Do essential genes evolve slowly?

Approximately two thirds of all knockouts of individual mouse genes give rise to viable fertile mice. These genes have thus been termed 'non-essential' in contrast to 'essential' genes, the knockouts of which result in death or infertility. Although non-essential genes are likely to be under selection that favours sequence conservation [1], it is predicted that they are less subject to such stabilising selection than essential genes, and hence evolve faster [2]. We have addressed this issue by analysing the molecular evolution of 108 non-essential and 67 essential genes that have been sequenced in both mouse and rat. On preliminary analysis, the non-essential genes appeared to be faster evolving than the essential ones. We found, however, that the non-essential class contains a disproportionate number of immune-system genes that may be under directional selection (that is, selection favouring change) because of host-parasite coevolution. After correction for this bias, we found that the rate at which genes evolve does not correlate with the severity of the knockout phenotype. This was corroborated by the finding that, whereas neuron-specific genes have significantly lower rates of change than other genes, essential and non-essential neuronal genes have comparable rates of evolution. Our findings most probably reflect strong selection acting against even very subtle deleterious phenotypes, and indicate that the putative involvement of directional selection in host-parasite coevolution and gene expression within the nervous system explains much more of the variance in rates of gene evolution than does the knockout phenotype.

[1]  A. Hughes.  Rapid evolution of immunoglobulin superfamily C2 domains expressed in immune system cells. , 1997, Molecular biology and evolution.

[2]  J. Brookfield.  Genetic redundancy: Screening for selection in yeast , 1997, Current Biology.

[3]  M. Gouy,et al.  HOVERGEN: a database of homologous vertebrate genes. , 1994, Nucleic acids research.

[4]  L. Hurst,et al.  The causes of synonymous rate variation in the rodent genome. Can substitution rates be used to estimate the sex bias in mutation rate? , 1999, Genetics.

[5]  L. Orgel,et al.  Biochemical Evolution , 1971, Nature.

[6]  M. Nei,et al.  Positive Darwinian selection promotes charge profile diversity in the antigen-binding cleft of class I major-histocompatibility-complex molecules. , 1990, Molecular biology and evolution.

[7]  M. Nei,et al.  Pattern of nucleotide substitution at major histocompatibility complex class I loci reveals overdominant selection , 1988, Nature.

[8]  J. Thompson,et al.  CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. , 1994, Nucleic acids research.

[9]  E. Cox.  On the organization of higher chromosomes. , 1972, Nature: New biology.

[10]  L. Hurst,et al.  Evidence for a selectively favourable reduction in the mutation rate of the X chromosome , 1997, Nature.

[11]  M. Kimura.  The Neutral Theory of Evolution , 1983 .

[12]  L. Hurst,et al.  Molecular evolution of imprinted genes: no evidence for antagonistic coevolution , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  M. Nei,et al.  Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. , 1993, Molecular biology and evolution.

[14]  M. Boguski,et al.  Synonymous and Nonsynonymous Substitution Distances Are Correlated in Mouse and Rat Genes , 1998, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[15]  K. Kuma,et al.  Functional constraints against variations on molecules from the tissue level: slowly evolving brain-specific genes demonstrated by protein kinase and immunoglobulin supergene families. , 1995, Molecular biology and evolution.