mixed-effects regressions on loge body mass along with associated P values for each trait under study

Comparison of Large Versus Small Mammals.

We divided the whole sample into two groups, 55 species each, with small mammals having ln W < 9.04 and large mammals having ln W > 9.04, where 9.04 (or ≈8,400 g) is the median of loge transformed body mass W (in grams).

Three substitution rate ratios (Ka /Ks , polarity-based Kr /Kc , and volume-based Kr /Kc ) are found to be smaller in small than in large mammals, polarity–volume-based Kr /Kc is marginally significantly smaller (P = 0.07), and charge-based Kr /Kc shows no significant difference at a 5% significance level (t test, Fig. 1 A–E).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Comparison of averages of six molecular traits for 55 small (ln W < 9.04) and 55 large (ln W > 9.04) mammals where 9.04 is the median of loge transformed body mass W (in grams). (A) Ka /Ks , P < 0.001. (B) Polarity-based Kr /Kc , P < 0.001. (C) Volume-based Kr /Kc , P < 0.001. (D) Polarity–volume-based Kr /Kc , P = 0.069. (E) Charge-based Kr /Kc , P = 0.20. (F) Grantham distance, P < 0.001 (t test). Small squares represent mean; rectangles are ±1 SE; and whiskers are 0.95 confidence interval.

Ordinary Linear Models.

In terms of ordinary linear regressions, all of the rates of nonsynonymous over synonymous, and of radical over conservative, substitutions show a statistically significant (at a 5% level) positive relationship with body mass (Table 1), albeit with considerable scatter (r 2 = 0.16, 0.28, 0.32, 0.06, and 0.07 for Fig. 2 A–E, respectively). Although such a scatter implies the influence of multiple factors on the traits under study, the increasing trend with increasing body mass is clearly corroborated.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

The ordinary linear regressions of molecular traits on loge body mass W for 110 mammalian species. (A) Ka /Ks . (B) Polarity-based Kr /Kc . (C) Volume-based Kr /Kc . (D) Polarity–volume-based Kr /Kc . (E) Charge-based Kr /Kc . (F) Grantham distance. For regression parameters see Table 1.

Data Nonindependence and Mixed-Effects Models.

The linear mixed-effects models, which account for nonindependence of the individual-species data due to the effect of shared ancestry, differ only slightly from the ordinary linear models in terms of slopes and intercepts, except for the slope of charge-based Kr /Kc (Table 1). However, mixed-effects models all show larger P, indicating that taking species nonindependence into account makes the relationships of molecular traits on body mass generally less reliable than implied by ordinary regressions (Table 1). This result is probably because of a lower number of the effective degrees of freedom left after accounting for nonindependence. A bigger discrepancy in terms of statistical significance occurs for charge-based Kr /Kc and for polarity–volume-based Kr /Kc , which yield significant, at a 5% level, relationships with body mass based on ordinary models but either nonsignificant (charge-based Kr /Kc ) or marginally significant (polarity–volume-based Kr /Kc ) relationships with body mass based on mixed-effects models (Table 1). All of the other relationships are significant according to either type of models.

The Relative Efficiency of Purifying Selection.

As a measure of the relative efficiency of purifying selection in large versus small mammals, we compared Ka /Ks and Kr /Kc ratios for different-sized animals. The loge body mass for a typical small mammal is taken to be 5.62 (which corresponds to 275 g) and that for a typical large mammal to be 12.82 (which corresponds to 369,500 g), these values being the averages of loge body mass over 55 smaller and 55 larger species in our sample. Ka /Ks is found to be ≈43% higher in large than in small mammals, whereas Kr /Kc is 8–40% higher, depending on the type of amino acid classification used (Table 2). These estimates are very similar for ordinary linear and mixed-effects models (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Ratios of nonsynonymous to synonymous (Ka /Ks ) and of radical to conservative (Kr /Kc ) substitution rates, and amino acid dissimilarity between modern species and their most recent reconstructed ancestors measured in terms of Grantham's distance for large versus small mammals

The Amino Acid Dissimilarity Between Modern Species and Their Most Recent Reconstructed Ancestors in Large Versus Small Mammals.

Because, as shown above, purifying selection acts on most amino acid changing substitutions versus silent substitutions and is less efficient in large than in small species, we expect that large mammals, as compared with small ones, accumulate more harmful mutations and thus evolve farther away from their most recent ancestors. The Grantham distance supports this prediction: it is larger in large animals in terms of averages (Fig. 1 F), ordinary linear models (Fig. 2 F), and mixed-effects models (Table 1). Quantitatively, the amino acid dissimilarity between modern and ancestral sequences is 6% greater in large than in small mammals (Table 2).

Discussion

Most of our analyses show that mitochondrial protein-coding genes of large mammals have a higher rate of accumulation of nonsynonymous substitutions relative to synonymous substitutions and, among nonsynonymous substitutions, a higher rate of accumulation of radical substitutions relative to conservative substitutions. Because nonsynonymous substitutions must be more harmful than synonymous substitutions, and radical amino acid substitutions must be more harmful than conservative ones, this implies that large mammals experience less efficient purifying selection than small mammals. Consequently, large mammals appear to accept more harmful mutations, leading to a higher level of amino acid dissimilarity between modern species and their most recent reconstructed ancestors, as observed in this study.

Charge-based Kr /Kc is the only molecular trait that does not significantly differ in large versus small mammals both in terms of averages and mixed-effects models (although it does differ on the basis of ordinary linear models.) To understand this finding, we note that among four Kr /Kc ratios, the charge-based Kr /Kc has the lowest average (Table 1), which indicates a strong purifying selection against changes in amino acid charge for the proteins under study. The selection coefficient s < 0 is then so large by absolute value that not only small mammals (with high Ne ) but also large mammals (with low Ne ) experience strong purifying selection, s < −1/Ne,large mammals < −1/Ne,small mammals , and get rid of such mutations. In contrast, purifying selection against changes in amino acid polarity and volume is relatively weak (corresponding Kr /Kc values are the largest, Table 1), and selection coefficient is intermediate in the sense that it falls in an effectively neutral zone for large mammals but beyond it for small mammals, i.e., −1/Ne,large mammals < s < −1/Ne,small mammals . Consequently, radical substitutions in regard to these traits are fixed in large species as if conservative (note that for large mammals polarity-based Kr /Kc and volume-based Kr /Kc lie almost precisely at 1; Fig. 1 B and C), but tend to be eliminated in small species. The slightly deleterious mutations with such an intermediate s will accumulate predominantly in large mammals.

Only slightly deleterious mutations that are fixed in populations are considered in the previous paragraph. However, in this paper we are dealing not only with mutations that are fixed in populations and thus associated with interspecific divergence, but also with mutations that are not fixed and thus associated with the amount of intraspecific polymorphism, because our Ka /Ks and other molecular traits represent external-branch estimates to which both components of genetic variation contribute. Ka /Ks representing internal-branch estimates to which only fixed mutations would contribute are of little interest here because body mass on internal nodes is unavailable. The problem with these two classes of mutations is that polymorphism often dominates fixed mutations (25–28) but it is only the latter that are thought to have a long-term evolutionary effect (e.g., ref. 29). Our data do not allow us to distinguish between these classes, so the question arises whether our Ka /Ks and other molecular traits reflect the behavior of either, or perhaps both, of them. Clearly, both classes are closely interrelated because currently fixed mutations were part of the past polymorphism, and the current polymorphism may harbor mutations that will become fixed in the future. Moreover, it seems likely that both classes will change in the same direction: as long as body mass increases, the effective population size tends to decrease, which results in an elevated fixation probability and in enhanced polymorphism due to less efficient purifying selection against deleterious mutations in small populations (2). Because less efficient selection drives both components of genetic variation, they go in the same direction, so that fixed mutations will most likely show the same positive trend with increasing body mass as Ka /Ks does. This reasoning suggests an accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations in large mammals, which might incur a threat to species persistence.

Indirectly, we can assess the impact of polymorphic mutations on Ka /Ks by computing the product S = s N e from our estimates of Ka /Ks . This assessment can be done through the well known equation for the probability of fixation of a new mutation (2, 16). Assuming that silent sites evolve neutrally, the ratio of the fixation probability for a mutation with selection coefficient s ≠ 0 to the fixation probability for a neutral mutation with s = 0 can be equated with Ka /Ks ratio (30) Embedded Image

By using function uniroot in R package (31), we computed S from Eq. 1 for every of 110 mammalian species. All of the values of S turn out to be negative, which once again (see Results) is indicative of the preponderance of purifying selection. They lie in a rather narrow range from −2.97 to −1.69, with mean S being −2.38 (SE = 0.03, n = 110). Clearly, our estimates of |S| > 1 reflect the effect of polymorphic mutations on Ka /Ks , with some of them being deleterious with |s| > 1/Ne . This effect, however, does not seem to be too strong because the estimates of |S| are closer to the lower boundary of the range for |S|, 1 < |S| < 10, characteristic for polymorphic mutations (2, 25, 32). This allows for the effect of fixed mutations on Ka /Ks to appear, and is another reason why Ka /Ks would follow the behavior of fixed mutations with regard to body mass.

Mitochondrial genes are highly predisposed to mutation accumulation. Because mitochondria have a low effective population size, molecular evolution of mitochondrial DNA genes should be associated with a high rate of accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations as compared with nuclear genes (17). The absence of recombination can additionally increase the rate of degradation of mitochondrial DNA due to Muller's ratchet (33). A number of comparative-species studies have corroborated these theoretical expectations (34, 35). It is less clear whether a higher rate of deterioration of mitochondrial genes can actually lead to a faster rate of extinction (36), but recent research (37) lends support to this possibility.

The contrast between small and large modern mammals examined in this study can be turned to the past and thus viewed from a long-term evolutionary perspective by taking into account the general evolutionary trend toward larger body size, known as Cope's rule. Although there are some exceptions, this trend is common among mammals (38, 39); suffice it to mention, by way of example, that their ancestral forms were small, shrew-sized creatures (40), whereas modern mammals include such giants as blue whales and African elephants. We suggest, on the basis of present findings, that evolution of mammals toward large body size is accompanied by increasing width of the selective sieve (manifested by increased Ka /Ks and other molecular traits, and caused by less efficient purifying selection; see ref. 36), which leads to the deterioration of mitochondrially encoded proteins, and may contribute to decline or extinction of large species. Two additional lines of evidence are in favor of this hypothesis. First, many theoretical studies (41–43) conclude that small populations (that is, those typical of large-bodied species) can go extinct because of accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations and resulting mutational meltdown (42, 44). Second, large animals (45), including mammals (46–48), are more prone to extinction. However, additional analyses are needed to evaluate directly the role of less efficient purifying selection in elevated extinction risks in large mammals.

Materials and Methods

Source Data and Initial Treatment.

The fully sequenced mitochondrial genomes from all of the 138 mammalian species available at early summer 2005 were downloaded from the National Center for Biotechnology Information database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/ORGANELLES/animalabout.html, downloaded June 5, 2005). All 13 protein-coding mitochondrial genes were extracted from each genome and translated into amino acid sequences. Alignments of the amino acid sequences for each gene were performed by using Clustal X (49) with default settings and then reverse transcribed to get nucleotide alignments. The aligned 13 amino acids and 13 corresponding nucleotide sequences without stop codons were concatenated into a single amino acid and a single nucleotide sequence for each species. The concatenated amino acid sequences were used to reconstruct a mammalian phylogenetic tree by using PHYML (50). The concatenated nucleotide sequences were used to analyze the pattern of nucleotide substitutions.

Ratio of Nonsynonymous to Synonymous Nucleotide Substitutions (Ka/Ks ).

The ratio of the rates of nonsynonymous over synonymous substitutions (Ka /Ks ) was estimated for each branch of the mammalian phylogenetic tree by using the program codeml from PAML package (51). Because an independent estimate of Ka /Ks for each branch of the whole tree would have taken too much time, the tree was divided into 11 monophyletic (52) subtrees, each of which was treated separately. 16 species with an uncertain position on the whole tree (i.e., with a low bootstrap value) were omitted from further analyses. The 122 remaining species were distributed over 11 groups (subtrees) as follows: Afrotheria (13 species), Artiodactyla (9 species), Carnivora (12 species), Cetacea (22 species), Chiroptera (8 species), core insectivores (hedgehogs, shrews, and moles) (6 species), Rodentia (7 species), Lagomorpha (4 species), Metatheria (19 species), Perissodactyla (5 species), and Primates and Dermoptera (17 species). For each subtree, two evolutionary models were implemented: model 0 with Ka /Ks held constant over the whole subtree and model 1 with free Ka /Ks estimated separately for each branch (the models' designation as in PAML). Model 1 was run twice: under transition/transversion parameter [k in Kimura's notation (53)] set at 3 across all subtrees (8), and under transition/transversion parameter estimated for each subtree individually. Only Ka /Ks values associated with external branches were used to describe relationships with species body mass.

Ratio of Radical to Conservative Amino Acid Substitutions (Kr/Kc ).

The ratio of the rates of radical over conservative substitutions (Kr /Kc ) was estimated by comparison of the nucleotide sequences of modern animals with the nucleotide sequences of their most recent reconstructed ancestors through Zhang's algorithm (7). The ancestral nucleotide sequences were reconstructed by using the method implemented by Yang et al. (54) in PAML. Because Kr and Kc values were small enough (<0.3), the Jukes–Cantor formula was used to correct for multiple hits; that is, our Kr /Kc ratio is identical to dR /dC ratio in Zhang's notation (7).

The 20 amino acids were classified into groups in four different ways according to their volume (55), charge, polarity, and both polarity and volume (7). Amino acid substitutions within groups (i.e., when ancestral and modern amino acids in homologous sites belong to the same group) were regarded as conservative, and those between groups as radical.

Comparison of Evolutionary Models.

Our analyses of alternative evolutionary models (free, branch-specific Ka /Ks values versus constant Ka /Ks across all branches of a subtree and the transition/transversion parameter k specific to each subtree versus k fixed at 3 across all subtrees) provide reason to compute Ka /Ks and Kr /Kc on the basis of branch-specific Ka /Ks values (that is, through PAML model 1) and subtree-specific estimates of k [see A Check for Alternative Parameter Estimates in supporting information (SI) Text for more detail]. The Ka /Ks and Kr /Kc obtained in this manner are used throughout this paper.

In total, 110 of 122 mammal species were each characterized by Ka /Ks and Kr /Kc values. Twelve species were deleted from further analyses because of too few (<20) nonsynonymous substitutions per 13 protein-coding genes, having occurred since the most recent ancestor.

Average Grantham Distance.

To measure amino acid dissimilarity, we computed an average physicochemical distance between modern species and their most recent reconstructed ancestors. The distance between each ancestral (if substituted) and descendant amino acid was taken from Grantham's matrix (9), and averaged over all pairs of substitutions for a given external branch.

Body Mass.

The body mass of adult individuals for the majority of analyzed species was obtained from a database compiled by Smith et al. (56). In the case of different body masses for the same species on different continents being reported, body mass was averaged. A few missing data were taken from other sources. All of the data are available upon request.

Statistical Treatment.

A number of statistical analyses were performed. First, we compared the average values of the investigated molecular traits which belong to small versus large mammals (with body mass below and above the median, respectively). Then we performed the ordinary linear regressions of molecular traits on body mass. However, the characters we are dealing with may not be independent among species due to the effect of phylogenetic inertia, which might compromise comparative-species analyses (57, 58). The standard way around this problem is a method of phylogenetically independent contrasts (59). It is based on a Brownian motion model of character evolution, which assumes that increases and decreases in the character of interest are equally likely, so that the character's average does not change over time (60). Changes in body mass may not always agree with the Brownian motion model, because according to Cope's rule, which is justified for mammals (38, 39), body mass tends to increase over evolutionary time, and thus exhibits a largely directional change. There are more complex evolutionary models, which allow for a directional shift in character evolution and are used in the context of phylogenetically independent contrasts (61). A bigger problem is that molecular traits such as branch-specific Ka /Ks are already contrasts (because they are based on a sequence difference between two nodes of the branch), whereas phenotypic traits such as body mass are of course not contrasts and possess some phylogenetic inertia. Furthermore, if we were to try to associate Ka /Ks with contrasts based on body mass we would find them to be incongruent: the former are due to differences between the present and the past (present and past nucleotide sequences), whereas the latter are due to differences pertinent entirely to the present (that is, to modern species). These considerations seem to preclude a simultaneous use of molecular and body-mass traits in an analysis of phylogenetically independent contrasts.

To control for the effect of data nonindependence, we carried out a regression analysis using the linear mixed-effects model, which does not require an a priori model of character evolution, nor does it rely on contrasts. Instead, it explicitly takes into account a hierarchical (nested), and therefore correlated, structure of comparative-species data (ref. 62 and J. Fox, personal communication). This method has been widely used in social and medical sciences (see ref. 63 for review) and recently in comparative-species research (64, 65). Here, it was implemented using function lme in nlme package (66) of R language (31). Our data are nested into the following levels: species within genera within families within orders. We used a mixed-effect model which included both random intercept and random slope.

Check for Saturation Effect.

An additional check for saturation effect was performed. After omitting species which tipped the relatively long branches of ≥1 nucleotide substitution per codon, and examining the remaining data set (n = 89), the pattern of the relationships between molecular traits and body mass remains largely unchanged (see A Check for Saturation Effect in SI Text ).

Acknowledgments

We thank Alexey Kondrashov for comments and many important suggestions, and Vladimir Aleshin, Shamil Sunyaev, Egor Bazykin, Alexey Ghilarov, Fydor Kondrashov, Dmitrii Filatov, and Nikolai Muge for helpful discussions. Special thanks go to Jianzhi Zhang for discussion of Kr /Kc estimation, Tomoko Ohta for discussion of the effectively neutral theory, and an anonymous referee for very stimulating comments and ideas. This research was supported by the Presidium RAS Program “Origin and Evolution of Biosphere,” by Russian Foundation for Basic Research Grants 07-04-00521 and 07-04-00343, and by the Russian Academy of Sciences “Molecular and Cellular Biology” Program. L. M. was partially supported by Howard Hughes Medical Institute Grant 55005610 and INTAS Grant 05-1000008-8028.

Footnotes

  • †To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: konstantinpopadin{at}gmail.com or leonard_polishchuk{at}hotmail.com
  • Author contributions: K.P. and L.V.P. designed research; K.P. and L.M. performed research; L.V.P., D.K., and K.G. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; K.P. and L.V.P. analyzed data; and K.P., L.V.P., and L.M. wrote the paper.

  • ↵ ‡Present address: Institute for Information Transmission Problems RAS, Bolshoi Karetny pereulok 19, Moscow 127994, Russia.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0701256104/DC1.

  • © 2007 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA

References

  1. ↵
    1. Wright S
    (1931) Genetics 16:97–159.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Kimura M
    (1983) The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, U.K.).
  3. ↵
    1. Ohta T
    (1992) Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:263–286.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Mamirova L ,
    2. Popadin K ,
    3. Gelfand MS
    (2007) BMC Evol Biol 7:17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Paland S ,
    2. Lynch M
    (2006) Science 311:990–992.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Bachtrog D
    (2005) Genome Res 15:1393–1401.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Zhang J
    (2000) J Mol Evol 50:56–68.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Eyre-Walker A ,
    2. Keightley PD ,
    3. Smith NGS ,
    4. Gaffney D
    (2002) Mol Biol Evol 19:2142–2149.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Grantham R
    (1974) Science 185:862–864.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Yampolsky LY ,
    2. Kondrashov FA ,
    3. Kondrashov AS
    (2006) Hum Mol Genet 14:3191–3201.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. Li W-H ,
    2. Tanimura M ,
    3. Sharp PM
    (1987) J Mol Evol 25:330–342.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Ohta T
    (1993) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:4548–4551.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Ohta T
    (1995) J Mol Evol 40:56–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Weinreich DM
    (2001) J Mol Evol 52:40–50.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Woolfit M ,
    2. Bromham L
    (2005) Proc R Soc London Ser B 272:2277–2282.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Kimura M
    (1962) Genetics 47:713–719.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Cortopassi GA
    (2002) Free Radical Biol Med 33:605–610.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Ballard JWO ,
    2. Whitlock MC
    (2004) Mol Ecol 13:729–744.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Bazin E ,
    2. Glémin S ,
    3. Galtier N
    (2006) Science 312:570–572.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Mulligan CJ ,
    2. Kitchen A ,
    3. Miyamoto MM
    (2006) Science 314:1390.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Ghilarov MS
    (1944) Rep Acad Sci USSR 43:283–285.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Damuth J
    (1981) Nature 290:699–700.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    1. Damuth J
    (1987) Biol J Linn Soc 31:193–246.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Peters RH
    (1983) The Ecological Implications of Body Size (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, U.K.).
  25. ↵
    1. Nachman MW
    (1998) Genetica 102/103:61–69.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. ↵
    1. Nielsen R ,
    2. Weinreich DM
    (1999) Genetics 153:497–506.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Hasegawa M ,
    2. Cao Y ,
    3. Yang Z
    (1998) Mol Biol Evol 15:1499–1505.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Gerber AS ,
    2. Loggins R ,
    3. Kumar S ,
    4. Dowling TE
    (2001) Annu Rev Genet 35:539–566.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Petrov DA
    (2001) Trends Genet 17:23–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Nielsen R ,
    2. Yang Z
    (2003) Mol Biol Evol 20:1231–1239.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. R Development Core Team
    (2005) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
  32. ↵
    1. Eyre-Walker A ,
    2. Woolfit M ,
    3. Phelps T
    (2006) Genetics 173:891–900.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Hoekstra R
    (2000) Hum Reprod 15(Suppl 2):102–111.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Lynch M
    (1996) Evolution (Lawrence, Kans.) 13:209–220.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Lynch M
    (1997) Evolution (Lawrence, Kans.) 14:914–925.
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Lynch M ,
    2. Blanchard JL
    (1998) Genetica 102/103:29–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. ↵
    1. Loewe L
    (2006) Genet Res 87:133–159.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Alroy J
    (1998) Science 280:731–734.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Van Valkenburgh B ,
    2. Wang X ,
    3. Damuth J
    (2004) Science 306:101–104.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Carroll RL
    (1987) Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution (Freeman, New York).
  41. ↵
    1. Lande R
    (1994) Evolution (Lawrence, Kans.) 48:1460–1469.
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. Lynch M ,
    2. Burger R ,
    3. Butcher D ,
    4. Gabriel W
    (1993) J Hered 84:339–344.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Kondrashov A
    (1995) J Theor Biol 175:583–594.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Gabriel W ,
    2. Lynch M ,
    3. Bürger R
    (1993) Evolution (Lawrence, Kans.) 47:1744–1757.
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    1. McKinney ML
    (1997) Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:495–516.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. ↵
    1. Purvis A ,
    2. Gittleman JL ,
    3. Cowlishaw G ,
    4. Mace GM
    (2000) Proc R Soc London Ser B 267:1947–1952.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Polishchuk LV
    (2002) Science 297:1123.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Cardillo M ,
    2. Mace GM ,
    3. Jones KE ,
    4. Bielby J ,
    5. Bininda-Emonds ORP ,
    6. Sechrest W ,
    7. Orme CDL ,
    8. Purvis A
    (2005) Science 309:1239–1241.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Thompson JD ,
    2. Gibson TJ ,
    3. Plewniak F ,
    4. Jeanmougin F ,
    5. Higgins DG
    (1997) Nucleic Acids Res 25:4876–4882.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Guinden S ,
    2. Gascuel O
    (2003) Syst Biol 52:696–704.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Yang ZH
    (1997) Comput Appl Biosci 13:555–556.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Murphy JW ,
    2. Eizirik E ,
    3. Johnson WE ,
    4. Zhang YP ,
    5. Ryder OA ,
    6. O'Brien SJ
    (2001) Nature 409:614–618.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Kimura M
    (1980) J Mol Evol 16:111–120.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Yang Z ,
    2. Goldman N ,
    3. Friday AE
    (1995) Syst Biol 44:384–399.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  55. ↵
    1. Taylor WR
    (1986) J Theor Biol 119:205–218.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Smith FA ,
    2. Lyons SK ,
    3. Ernest SKM ,
    4. Jones KE ,
    5. Kauffman DM ,
    6. Dayan T ,
    7. Marquet PA ,
    8. Brown JH ,
    9. Haskell JP
    (2003) Ecology 84:3403.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. ↵
    1. Harvey DO ,
    2. Pagel MD
    (1991) The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford).
  58. ↵
    1. Fisher DO ,
    2. Owens IPF
    (2004) Trends Ecol Evol 19:391–398.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Felsenstein J
    (1985) Am Nat 125:1–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. ↵
    1. Ives AR ,
    2. Zhu J
    (2006) Ecol Appl 16:20–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Diaz-Uriarte R ,
    2. Garland T
    (1996) Syst Biol 45:27–47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. ↵
    1. Pinheiro JC ,
    2. Bates DM
    (2000) Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS (Springer, New York).
  63. ↵
    1. Hedeker D
    1. Everitt B ,
    2. Howell D
    (2005) in Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, eds Everitt B , Howell D (Wiley, Chichester, U.K.) pp 729–738.
  64. ↵
    1. Blackburn TM ,
    2. Duncan RP
    (2001) Nature 414:195–197.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Brook BW ,
    2. Traill LW ,
    3. Bradshaw CJA
    (2006) Ecol Lett 9:375–382.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Pinheiro J ,
    2. Bates D ,
    3. DebRoy S ,
    4. Sarkar D
    (2005) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) R package version 3.1-60.
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations in mitochondrial protein-coding genes of large versus small mammals
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
Citation Tools
Accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations in mitochondrial protein-coding genes of large versus small mammals
Konstantin Popadin, Leonard V. Polishchuk, Leila Mamirova, Dmitry Knorre, Konstantin Gunbin
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2007, 104 (33) 13390-13395; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0701256104

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations in mitochondrial protein-coding genes of large versus small mammals
Konstantin Popadin, Leonard V. Polishchuk, Leila Mamirova, Dmitry Knorre, Konstantin Gunbin
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2007, 104 (33) 13390-13395; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0701256104
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

More Articles of This Classification

Biological Sciences

  • On the deformability of an empirical fitness landscape by microbial evolution
  • Single-molecule DNA-mapping and whole-genome sequencing of individual cells
  • Multistability of model and real dryland ecosystems through spatial self-organization
Show more

Evolution

  • On the deformability of an empirical fitness landscape by microbial evolution
  • Genomic responses to selection for tame/aggressive behaviors in the silver fox (Vulpes vulpes)
  • Whole-genome comparison of endogenous retrovirus segregation across wild and domestic host species populations
Show more

Related Content

  • No related articles found.
  • Scopus
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited by...

  • Slightly deleterious genomic variants and transcriptome perturbations in Down syndrome embryonic selection
  • Significance of Population Size on the Fixation of Nonsynonymous Mutations in Genes Under Varying Levels of Selection Pressure
  • Weak Selection and Protein Evolution
  • The genome as a life-history character: why rate of molecular evolution varies between mammal species
  • Contrasting GC-content dynamics across 33 mammalian genomes: Relationship with life-history traits and chromosome sizes
  • Adaptive evolution of energy metabolism genes and the origin of flight in bats
  • Gene Genealogies Strongly Distorted by Weakly Interfering Mutations in Constant Environments
  • The smallest avian genomes are found in hummingbirds
  • Relaxation of selective constraints on avian mitochondrial DNA following the degeneration of flight ability
  • Signature of Diversifying Selection on Members of the Pentatricopeptide Repeat Protein Family in Arabidopsis lyrata
  • Higher origination and extinction rates in larger mammals
  • Patterns of Molecular Evolution in Caenorhabditis Preclude Ancient Origins of Selfing
  • Life-history traits drive the evolutionary rates of mammalian coding and noncoding genomic elements
  • Scopus (97)
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

You May Also be Interested in

Robert Reed explains genetic controls on butterfly wing colors.
Paintbrush for butterfly wings
Robert Reed explains genetic controls on butterfly wing colors.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Better understanding how the truffles reproduce has major implications for farmers, chefs, and foodies enamored with the expensive, pungent fungus. Image courtesy of Shutterstock/Vitalina Rybakova.
Inner Workings: The mysterious parentage of the coveted black truffle
Better understanding how the truffles reproduce has major implications for farmers, chefs, and foodies enamored with the expensive, pungent fungus.
Image courtesy of Shutterstock/Vitalina Rybakova.
PNAS QnAs with NAS foreign associate and metabolic engineer Sang Yup Lee
PNAS QnAs
PNAS QnAs with NAS foreign associate and metabolic engineer Sang Yup Lee
Researchers report a species of early bird with a combination of bird-like and dinosaur-like bone morphologies, and the structure of the bird’s shoulder girdle highlights the role of developmental plasticity in the early evolution of birds, according to the authors.
Dinosaur-like forms in early bird shoulders
Researchers report a species of early bird with a combination of bird-like and dinosaur-like bone morphologies, and the structure of the bird’s shoulder girdle highlights the role of developmental plasticity in the early evolution of birds, according to the authors.
Honey bee. Image courtesy of Vivian Abagiu (The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX).
Effect of glyphosate on honey bee gut
A study suggests that the herbicide glyphosate disrupts bee gut microbiota, increasing bees’ susceptibility to pathogens, and that glyphosate’s effects may contribute to the largely unexplained increase in honey bee colony mortality.
Image courtesy of Vivian Abagiu (The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX).
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 115 (41)
Current Issue

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Materials and Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Teaching Resources
  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science

Information

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Site Map

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2018 National Academy of Sciences.