|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 2/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On the proportion of Nucleotides in the Genome and what it can tell us about Evolutio | |||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Well I would like to focus on eukaryotic cells, but I have difficulty finding data on it (Principally because I don't know where to look).
About the GC and AT triple and double bound, should it have an effect on DNA proportions of eukaryotic genomes ? (Considering what I said about inheritable mutations 'probably' happening during Meiosis ? (Which is just an intuitive guess on my part)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2555 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
Everything I have seen suggests that differences in GC content result from biases in mutational processes. These include biased gene conversion and biased repair mechanisms. The GC levels for eukaryotes can vary a lot: GC is ~43% for humans and ~20% for P. falciparum (malaria).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Actually, creationists are continuously pointing out to these advancements to show that 'Junk DNA' isn't junk after all. I would often argue that this strawman of modern biology is actually being done by the evolutionists Do you think that these advancements arose from creationist research? What is the most recent paper you can find propounding Ohno's original formulation, I doubt you could find anything much more recent than the eighties. Certainly by the time I went to University in the 90s the roles of numerous non-coding regions were appreciated and taught in an evolutionary context, hardly maintaining a strawman of non-functional 'Junk' DNA. 'Junk' DNA was one of those frequent instances where a scientist made some predictions based on an incomplete understanding of the system. Even with the new functional transcribed non-coding elements and long distance regulatory elements that we are aware of there is still plenty of microsatellite DNA and highly repetitive regions to perform the sort of non-functional functions, like spacing between genes or surrounding centromeric regions, that Ohno suggested 'Junk' DNA had. The main thing Ohno had wrong was thinking that 'Junk DNA' was principally derived from 'failed' genes, there are certainly many pseudogenes which may be degenerate gene duplicates but the larger proportion of 'Junk' DNA originates from transposons. Even these transposon originated sequences serve some regulatory functions occasionally. As you say Kimura and Haldane are another topic. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4754 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
Dr A, can you modify your program to also calculate what the average excess of heads or tails is to verify the root n prediction?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But will it realy make a difference in the long term ? I mean, if we take a genome and look at it mutate for a long time. Will not every nucleotide position, after several mutations, have a 50% chance of being AT or GC, and so when we consider the total ratio of the genome, we should expect to find approximately a 50/50 combination of AT and GC in it ? Well, that depends on exactly what's going on. If we have a scenario as in "case 2" in my previous post, then no. In that case the AT content will have an equal chance of taking on any value. Note that this does agree with your intuition that "every nucleotide position, after several mutations, [will] have a 50% chance of being AT or GC" --- but only because 50% is the average of the numbers between 0% and 100%. 50% would therefore be the "expected value" only in the statistical sense of being the mean average outcome, not in the sense that we should particularly expect that the AT content should have that value rather than any other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2555 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:You're correct: you shouldn't be modeling either case if you're interested in the mutation question. If the number of A/T pairs is currently Na and the number of G/C pairs is Ng, the probability that a new mutation will increase the AT content is 0.67 * Ng / (Na + Ng) and the probability that it will increase the GC content is 0.67 * Na / (Na + Ng). This process is indeed biased toward 50% GC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, that depends again on what exactly is going on. What you're modeling there is where the mechanism for mutation is "Pick a base at random, then change it with equal probability to any base it isn't". This is somewhat simplistic.
I have done a model of that case, and you are right: the probability distribution does indeed spike around 50% AT. I also find that biases in the probability of mutations and their repair shift this spike with relative ease: if, for example, a change from AT -> CG is twice as likely to be repaired as one from CG -> AT, then this shifts the spike to more like 75%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It seems that it would be more accurate to say that it's of the order root n (using "big O" notation).
Here's a graph of values for n between 1 and 10000:
The blue line is the square root of n, the red line is the average of |h(n) - t(n)| over ten thousand trials.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
Because of deamination (in which cytosine loses an amine group, and is converted to uracil which then binds to thymine rather than guanine during DNA replication) it sees quite probable that GC -> AT point mutations are more likely than AT -> GC point mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
That needs to be 5-methyl cytosine for it to really work. There are enzymes which specifically excise and replace uracil bases in the DNA. The repair system may still allow a few through though. 5-Methyl cytosine changes to thymine which can't be distinguished.
Also uracil binds to adenine not thymine. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
Yes, sorry, binds to uracil, thus replacing the cytosine with thymine *sigh*
That needs to be 5-methyl cytosine for it to really work. There are enzymes which specifically excise and replace uracil bases in the DNA. The repair system may still allow a few through though. And, yes, most such changes are caught, but not all. Which should provide a bias to the probability to GC->AT vs. AT->GC changes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5040 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
Yes that's exactly what it looks like! Cool programming!
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2555 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:Oh, absolutely -- it's very simplistic. For a more realistic model you would substitute a transition probability matrix, various of which are floating around the literature. But it is at least a simplistic model of mutational substitutions, which is not true of either of the other models listed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
So to recap what has been said, can someone answer this question;
What ratio GC/AT should we expect from a mutating genome ? If we can answer this question, we can add the effects NS later on. PS. A totally acurate answer is probably to much to ask, an approximte and qualitative answer should do. EDIT: sfs, are you the same person as sfs1 on Tweb ? Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So to recap what has been said, can someone answer this question; What ratio GC/AT should we expect from a mutating genome ? The only answer anyone can give you would be: similar to that of a closely related species. For example, the figure for humans should be close to that for chimpanzees. But there is seemingly no a priori method by which one can readily predict the AT content of a species.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024