Skepticism toward adaptive signals in DNA sequence comparisons - Is the neutral theory dead yet?

Ziwen He,Qipian Chen,Hao Yang,Qingjian Chen,Suhua Shi,Chung-I Wu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/417717
2018-01-01
bioRxiv
Abstract:Measuring positive selection on DNA sequences between species is key to testing the theory of molecular evolution. Here, we compare the two most commonly used tests that rely on very different assumptions. The MK test compares divergence and polymorphism data, while the PAML test analyzes multi-species divergence. The two tests are now forced to detect positive selection on the same phylogenetic branch in Drosophila and Arabidopsis using large-scale genomic data. When applied to individual coding genes, both MK and PAML identify u003e100 adaptively evolving genes but the two sets hardly overlap. To rule out high false negatives, we merge 20 - 30 genes into supergenes, 8% - 56% of which yield adaptive signals. Nevertheless, the joint calls still do not overlap. The two tests do show very modest concordance at lower stringencies. There may be several possibilities for the discordance between the two major tests. 1) Selective advantage is weak, falling in the nearly neutral range; 2) The adaptive landscape shifts constantly, akin to the Red Queen landscape; 3) Positive selection which accelerates the evolution is confounded by the relaxation of negative selection, resulting in less deceleration. Whether the theory should be rejected depends on which of these factors prevails.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?