Skip to main content

Mutation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evolutionary Bioinformatics
  • 1732 Accesses

Abstract

Anatomical or physiological variations that are inherited are due to inherited changes (mutations) in base sequences of DNA. Mutations that change genes can affect the conventional phenotype resulting in linear within-species evolution, often under the influence of natural selection (species survival). These changes associate with amino-acid-changing (non-synonymous) mutations in the first or second bases of triplet codons. DNA mutations can also result in changes in the genome phenotype. These changes associate with synonymous (non-amino-acid-changing) mutations, usually in the third bases of codons. Each gene in a genome has distinctive rates of acceptance of amino-acid-changing and synonymous mutations, which are positively correlated. A gene with few amino-acid-changing mutations also has few synonymous mutations. A gene with many amino-acid-changing mutations also has many synonymous mutations. Two genes may be closely located but differ greatly in their mutation acceptance rates. Thus, each gene is an independent mutational entity. Synonymous mutations, and correlated mutations in regions that do not encode amino acids, may be important for changing the ‘pattern’ of a genome, so sparking the onset of branching evolution (species arrival). By eliminating redundant information, oligonucleotide frequency patterns should provide rapid and more sensitive indices of species differences than direct sequence comparisons.

Variation, whatever may be its cause, and however it may be limited, is the essential phenomenon of Evolution. Variation, in fact, is Evolution. The readiest way … of solving the problem of Evolution is to study the facts of Variation.

William Bateson 1894 [1]

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bateson W (1894) Materials for the Study of Variation Treated with Especial Regard for Discontinuity in the Origin of Species. Macmillan, London, pp 6, 85, 573

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bossi L, Roth JR (1980) The influence of codon context on genetic code translation. Nature 286:123–127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Simonson AB, Lake JA (2002) The transorientation hypothesis for codon recognition during protein synthesis. Nature 416:281–285

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Eigen M, Schuster P (1978) The hypercycle. A principle of natural self-organization. Part C. The realistic hypercycle. Naturwissenschaften 65:341–369

    Google Scholar 

  5. Shepherd JCW (1981) Method to determine the reading frame of a protein from the purine/pyrimidine genome sequence and its possible evolutionary justification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 78:1596–1600

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Forsdyke DR (2006) Positive Darwinian selection. Does the comparative method rule? Journal of Biological Systems 15, 95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Forsdyke DR (2002) Selective pressures that decrease synonymous mutations in Plasmodium falciparum. Trends in Parasitology 18:411–418

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nugal CF, Wolf JBW, Kaj I (2013) Why time matters: codon evolution and the temporal dynamics of dN/dS. Molecular Biology & Evolution 31:212–231

    Google Scholar 

  9. Reis M dos, Yang Z (2013) Why do more divergent sequences produce smaller nonsynonymous/synonymous rate ratios in pairwise comparisons? Genetics 195:195–204

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fitch WM (1974) The large extent of putative secondary nucleic acid structure in random nucleotide sequences or amino acid-derived messenger-RNA. Journal of Molecular Evolution 3:279–291

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bernardi G, Bernardi G (1986) Compositional constraints and genome evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 24:1–11 [Orgel, Crick and Sapienza (Selfish DNA (1980) Nature 288:645–647) had pointed to the need to distinguish the “organismal phenotype” from the “intragenomic phenotype.”]

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wolfe KH, Sharp PM (1993) Mammalian gene evolution: nucleotide sequence divergence between mouse and rat. Journal of Molecular Evolution 37:441–456 [DNA divergence has a relationship to time, but some think that the relationship to increasing organismal complexity facilitates better analytic insight (see Huang S (2015) New thoughts on an old riddle. What determines genetic diversity within and between species. arXiv 1510.05918).]

    Google Scholar 

  13. Novella IA, Zarate S, Metzgar D, Ebendick-Corpus, BE (2004) Positive selection of synonymous mutations in vesicular stomatitis virus. Journal of Molecular Biology 342:1415–1421

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bains W (1987) Codon distribution in vertebrate genes may be used to predict gene length. Journal of Molecular Biology 197:379–388 [A study of “coincident codons”.]

    Google Scholar 

  15. Terekhanova NV, Bazykin GA, Neverov A, Kondrashov AS, Seplyarskiy VB (2013) Prevalence of multinucleotide replacements in evolution of primates and Drosophila. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30:1315–1325

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Sempath R et al. (2007) Global surveillance of emerging influenza virus genotypes by mass spectrometry. PLOS One: 2(5): e489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Blaisdell BE (1986) A measure of the similarity of sets of sequences not requiring sequence alignment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 83:5155–5159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bronson EC, Anderson JN (1994) Nucleotide composition as a driving force in the evolution of retroviruses. Journal of Molecular Evolution 38:506–532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Qi J, Wang B, Hao BL (2004) Whole proteome prokaryote phylogeny without sequence alignment: a K-string composition approach. Journal of Molecular Evolution 58:1–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Richter M, Rosselló-Móra R (2009) Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:19126–19131.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Yang K, Zhang L (2008) Performance comparison between k-tuple distance and four model-based distances in phylogenetic tree reconstruction. Nucleic Acids Res. 36(5):e33

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Venditti C, Pagel M (2009) Speciation as an active force in promoting genetic evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25:14–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Venditti C, Meade A, Pagel M (2010) Phylogenies reveal new interpretation of speciation and the Red Queen. Nature 463:349–352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hedges SB, Marin J, Suleski M, Paymer M, Kumar S (2015) Tree of life reveals clock-like speciation and diversification. Molecular Biology & Evolution 32:835–845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Darwin C (1856) Letter to J. D. Hooker. In: Darwin F (ed) Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. Volume 1. Appleton, New York (1887) p 445

    Google Scholar 

  26. Forsdyke DR (2001) The Origin of Species, Revisited. A Victorian who Anticpated Modern Developments in Darwin’s Theory. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  27. Darwin C (1872) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. 6th Edition. John Murray, London [By the 6th edition, Darwin was more inclined to the view that some acquired characters were inherited (Lamarckism). This is perhaps why he then questioned the sufficiency of natural selection as an explanation for evolutionary advance.]

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chargaff E (1963) Essays on Nucleic Acids. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 95

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Forsdyke, D.R. (2016). Mutation. In: Evolutionary Bioinformatics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28755-3_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics