1 / 9

Muller’s ratchet and plant evolution: a modeling approach

Muller’s ratchet and plant evolution: a modeling approach. Peter Pfaffelhuber, Stefan A. Rensing FRISYS, University of Freiburg. Editing in plants. Post-transcriptional change of RNA in semi-autonomous organelles (plastids and mitochondria)

sierra
Download Presentation

Muller’s ratchet and plant evolution: a modeling approach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Muller’s ratchet and plant evolution: amodeling approach Peter Pfaffelhuber, Stefan A. Rensing FRISYS, University of Freiburg

  2. Editing in plants Post-transcriptional change of RNA in semi-autonomous organelles (plastids and mitochondria) Main function: remedy errors in the DNA code that have occurred through point mutations Regulatory roles Compensatory mutations in the nuclear genome: e.g. PPRs (Pentatricopeptide repeat proteins) e.g., Maier et al. (2008) BMC Biology 6:36

  3. The mathematical model Assumptions - infinite population size (Muller‘s ratchet in a finite population has not been solved; this simplification has been used before) - (mildly) deleterious organellar mutations accumulate over time (rate λ) - compensatory nuclear mutations occur with a significantly higher rate (γ)(and remedy the organellar mutations and their associated selective disadvantage) - selection coefficient (s) with multiplicative fitness, i.e. an individual with k deleterious mutations has an offspring distribution with expectation proportional to (1 - s)k

  4. The model II. probability measures on natural numbers distribution vector distribution at a given t

  5. The model III. k lambda gamma time [Ma] compensation k -> k-1 time derivative selection gain k -> k+1 • population in equilibrium • 0 < s << λ << γ << 1 • - individual: birth-death process • (k<=1 at any t)

  6. Rates per lineage 1.5E-8 monocots 6.5E-9 dicots Gaut et al. (1996) PNAS 93:10274 Koch et al. (2000) Mol Biol Evol 17:1483 Rensing et al. (2007) BMC Evol Biol 7:130 1.12E-10 chloroplastic [substitutions per site and year] 9.4E-09 nuclear Chiang & Schaal (2000) Genome 43:417 atpB-rbcL spacer of chloroplast DNA in 11 mosses

  7. Rates per time period Estimate missing nodes using r8s -> finer granularity Calculate rates per lineage and time interval -> avg. rates per time period 100-0 2.22E-10 200-100 1.99E-10 300-200 1.37E-10 380-300 2.02E-10 p < 9E5 450-380 8.12E-10

  8. Questions (to be) answered - Can the compensatory mutation hypothesis help to explain why organellar genomes have not deteriorated? YES - Editing sites are gained with the approximate rate of mutation fixation -> no apparent selective disadvantage - Are there different rates of gain [and loss] of editing sites (λ) and/or compensatory nuclear mutations (γ) among different lineages that can be derived from the data? YES, for λ (loss and γ pending) - Are there time periods with differing rates? YES, after the water-to-land transition

  9. Acknowledgements Freiburg Andrej Depperschmidt Peter Pfaffelhuber Stefan Rensing Berlin Michael Tillich

More Related