Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||MacDonald and Kreitman (1991) propose a test of the neutral mutationrandom drift (NM-RD) hypothesis, the central claim of the neutral theory of molecular evolution. The test involves generating predictions from the NM-RD hypothesis about patterns of molecular substitutions. Alternative selection hypotheses predict that the data will deviate from the predictions of the NM-RD hypothesis in specifiable ways. To conduct the test Mac- Donald and Kreitman examine the evolutionary dynamics of the alcohol dehydrogenase (Adh) gene in three species of Drosophila. The test compares the number of DNA sequence changes between species and within species. The number of DNA differences is an indicator of the evolutionary rate of the Adh gene. Based on the test they conclude that there is strong evidence for adaptive protein evolution at particular sites in the gene. Understanding the test requires some basic knowledge about molecular terms and the predictions of neutral theory. The two important terms are fixed differences and polymorphisms. These are determined by comparing DNA sequences made up of thousands of individual nucleotide sites. A site that is unchanged within a species but different from a related species counts as a fixed difference. These are mutations that occur in some common ancestor of the lineage such that all descendants inherit the change. A site that differs within a species counts as a polymorphism. Determining the number of fixed differences and polymorphisms requires placing 1 each individual gene sequence onto a phylogenetic tree. A coalescent tree charts the ancestral relationships for a set of individual gene sequences. Sequences sampled from within a species form a within-species tree. The common ancestors of each within-species tree form a between-species tree. A detected difference counts as a polymorphism or a fixed difference depending on where it occurs in the phylogenetic tree (cf. Table 1). The test uses the numbers of polymorphisms and fixed differences as indicators of evolutionary rates..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Richard A. Richards (2010). The Species Problem: A Philosophical Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Ernst Mayr (1996). What is a Species, and What is Not? Philosophy of Science 63 (2):262-277.
A. Aaron Snyder (1982). Taxonomy and Theory. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:512 - 521.
Bradley E. Wilson (1996). Changing Conceptions of Species. Biology and Philosophy 11 (3):405-420.
Bradley E. Wilson (1995). A (Not-so-Radical) Solution to the Species Problem. Biology and Philosophy 10 (3):339-356.
Paul A. M. Dongen & Jo M. H. Vossen (1984). Can the Theory of Evolution Be Falsified? Acta Biotheoretica 33 (1).
Jeffrey G. Lawrence & Adam C. Retchless (2010). The Myth of Bacterial Species and Speciation. Biology and Philosophy 25 (4):569-588.
Peter J. Beurton (1995). How is a Species Kept Together? Biology and Philosophy 10 (2):181-196.
Joel D. Velasco (2008). Species Concepts Should Not Conflict with Evolutionary History, but Often Do. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 39 (4):407-414.
Joel D. Velasco (2010). Species, Genes, and the Tree of Life. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (3):599-619.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads31 ( #45,008 of 752,392 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,000 of 752,392 )
How can I increase my downloads?