Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

16
Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Transcript of Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Page 1: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Genome size and Complexity

(as told by Michael Lynch)

Page 2: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Genome size and complexity varies across the tree of life

Lynch 2007

Page 3: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Some Big Questions

• What is the relationship between genomic and organismal size/complexity?

• Are genome size changes adaptive, or passively acquired?

• How do these changes occur mechanistically?

• How do study all this?

Page 4: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Proximal mechanisms of genomic expansion/contraction

• Mobile element proliferation• Segmental duplications• Strand slippage• DS DNA breaks

– Insertion propagation (biased gene conversion)– Microdeletions (nonhomologous end repair)

• Unequal crossing over• Illegitimate recombination• Selection for or against such modifications

Page 5: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Explaining variation in genome size

• Adaptive, neutral, deleterious

• Selfish DNA hypothesis• Bulk DNA hypothesis• Metabolic cost of DNA• Petrov neutral hypothesis• Mutation Hazard Hypothesis

Page 6: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Lynch and Conery 2003: “Mutation Hazard” Hypothesis

1• Body size / complexity increase

2• Reduced Ne

3• Reduced efficacy of selection

4

• Non-coding DNA proliferates • duplicate genes retained

Increases in genome size and complexity are a drift-driven consequence of reducing efficacy of selection

Page 7: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Lynch and Conery 2003

Neu scales inversely with genome size

Page 8: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Lynch and Conery 2003

Half life of duplicate genes greater in larger genomes

Page 9: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Intron number and size greater in larger genomes

Lynch and Conery 2003

Threshold effect

Page 10: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

TE size/number scales with genome size; threshold effect

Page 11: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Whitney and Garland, 2010

Page 12: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Whitney and Garland, 2010

Page 13: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Whitney and Garland, 2010

Conclusion: no mechanistic connection between Ne and genome complexitySubtext: Adaptive processes account for variations in genome size?

Page 14: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)
Page 15: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Lynch 2011 rebuttal

• Neu has no shared evolutionary history– Comparative methods inappropriate

• Topology and branch lengths of phylogeny is suspect

• Threshold effect is most important prediction of MH; not addressed in W&G

• OLS is unbiased

Page 16: Genome size and Complexity (as told by Michael Lynch)

Whitney et al. counterpoints

• Significant phylogenetic signal (K) for all traits examined (genome size, etc)

• Life history and other factors underlying Neu can and do have phylogenetic signal

• Consistent results with different phylogenies

• Too few data to conduct threshold tests• OLS clearly biased