02.05.2013 Views

Evolution__3rd_Edition

Evolution__3rd_Edition

Evolution__3rd_Edition

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

190 PART 2 / <strong>Evolution</strong>ary Genetics<br />

7.9 Conclusion: 35 years of research on molecular<br />

evolution<br />

In 1968, Kimura proposed the neutral theory of molecular evolution. His original<br />

argument was mainly based, in theory, on genetic loads and, in fact, on amino acid<br />

evolution. Neither his particular claim a that most molecular evolution proceeds by<br />

the random drift of neutral mutations a nor his argument using genetic loads, nor his<br />

evidence for proteins, has survived in its original form. However, he stimulated a<br />

huge area of research, which arguably led to a paradigm shift in our understanding of<br />

molecular evolution.<br />

Kimura’s neutral theory has developed into the nearly neutral theory. The nearly<br />

neutral theory shares with its predecessor the claim that most molecular evolution is by<br />

random drift a but the drift of nearly neutral (4Ns < 1 or Ns < 1) rather than exactly<br />

neutral (s = 0) mutations. Since Kimura first wrote, biologists have come to realize that<br />

DNA contains huge regions of non-coding sequences. If we use use the nearly neutral<br />

rather than the original, purely neutral theory, and confine it to substitutions in noncoding<br />

DNA and synonymous substitutions in coding DNA, then many (perhaps<br />

most) biologists accept a neutralist interpretation of molecular evolution. Most evolution<br />

at the DNA level is by random drift.<br />

However, non-coding DNA is in some respects biologically less interesting than<br />

coding DNA. Non-synonymous substitutions, which alter amino acids, are biologically<br />

more important in the sense that they influence the form and functioning of the body.<br />

If we concentrate on non-synonymous evolution, in coding regions, then it is probably<br />

not true that most biologists are neutralists. We do not know the relative importance of<br />

drift and selection in driving amino acid change. Indeed, for most of the past 35 years<br />

we have lacked a decisive method to find out the relative importance of drift and selection.<br />

Molecular evolution is now entering the genomics era. Genomic data hold out the<br />

promise both of revealing the localities within the DNA where natural selection acts,<br />

and also of estimating the fractions of evolutionary substitutions that have been driven<br />

by natural selection and by random drift.<br />

..

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!