Conflicting signals of adaptive molecular evolution - Where does the neutral theory stand after 50 years?

Ziwen He,Qipian Chen,Hao Yang,Qingjian Chen,Suhua Shi,Chung‐I Wu
2018-01-01
Abstract:Abstract Measuring positive selection in DNA sequences between species is key to testing the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Here, we compare the two most commonly used tests that rely on very different assumptions. The McDonald-Kreitman (MK) test1 compares divergence and polymorphism data, while the PAML test2,3 analyzes multi-species divergence. We used these two methods concurrently 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 more than 100 adaptively evolving genes but the two sets hardly overlap. To rule out false negatives, we merged 20 - 30 genes into “supergenes”, 8% - 56% of which yield adaptive signals. Nevertheless, the joint calls still do not overlap. The technical explanations of high false negatives or positives can be rejected. The most likely explanation is the relaxation of negative selection, which results in patterns resembling positive selection and is easily testable by using multi-species polymorphisms. When so tested, Arabidopsis (but not Drosophila) data fit this hypothesis. PAML and MK may indeed identify distinct classes of genes in Drosophila. However, this “both are right” explanation is valid only if positive and negative selection tend to affect the same targets, thus contradicting the (untested) conventional view. In conclusion, the acceptance of adaptive DNA evolution, and hence the rejection of the neutral theory, should be suspended until negative selection is rigorously analyzed.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?