A long-term evolutionary pressure on the amount of noncoding DNA.

A significant part of eukaryotic noncoding DNA is viewed as the passive result of mutational processes, such as the proliferation of mobile elements. However, sequences lacking an immediate utility can nonetheless play a major role in the long-term evolvability of a lineage, for instance by promoting genomic rearrangements. They could thus be subject to an indirect selection. Yet, such a long-term effect is difficult to isolate either in vivo or in vitro. Here, by performing in silico experimental evolution, we demonstrate that, under low mutation rates, the indirect selection of variability promotes the accumulation of noncoding sequences: Even in the absence of self-replicating elements and mutational bias, noncoding sequences constituted an important fraction of the evolved genome because the indirectly selected genomes were those that were variable enough to discover beneficial mutations. On the other hand, high mutation rates lead to compact genomes, much like the viral ones, although no selective cost of genome size was applied: The indirectly selected genomes were those that were small enough for the genetic information to be reliably transmitted. Thus, the spontaneous evolution of the amount of noncoding DNA strongly depends on the mutation rate. Our results suggest the existence of an additional pressure on the amount of noncoding DNA, namely the indirect selection of an appropriate trade-off between the fidelity of the transmission of the genetic information and the exploration of the mutational neighborhood. Interestingly, this trade-off resulted robustly in the accumulation of noncoding DNA so that the best individual leaves one offspring without mutation (or only neutral ones) per generation.

[1]  John Maynard Smith,et al.  Models of evolution , 1983, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[2]  Richard Dawkins,et al.  The Evolution of Evolvability , 1987, ALIFE.

[3]  J. David Schaffer,et al.  Proceedings of the third international conference on Genetic algorithms , 1989 .

[4]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  The GENITOR Algorithm and Selection Pressure: Why Rank-Based Allocation of Reproductive Trials is Best , 1989, ICGA.

[5]  J. Drake A constant rate of spontaneous mutation in DNA-based microbes. , 1991, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  J. Brosius,et al.  On "genomenclature": a comprehensive (and respectful) taxonomy for pseudogenes and other "junk DNA". , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  L. Duret,et al.  Strong conservation of non-coding sequences during vertebrates evolution: potential involvement in post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression. , 1993, Nucleic acids research.

[8]  L. Hurst Evolutionary Genetics: The silence of the genes , 1995, Current Biology.

[9]  T. Heidmann,et al.  mRNA retroposition in human cells: processed pseudogene formation. , 1995, The EMBO journal.

[10]  L. Altenberg,et al.  PERSPECTIVE: COMPLEX ADAPTATIONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLVABILITY , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[11]  Annie S. Wu,et al.  A Comparison of the Fixed and Floating Building Block Representation in the Genetic Algorithm , 1996, Evolutionary Computation.

[12]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  A Comparison of Selection Schemes Used in Evolutionary Algorithms , 1996, Evolutionary Computation.

[13]  Annie S. Wu,et al.  Putting More Genetics into Genetic Algorithms , 1998, Evolutionary Computation.

[14]  M. Huynen,et al.  Neutral evolution of mutational robustness. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  A. Smit Interspersed repeats and other mementos of transposable elements in mammalian genomes. , 1999, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[16]  D. Hughes Impact of Homologous Recombination on Genome Organization and Stability , 1999 .

[17]  R. L. Charlebois Organization of the Prokaryotic Genome , 1999 .

[18]  F. Taddei,et al.  Evolution of Evolvability a , 1999 .

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

[20]  R. Plasterk,et al.  The silence of the genes. , 2000, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[21]  L. Chao,et al.  Evolvability of an RNA virus is determined by its mutational neighbourhood , 2000, Nature.

[22]  C. Pál,et al.  The evolution of gene number: are heritable and non-heritable errors equally important? , 2000, Heredity.

[23]  S. P. Fodor,et al.  Evolutionarily conserved sequences on human chromosome 21. , 2001, Genome research.

[24]  N. Moran,et al.  Deletional bias and the evolution of bacterial genomes. , 2001, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[25]  C. Ofria,et al.  Evolution of digital organisms at high mutation rates leads to survival of the flattest , 2001, Nature.

[26]  J. M. Comeron,et al.  What controls the length of noncoding DNA? , 2001, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[27]  Claus O. Wilke,et al.  Adaptive evolution on neutral networks , 2001, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[28]  G Achaz,et al.  Study of intrachromosomal duplications among the eukaryote genomes. , 2001, Molecular biology and evolution.

[29]  C. Wilke SELECTION FOR FITNESS VERSUS SELECTION FOR ROBUSTNESS IN RNA SECONDARY STRUCTURE FOLDING , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[30]  Eric Coissac,et al.  Origin and fate of repeats in bacteria , 2002, Nucleic Acids Res..

[31]  Christoph Adami,et al.  Selective pressures on genomes in molecular evolution , 2003, Journal of theoretical biology.

[32]  E. Rocha An appraisal of the potential for illegitimate recombination in bacterial genomes and its consequences: from duplications to genome reduction. , 2003, Genome research.

[33]  Steven B Cannon,et al.  The roles of segmental and tandem gene duplication in the evolution of large gene families in Arabidopsis thaliana , 2004, BMC Plant Biology.

[34]  D. Haussler,et al.  Article Identification and Characterization of Multi-Species Conserved Sequences , 2022 .

[35]  Jürgen Brosius,et al.  How significant is 98.5% 'junk' in mammalian genomes? , 2003, ECCB.

[36]  M. Lynch,et al.  The Origins of Genome Complexity , 2003, Science.

[37]  D. Haussler,et al.  Ultraconserved Elements in the Human Genome , 2004, Science.

[38]  B. Dujon,et al.  Genome evolution in yeasts , 2004, Nature.

[39]  M. Eigen Selforganization of matter and the evolution of biological macromolecules , 1971, Naturwissenschaften.

[40]  Dee R. Denver,et al.  High mutation rate and predominance of insertions in the Caenorhabditis elegans nuclear genome , 2004, Nature.

[41]  M. G. Kidwell,et al.  Transposable elements and the evolution of genome size in eukaryotes , 2002, Genetica.

[42]  A. Wagner Robustness and Evolvability in Living Systems , 2005 .

[43]  E. Eichler,et al.  Chromosome evolution in eukaryotes: a multi-kingdom perspective. , 2005, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[44]  Shamil Sunyaev,et al.  Evolutionary constraints in conserved nongenic sequences of mammals. , 2005, Genome research.

[45]  Günter P. Wagner,et al.  Complex Adaptations and the Evolution of Evolvability , 2005 .

[46]  P. Andolfatto Adaptive evolution of non-coding DNA in Drosophila , 2005, Nature.

[47]  A. Reymond,et al.  Conserved non-genic sequences — an unexpected feature of mammalian genomes , 2005, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[48]  M. Lynch The origins of eukaryotic gene structure. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[49]  C. Adami Digital genetics: unravelling the genetic basis of evolution , 2006, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[50]  G. Beslon,et al.  Evolutionary coupling between the deleteriousness of gene mutations and the amount of non-coding sequences. , 2007, Journal of theoretical biology.

[51]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  Evolvability , 2009, JACM.