1. evolgen
  2. Dan Hartl's Inaugural PNAS Article

Dan Hartl's Inaugural PNAS Article

By evolgen on April 18, 2007.

Dan Hartl was inducted into the National Academy of Sciences of the USA in 2005 for his contributions to the field of evolutionary genetics. His inaugural article as an Academy member was published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS, pronounce pee-nas, hehe). Hartl and colleagues compared levels of polymorphism in 91 genes from Drosophila melanogaster with divergence from D. simulans. They were interested in determining the effect of natural selection on nonsynonymous mutations, kind of like what was done in this paper (reviewed here).

Hartl and colleagues estimate that nearly all (~95%) potential amino acid changes are deleterious and the majority of amino acid polymorphisms (~70%) are deleterious. But the vast majority (~95%) of amino acid changes between species are adaptive. Most are, however, only mildly beneficial, suggesting that they are nearly neutral (see, these models aren't complete bullshit). In comparison, Shapiro et al estimate that nearly a third of all amino acid fixations between Drosophila species are adaptive.

Tags
Drosophila
Population Genetics

More like this

'Misunderestimating' Natural Selection
From the archives, here's something about how we might be underestimating the strength of natural selection when we look at molecular data: PZ Myers has a superb summary of a very interesting PLoS paper. In the paper, the authors identify those genes that have experienced strong selection, and thus…
Distribution of fitness effects of mutations?
Haven't had a time to check this paper out, but looks real interesting, Assessing the Evolutionary Impact of Amino Acid Mutations in the Human Genome: Although mutations are known to cause varying degrees of harmful effects, it is difficult to quantify the distribution that best describes the…
The cultural canoe
A new paper, unfortunately not yet available to nonsubscribers on PNAS's Early Edition, has done some remarkable work on the evolution of canoe designs, putting some meat onto cultural evolutionary models. The paper is nicely reviewed by K. Kris Hirst here, however. And when we mere mortals can…
Chimps more evolved?
The times has a mildly stupid article up, Chimps are ahead of humans in the great evolutionary race, which just goes to show that the people writing the headlines often have no comprehension skills, or just don't bother reading more than the first paragraph of a story. As confused as the article…