Deletional Bias across the Three Domains of Life

Elevated levels of genetic drift are hypothesized to be a dominant factor that influences genome size evolution across all life-forms. However, increased levels of drift appear to be correlated with genome expansion in eukaryotes but with genome contraction in bacteria, suggesting that these two groups of organisms experience vastly different mutational inputs and selective constraints. To determine the contribution of small insertion and deletion events to the differences in genome organization between eukaryotes and prokaryotes, we systematically surveyed 17 taxonomic groups across the three domains of life. Based on over 5,000 indel events in noncoding regions, we found that deletional events outnumbered insertions in all groups examined. The extent of deletional bias, when measured by the total length of insertions to deletions, revealed a marked disparity between eukaryotes and prokaryotes, whereas the ratio was close to one in the three eukaryotic groups examined, deletions outweighed insertions by at least a factor of 10 in most prokaryotes. Moreover, the strength of deletional bias is associated with the proportion of coding regions in prokaryotic genomes. Considering that genetic drift is a stochastic process and does not discriminate the exact nature of mutations, the degree of bias toward deletions provides an explanation to the differential responses of eukaryotes and prokaryotes to elevated levels of drift. Furthermore, deletional bias, rather than natural selection, is the primary mechanism by which the compact gene packing within most prokaryotic genomes is maintained.

[1]  E. Jockusch An evolutionary correlate of genome size change in plethodontid salamanders , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  Hajime Ishikawa,et al.  The 160-Kilobase Genome of the Bacterial Endosymbiont Carsonella , 2006, Science.

[3]  C. Kurland,et al.  Is there a unique ribosome phenotype for naturally occurring Escherichia coli? , 1991, Biochimie.

[4]  Frédéric Partensky,et al.  Accelerated evolution associated with genome reduction in a free-living prokaryote , 2005, Genome Biology.

[5]  Dmitri A Petrov,et al.  Mutational equilibrium model of genome size evolution. , 2002, Theoretical population biology.

[6]  T. Gregory Genome size and developmental complexity , 2002, Genetica.

[7]  A. Danchin,et al.  Organised Genome Dynamics in the Escherichia coli Species Results in Highly Diverse Adaptive Paths , 2009, PLoS genetics.

[8]  Kara Dolinski,et al.  Saccharomyces Genome Database (SGD) provides tools to identify and analyze sequences from Saccharomyces cerevisiae and related sequences from other organisms , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[9]  M. Huynen,et al.  Benchmarking ortholog identification methods using functional genomics data , 2006, Genome Biology.

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

[11]  H. Ochman,et al.  Distribution of chromosome length variation in natural isolates of Escherichia coli. , 1998, Molecular biology and evolution.

[12]  C. Stoeckert,et al.  OrthoMCL: identification of ortholog groups for eukaryotic genomes. , 2003, Genome research.

[13]  H. Ochman,et al.  Psi-Phi: exploring the outer limits of bacterial pseudogenes. , 2004, Genome research.

[14]  D. Petrov,et al.  High rate of DNA loss in the Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila virilis species groups. , 1998, Molecular biology and evolution.

[15]  M. Bennett,et al.  Nuclear DNA content and minimum generation time in herbaceous plants , 1972, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[16]  S. Garcia-Vallvé,et al.  Horizontal gene transfer in bacterial and archaeal complete genomes. , 2000, Genome research.

[17]  J. Specht,et al.  Relationships between nuclear DNA content and seed and leaf size in soybean , 1998, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[18]  D. Petrov,et al.  High intrinsic rate of DNA loss in Drosophila , 1996, Nature.

[19]  Andrew M. Jenkinson,et al.  Ensembl 2009 , 2008, Nucleic Acids Res..

[20]  Dan Graur,et al.  Deletions in processed pseudogenes accumulate faster in rodents than in humans , 1989, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[21]  C. Ball,et al.  Saccharomyces Genome Database. , 2002, Methods in enzymology.

[22]  Geoffrey J. Barton,et al.  Jalview Version 2—a multiple sequence alignment editor and analysis workbench , 2009, Bioinform..

[23]  David Osumi-Sutherland,et al.  FlyBase: enhancing Drosophila Gene Ontology annotations , 2008, Nucleic Acids Res..

[24]  H. Ochman,et al.  The fate of new bacterial genes. , 2009, FEMS microbiology reviews.

[25]  Howard Ochman,et al.  The Emergence and Fate of Horizontally Acquired Genes in Escherichia coli , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[26]  N. Moran,et al.  Genomic changes following host restriction in bacteria. , 2004, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[27]  Jonathan F Wendel,et al.  Polyploidy and Genome Evolution in Plants This Review Comes from a Themed Issue on Genome Studies and Molecular Genetics Edited , 2022 .

[28]  T. Gregory,et al.  Insertion-deletion biases and the evolution of genome size. , 2004, Gene.

[29]  David L. Wheeler,et al.  GenBank , 2015, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[31]  H. Ochman,et al.  Gene decay in archaea. , 2007, Archaea.

[32]  M. Bennett,et al.  VARIATION IN GENOMIC FORM IN PLANTS AND ITS ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS , 2008 .

[33]  International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome , 2004 .

[34]  T. Cavalier-smith,et al.  Skeletal DNA and the evolution of genome size. , 1982, Annual review of biophysics and bioengineering.

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

[36]  B. Birren,et al.  Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2004, Nature.

[37]  M. Noordewier,et al.  Genome Streamlining in a Cosmopolitan Oceanic Bacterium , 2005, Science.

[38]  Matthew R. Pocock,et al.  The Bioperl toolkit: Perl modules for the life sciences. , 2002, Genome research.

[39]  W. Doolittle,et al.  Prokaryotic evolution in light of gene transfer. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

[40]  J. Froula,et al.  Selection against Spurious Promoter Motifs Correlates with Translational Efficiency across Bacteria , 2007, PloS one.

[41]  Robert C. Edgar,et al.  MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. , 2004, Nucleic acids research.

[42]  E. Myers,et al.  Basic local alignment search tool. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[43]  N. Moran,et al.  Evolutionary Origins of Genomic Repertoires in Bacteria , 2005, PLoS biology.

[44]  J. Andersson,et al.  Pseudogenes, junk DNA, and the dynamics of Rickettsia genomes. , 2001, Molecular biology and evolution.

[45]  M. Lynch Streamlining and simplification of microbial genome architecture. , 2006, Annual review of microbiology.

[46]  H. Ochman,et al.  Ψ-Φ: Exploring the outer limits of bacterial pseudogenes , 2004 .

[47]  J. Bonfield,et al.  Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome , 2004, Nature.

[48]  A. Vinogradov Evolution of genome size: multilevel selection, mutation bias or dynamical chaos? , 2004, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[49]  Paramvir S. Dehal,et al.  Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the Ancestral Vertebrate , 2005, PLoS biology.

[50]  Howard Ochman,et al.  The consequences of genetic drift for bacterial genome complexity. , 2009, Genome research.

[51]  T. Gregory Synergy between sequence and size in Large-scale genomics , 2005, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[52]  Inna Dubchak,et al.  Trends in Prokaryotic Evolution Revealed by Comparison of Closely Related Bacterial and Archaeal Genomes , 2008, Journal of bacteriology.

[53]  D. Petrov,et al.  Genomic gigantism: DNA loss is slow in mountain grasshoppers. , 2001, Molecular biology and evolution.

[54]  T. Gregory,et al.  Is small indel bias a determinant of genome size? , 2003, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[55]  H. Robertson,et al.  The large srh family of chemoreceptor genes in Caenorhabditis nematodes reveals processes of genome evolution involving large duplications and deletions and intron gains and losses. , 2000, Genome research.

[56]  Fabienne Thomarat,et al.  Genome sequence and gene compaction of the eukaryote parasite Encephalitozoon cuniculi , 2001, Nature.

[57]  S. Eriksson,et al.  Bacterial genome size reduction by experimental evolution. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[58]  R. Guigó,et al.  Global trends of whole-genome duplications revealed by the ciliate Paramecium tetraurelia , 2006, Nature.

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

[60]  N. Moran,et al.  The process of genome shrinkage in the obligate symbiont Buchnera aphidicola , 2001, Genome Biology.

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