Bias in the introduction of variation as an orienting factor in evolution

SUMMARY According to New Synthesis doctrine, the direction of evolution is determined by selection and not by “internal causes” that act by way of propensities of variation. This doctrine rests on the theoretical claim that because mutation rates are small in comparison to selection coefficients, mutation is powerless to overcome opposing selection. Using a simple population‐genetic model, this claim is shown to depend on assuming the prior availability of variation, so that mutation may act only as a “pressure” on the frequencies of existing alleles, and not as the evolutionary process that introduces novelty. As shown here, mutational bias in the introduction of novelty can strongly influence the course of evolution, even when mutation rates are small in comparison to selection coefficients. Recognizing this mode of causation provides a distinct mechanistic basis for an “internalist” approach to determining the contribution of mutational and developmental factors to evolutionary phenomena such as homoplasy, parallelism, and directionality.

[1]  W. E. Ritter AS TO THE CAUSES OF EVOLUTION. , 1923, Science.

[2]  R. Punnett,et al.  The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection , 1930, Nature.

[3]  J. Haldane,et al.  The Part Played by Recurrent Mutation in Evolution , 1933, The American Naturalist.

[4]  R. Gates Processes of Organic Evolution , 1937, Nature.

[5]  J. Huxley Evolution: The Modern Synthesis , 1943 .

[6]  S. Benzer,et al.  ON THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE GENETIC FINE STRUCTURE. , 1961, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  G. A. Horridge,et al.  Animal species and evolution. , 1964 .

[8]  池田 勝彦 産業構造の evolutionary analysis , 1965 .

[9]  C. Yanofsky,et al.  Altered base ratios in the DNA of an Escherichia coli mutator strain. , 1967, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  F J Ayala,et al.  Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis Necessary? , 1981, Science.

[11]  George V. Lauder,et al.  Form and function: structural analysis in evolutionary morphology , 1981, Paleobiology.

[12]  Wilfried W. de Jong,et al.  Causes of more frequent deletions than insertions in mutations and protein evolution , 1981, Nature.

[13]  John Tyler Bonner,et al.  Evolution and Development , 1998 .

[14]  K. Thomson The meaning of evolution. , 1982, American scientist.

[15]  M. Kimura The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution: Introduction , 1983 .

[16]  M. Nei,et al.  Extent of protein polymosphism and the neutral mutation theory , 1984 .

[17]  R. Ben-Shlomo,et al.  The Evolutionary Significance of Genetic Diversity: Ecological, Demographic and Life History Correlates , 1984 .

[18]  E. Vrba,et al.  Individuals, hierarchies and processes: towards a more complete evolutionary theory , 1984, Paleobiology.

[19]  Joe C. Campbell,et al.  Developmental Constraints and Evolution: A Perspective from the Mountain Lake Conference on Development and Evolution , 1985, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[20]  P. Alberch,et al.  A DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AN EVOLUTIONARY TREND: DIGITAL REDUCTION IN AMPHIBIANS , 1985, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[21]  T. J. Breen,et al.  Biostatistical Analysis (2nd ed.). , 1986 .

[22]  G. B. Golding Nonrandom Patterns of Mutation are Reflected in Evolutionary Divergence and May Cause Some of the Unusual Patterns Observed in Sequences , 1987 .

[23]  N. Sueoka Directional mutation pressure and neutral molecular evolution. , 1988, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  P. Bowler The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth, Peter J. Bowler. 1988. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 238 pages. ISBN: 0-8018-3678-6. $27.50 , 1989 .

[25]  Wen-Hsiung Li,et al.  Mutation rates differ among regions of the mammalian genome , 1989, Nature.

[26]  J. Gillespie The causes of molecular evolution , 1991 .

[27]  R. Schaaper,et al.  Spontaneous mutation in the Escherichia coli lacI gene. , 1991, Genetics.

[28]  B. Matthews,et al.  Response of a protein structure to cavity-creating mutations and its relation to the hydrophobic effect. , 1992, Science.

[29]  Response to Walter bock , 1994 .

[30]  B. Goodwin How the Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity , 1995 .

[31]  E. Mary Response to John Beatty , 1994 .

[32]  H. A. Orr,et al.  Dobzhansky, Bateson, and the genetics of speciation. , 1996, Genetics.

[33]  R. Raff,et al.  Resynthesizing evolutionary and developmental biology. , 1996, Developmental biology.

[34]  J. Bull,et al.  Exceptional convergent evolution in a virus. , 1997, Genetics.

[35]  Douglas H. Erwin,et al.  The Origin of Animal Body Plans , 1997 .

[36]  William T. Arthur,et al.  The Origin of Animal Body Plans: A Study in Evolutionary Developmental Biology , 1997 .

[37]  T. Papenfuss,et al.  Replication slippage may cause parallel evolution in the secondary structures of mitochondrial transfer RNAs. , 1997, Molecular biology and evolution.

[38]  L. Jermiin,et al.  Nucleotide Composition Bias Affects Amino Acid Content in Proteins Coded by Animal Mitochondria , 1997, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[39]  T. Kunkel,et al.  Base Miscoding and Strand Misalignment Errors by Mutator Klenow Polymerases with Amino Acid Substitutions at Tyrosine 766 in the O Helix of the Fingers Subdomain* , 1997, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[40]  J. Bull,et al.  Parallel molecular evolution of deletions and nonsense mutations in bacteriophage T7. , 1997, Molecular biology and evolution.

[41]  O. Berg,et al.  Codon bias in Escherichia coli: the influence of codon context on mutation and selection. , 1997, Nucleic acids research.

[42]  J. Gerhart,et al.  Cells, Embryos and Evolution , 1997 .

[43]  D. Levin,et al.  Genetic and phenotypic correlations in plants: a botanical test of Cheverud's conjecture , 1998, Heredity.

[44]  K. Wetterstrand,et al.  The mutation rates of di-, tri- and tetranucleotide repeats in Drosophila melanogaster. , 1998, Molecular biology and evolution.

[45]  M Krawczak,et al.  Neighboring-nucleotide effects on the rates of germ-line single-base-pair substitution in human genes. , 1998, American journal of human genetics.

[46]  J. Drake,et al.  Rates of spontaneous mutation. , 1998, Genetics.

[47]  A. Stoltzfus On the Possibility of Constructive Neutral Evolution , 1999, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[48]  A. Eyre-Walker,et al.  Evidence of selection on silent site base composition in mammals: potential implications for the evolution of isochores and junk DNA. , 1999, Genetics.

[49]  J. Bull,et al.  Different trajectories of parallel evolution during viral adaptation. , 1999, Science.

[50]  D. Petrov,et al.  Evidence for DNA loss as a determinant of genome size. , 2000, Science.

[51]  A Grigoriev,et al.  Mutations induced by bacteriophage T7 RNA polymerase and their effects on the composition of the T7 genome. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[52]  C. Gautier,et al.  Compositional bias in DNA. , 2000, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[53]  B. Matthews,et al.  The introduction of strain and its effects on the structure and stability of T4 lysozyme. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[54]  T. Jukes,et al.  The neutral theory of molecular evolution. , 2000, Genetics.

[55]  G. Singer,et al.  Nucleotide bias causes a genomewide bias in the amino acid composition of proteins. , 2000, Molecular biology and evolution.

[56]  Thomas R. Meagher,et al.  Evolution, Science and Society: Evolutionary Biology and the National Research Agenda. , 2001 .