Rates of genome evolution and branching order from whole genome analysis.

Accurate estimation of any phylogeny is important as a framework for evolutionary analysis of form and function at all levels of organization from sequence to whole organism. Using alignments of nonrepetitive components of opossum, human, mouse, rat, and dog genomes we evaluated two alternative tree topologies for eutherian evolution. We show with very high confidence that there is a basal split between rodents (as represented by the mouse and rat) and a branch joining primates (as represented by humans) and carnivores (as represented by dogs), consistent with some but not the most widely accepted mammalian phylogenies. The result was robust to substitution model choice with equivalent inference returned from a spectrum of models ranging from a general time reversible model, a model that treated nucleotides as either purines and pyrimidines, and variants of these that incorporated rate heterogeneity among sites. By determining this particular branching order we are able to show that the rate of molecular evolution is almost identical in rodent and carnivore lineages and that sequences evolve approximately 11%-14% faster in these lineages than in the primate lineage. In addition by applying the chicken as outgroup the analyses suggested that the rate of evolution in all eutherian lineages is approximately 30% slower than in the opossum lineage. This pattern of relative rates is inconsistent with the hypothesis that generation time is an important determinant of substitution rates and, by implication, mutation rates. Possible factors causing rate differences between the lineages include differences in DNA repair and replication enzymology, and shifts in nucleotide pools. Our analysis demonstrates the importance of using multiple sequences from across the genome to estimate phylogeny and relative evolutionary rate in order to reduce the influence of distorting local effects evident even in relatively long sequences.

[1]  S. Easteal,et al.  The pattern of mammalian evolution and the relative rate of molecular evolution. , 1990, Genetics.

[2]  Joseph T. Chang,et al.  Full reconstruction of Markov models on evolutionary trees: identifiability and consistency. , 1996, Mathematical biosciences.

[3]  B S Weir,et al.  Testing for equality of evolutionary rates. , 1992, Genetics.

[4]  S. Carroll,et al.  More genes or more taxa? The relative contribution of gene number and taxon number to phylogenetic accuracy. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.

[5]  Bronwen L. Aken,et al.  Genome of the marsupial Monodelphis domestica reveals innovation in non-coding sequences , 2007, Nature.

[6]  Sudhir Kumar,et al.  Incomplete taxon sampling is not a problem for phylogenetic inference , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  W. Murphy,et al.  Resolution of the Early Placental Mammal Radiation Using Bayesian Phylogenetics , 2001, Science.

[8]  M. Kiefmann,et al.  Retroposed Elements as Archives for the Evolutionary History of Placental Mammals , 2006, PLoS biology.

[9]  S. Nakajima,et al.  Enhanced repair of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and improved UV resistance in photolyase transgenic mice , 2002, The EMBO journal.

[10]  Z. Yang,et al.  How often do wrong models produce better phylogenies? , 1997, Molecular biology and evolution.

[11]  A. Clark,et al.  Local rates of recombination are positively correlated with GC content in the human genome. , 2001, Molecular biology and evolution.

[12]  S. Easteal Rate constancy of globin gene evolution in placental mammals. , 1988, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  S. Easteal,et al.  Generation time and the rate of molecular evolution. , 1985, Molecular biology and evolution.

[14]  D. Penny,et al.  Mammalian evolution: timing and implications from using the LogDeterminant transform for proteins of differing amino acid composition. , 1999, Systematic biology.

[15]  Masatoshi Nei,et al.  Reanalysis of Murphy et al.’s Data Gives Various Mammalian Phylogenies and Suggests Overcredibility of Bayesian Trees , 2003, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[16]  S. Easteal,et al.  How important is DNA replication for mutagenesis? , 2000, Molecular biology and evolution.

[17]  H. Ellegren,et al.  Substitution Rate Heterogeneity and the Male Mutation Bias , 2006, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[18]  R. Hudson,et al.  On the role of unequal exchange in the containment of transposable element copy number. , 1988, Genetical research.

[19]  D. Haussler,et al.  A distal enhancer and an ultraconserved exon are derived from a novel retroposon , 2006, Nature.

[20]  W. Li,et al.  Evidence for higher rates of nucleotide substitution in rodents than in man. , 1985, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  M. Benton,et al.  Early origins of modern birds and mammals: molecules vs. morphology. , 1999, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[22]  E. Martins The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology, Paul H. Harvey, Mark D. Pagel. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1991), vii, + 239 Price $24.95 paperback , 1992 .

[23]  G. Huttley,et al.  Molecular evolution of the Ac/Ds transposable-element family in pearl millet and other grasses. , 1995, Genetics.

[24]  D. Penny,et al.  Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.

[25]  Ziheng Yang Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: Approximate methods , 1994, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[26]  Martin J Lercher,et al.  Gene expression, synteny, and local similarity in human noncoding mutation rates. , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.

[27]  E. Harley,et al.  Housekeeping genes for phylogenetic analysis of eutherian relationships. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[28]  H Kishino,et al.  Appropriate likelihood ratio tests and marginal distributions for evolutionary tree models with constraints on parameters. , 2000, Molecular biology and evolution.

[29]  C. Mathews,et al.  Effects of biological DNA precursor pool asymmetry upon accuracy of DNA replication in vitro. , 2002, Mutation research.

[30]  S. Easteal,et al.  Molecular evidence for the early divergence of placental mammals. , 1999, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[31]  Stephen J Freeland,et al.  A simple model based on mutation and selection explains trends in codon and amino-acid usage and GC composition within and across genomes , 2001, Genome Biology.

[32]  György Abrusán,et al.  The Distribution of L1 and Alu Retroelements in Relation to GC Content on Human Sex Chromosomes Is Consistent with the Ectopic Recombination Model , 2006, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[33]  Yuanqing Wang,et al.  Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs , 2005, Nature.

[34]  E. Lander,et al.  A large family of ancient repeat elements in the human genome is under strong selection. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  M. Hasegawa,et al.  Pegasoferae, an unexpected mammalian clade revealed by tracking ancient retroposon insertions. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  Alexander Isaev,et al.  PyEvolve: a toolkit for statistical modelling of molecular evolution , 2004, BMC Bioinformatics.

[37]  K. Makova,et al.  Mammalian Male Mutation Bias: Impacts of Generation Time and Regional Variation in Substitution Rates , 2006, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[38]  Sudhir Kumar,et al.  Mutation rates in mammalian genomes , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  Terence Hwa,et al.  Substantial Regional Variation in Substitution Rates in the Human Genome: Importance of GC Content, Gene Density, and Telomere-Specific Effects , 2005, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[40]  N. Goldman Simple diagnostic statistical tests of models for DNA substitution , 1993, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[41]  S. Ho,et al.  Tracing the decay of the historical signal in biological sequence data. , 2004, Systematic biology.

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

[43]  P. Hanawalt,et al.  Xeroderma pigmentosum p48 gene enhances global genomic repair and suppresses UV-induced mutagenesis. , 2000, Molecular cell.

[44]  S. Easteal,et al.  A mammalian molecular clock? , 1992, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[45]  Kate E. Jones,et al.  The delayed rise of present-day mammals , 1990, Nature.

[46]  S. Batzoglou,et al.  Characterization of evolutionary rates and constraints in three Mammalian genomes. , 2004, Genome research.

[47]  M S Waterman,et al.  Identification of common molecular subsequences. , 1981, Journal of molecular biology.

[48]  David L. Steffen,et al.  The DNA sequence of the human X chromosome , 2005, Nature.

[49]  K. Olsson,et al.  An ancient retrovirus-like element contains hot spots for SINE insertion. , 2001, Genetics.

[50]  S. Grétarsdóttir,et al.  The Mitochondrial Genome of the Sperm Whale and a New Molecular Reference for Estimating Eutherian Divergence Dates , 2000, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[51]  P. Waddell,et al.  A phylogenetic foundation for comparative mammalian genomics. , 2001, Genome informatics. International Conference on Genome Informatics.

[52]  Chuong B. Do,et al.  Access the most recent version at doi: 10.1101/gr.926603 References , 2003 .

[53]  D Graur,et al.  Towards a molecular resolution of the ordinal phylogeny of the eutherian mammals , 1993, FEBS letters.