Register | Log in | FAQ      [?] 
CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.
Recent | Unread | Search | Authors | Tags | Export

Background Selection in Single Genes May Explain Patterns of Codon Bias

by: Laurence Loewe, Brian Charlesworth
Genetics, Vol. 175, No. 3. (1 March 2007), pp. 1381-1393.


View FullText article


X Reviews [Write a review of this article]

There are no reviews of this article

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Abstract

Background selection involves the reduction in effective population size caused by the removal of recurrent deleterious mutations from a population. Previous work has examined this process for large genomic regions. Here we focus on the level of a single gene or small group of genes and investigate how the effects of background selection caused by nonsynonymous mutations are influenced by the lengths of coding sequences, the number and length of introns, intergenic distances, neighboring genes, mutation rate, and recombination rate. We generate our predictions from estimates of the distribution of the fitness effects of nonsynonymous mutations, obtained from DNA sequence diversity data in Drosophila. Results for genes in regions with typical frequencies of crossing over in Drosophila melanogaster suggest that background selection may influence the effective population sizes of different regions of the same gene, consistent with observed differences in codon usage bias along genes. It may also help to cause the observed effects of gene length and introns on codon usage. Gene conversion plays a crucial role in determining the sizes of these effects. The model overpredicts the effects of background selection with large groups of nonrecombining genes, because it ignores Hill-Robertson interference among the mutations involved. 10.1534/genetics.106.065557


X BibTeX record

X RIS record



RIS BibTeX
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.