Back

Δ-dN/dS: New Criteria to Distinguish among Different Selection Modes in Gene Evolution

gu, x.

2020-02-23 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2020.02.21.960450 bioRxiv
Show abstract

One of the most widely-used measures for protein evolution is the ratio of nonsynonymous distance (dN) to synonymous distance (dS). Under the assumption that synonymous substitutions in the coding region are selectively neutral, the dN/dS ratio can be used to test the adaptive evolution if dN/dS>1 statistically significantly. However, due to selective constraints imposed on amino acid sites, most encoding genes demonstrate dN/dS<1. As a result, dN/dS of a gene is less than 1, even some sites may have experienced positive selections. In this paper, we develop a new criterion, called{Delta} -dN/dS, for positive selection testing by introducing an index H, which is a relative measure of rate variation among sites. Under the context of strong purifying selection at some amino acid sites, our model predicts dN/dS=1-H for the neutral evolution, dN/dS<1-H for the nearly-neutral selection, and dN/dS>1-H for the adaptive evolution. The potential of this new method for resolving the neutral-adaptive debates has been illustrated by case studies. For over 4000 vertebrate genes, virtually all of them showed dN/dS<1-H, indicating the dominant role of the nearly-neutral selection in molecular evolution. Moreover, we calculated the dN/dS ratio for cancer somatic mutations of a human gene, specifically denoted by CN/CS. For over 4000 human genes in cancer genomics, about 55% of genes showed 1-H<CN/CS<1, about 45% of genes showed CN/CS<1, whereas less than 1% of genes showed CN/CS<1-H. Together our analysis suggested driver mutations, i.e., those initiate and facilitate carcinogenesis, confer a selective advantage on cancer cells, leading to CN/CS>1 (strong positive selection) or 1-H<CN/CS<1 (weak positive selection, combined with strong purifying selection), whereas nearly neutral selection due to reduced effective clonal size is highly unlikely in cancer evolution.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Molecular Evolution
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.9%
2
GENETICS
483 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
9.9%
3
Journal of Theoretical Biology
162 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.8%
4
Genome Biology and Evolution
338 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
Theoretical Population Biology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
6
Molecular Biology and Evolution
542 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.1%
7
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.1%
8
Journal of Computational Biology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.3%
9
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 42%
2.5%
10
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.4%
11
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.1%
12
BMC Evolutionary Biology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
13
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
14
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
15
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.1%
16
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 64%
1.1%
17
PLOS Genetics
862 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.1%
18
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
110 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
19
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
20
Heredity
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
21
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.9%
22
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
23
BMC Ecology and Evolution
51 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
24
Entropy
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%