Universal pacemaker of genome evolution

PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(11):e1002785. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002785. Epub 2012 Nov 29.

Abstract

A fundamental observation of comparative genomics is that the distribution of evolution rates across the complete sets of orthologous genes in pairs of related genomes remains virtually unchanged throughout the evolution of life, from bacteria to mammals. The most straightforward explanation for the conservation of this distribution appears to be that the relative evolution rates of all genes remain nearly constant, or in other words, that evolutionary rates of different genes are strongly correlated within each evolving genome. This correlation could be explained by a model that we denoted Universal PaceMaker (UPM) of genome evolution. The UPM model posits that the rate of evolution changes synchronously across genome-wide sets of genes in all evolving lineages. Alternatively, however, the correlation between the evolutionary rates of genes could be a simple consequence of molecular clock (MC). We sought to differentiate between the MC and UPM models by fitting thousands of phylogenetic trees for bacterial and archaeal genes to supertrees that reflect the dominant trend of vertical descent in the evolution of archaea and bacteria and that were constrained according to the two models. The goodness of fit for the UPM model was better than the fit for the MC model, with overwhelming statistical significance, although similarly to the MC, the UPM is strongly overdispersed. Thus, the results of this analysis reveal a universal, genome-wide pacemaker of evolution that could have been in operation throughout the history of life.

Publication types

  • Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Computational Biology
  • Evolution, Molecular*
  • Genome, Archaeal / genetics*
  • Genome, Bacterial / genetics*
  • Least-Squares Analysis
  • Models, Genetic*
  • Phylogeny

Grants and funding

The authors are supported by intramural funds of the US Department of Health and Human Services (National Library of Medicine) and by a grant from the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.