Skip to main content

Rebooting the Genome

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evolutionary Bioinformatics
  • 1710 Accesses

Abstract

The need for genomes to detect and correct errors has been a major force in evolution, driving DNA to ‘speak in palindromes’ and splitting members of a species into two sexes. Errors associated with DNA mutations or DNA damage may be imperfectly corrected in our bodies (“soma”), but should be better corrected in the germ line. To this end, meiotic recombination repair, in which maternal and paternal genomes are compared, is the last court of appeal. For this ‘rebooting’ of the genome, parental genomes must be neither too similar, nor too disparate. If too similar (inbreeding), differences will not emerge at meiosis in their child’s gonad. If too disparate, an exploratory speciation process (anti-recombination) may initiate, manifest as a healthy, but sterile, child (hybrid sterility). For the initiation of speciation, human females must: (i) differentiate their sex chromosomes (X and X), (ii) differentiate their non-sex chromosomes (22 autosomal pairs), and (iii) activate ‘check-points’ which respond to such differentiations by disrupting meiosis. In contrast human males, being already advanced in the first step due to differentiation of their sex chromosomes (X and Y), have to complete only the latter steps. Thus, the first sign of speciation (incipient speciation), manifest as hybrid sterility, is production of sterile males (Haldane’s rule). Long ago, anti-recombination activity prevented repair of Y-chromosomes, which degenerated, thus loosing many X-chromosome equivalent genes. Human males now have potentially only one dose of many X-chromosome gene products, whereas females have potentially two doses. Dosage compensation in human females, leaving only one X-chromosome active, buffers fluctuations in intracellular protein concentrations between male and female generations. This permits a gene, independently of the sex which may harbor it, to fine-tune the concentration of its protein product to that of other proteins with which it has been traveling through the generations. In this way, collective protein functions, including intracellular self/not-self discrimination, are facilitated. Failure of this may predispose human females to autoimmune disease. By virtue of extensive palindromic sequences, Y chromosomes appear, like some rare ameiotic organisms, capable of in-series error-correction.

What makes hybrid male sterility of great current interest is the increasing evidence that the building blocks of this isolating barrier may be radically different from what we had come to believe. … It is clear that a new paradigm is emerging, which will force us, first, to revised many conclusions … that had gathered almost unanimous agreement, and, second, to try a completely different experimental approach.

Horacio Naveira and Xulio Maside (1998) [1]

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Naveira HF, Maside XR (1998) The genetics of hybrid male sterility in Drosophila. In: Howard DJ, Berlocher SH (eds) Endless Forms and Speciation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 329–338

    Google Scholar 

  2. Delboeuf J (1877) Les mathématiques et le transformisme. Une loi mathématique applicable a la théorie du transformisme. La Revue Scientifique 29:669–679

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bernstein C, Bernstein H (1991) Aging, Sex and DNA Repair. Academic Press, San Diego, CA

    Google Scholar 

  4. Supek F, Lehner B (2015) Differential DNA mismatch repair underlies mutation rate variation across the human genome. Nature 521:81–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Ridley M (2000) Mendel’s Demon. Gene Justice and the Complexity of Life. Orion Books, London, pp 167–201

    Google Scholar 

  6. Medvinsky A, Smith A (2003) Fusion brings down barriers. Nature 422:823–825

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Reese V (2002) Mutation repair: a proposed mechanism that would enable complex genomes to better resist mutational entropy and which suggests a novel function for meiosis. The Human Behavior and Evolution Society 14th Annual Meeting, Rutgers University. Abstracts of presentations to session on "New Developments in Biology," June 21, p. 40. [See also: “Meiotic pairing inadequacies at the levels of X chromosome, gene, or base: epigenetic tagging for transgenerational error-correction guided by a future homologous duplex.” (Reese VR, Forsdyke DR, 2016; Biological Theory, in press.)]

    Google Scholar 

  8. McKee BD (1996) Meiotic recombination: a mechanism for tracking and eliminating mutations? BioEssays 18:411–419

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wahls WP, Davidson MK (2012) New paradigms for conserved, multifactorial, cis-acting regulation of meiotic recombination. Nucleic Acids Research 40:9983–9989

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Baker CL, Kajita S, Walker M, Saxl RL, Raghupathy N, Choi K, Petkov PM, Piagen K (2015) PRDM9 drives evolutionary erosion of hotspots in Mus musculus through haplotype-specific initiation of meiotic recombination. PLOS Genetics 11:e1004916

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Butler S (1914) The Humour of Homer and Other Essays. Kennerley, New York, pp 209–313

    Google Scholar 

  12. Noort V van, Worning P, Ussery DW, Rosche WA, Sinden RR (2003) Strand misalignments lead to quasipalindrome correction. Trends in Genetics 19:365–369

    Google Scholar 

  13. Navarre WW, McClelland M, Libby SJ, Fang FC (2007) Silencing of xenogeneic DNA by H-NS – facilitation of lateral gene transfer in bacteria by a defense system that recognizes foreign DNA. Genes & Development 21:1456–1471

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Forsdyke DR, Zhang C, Wei J-F (2010) Chromosomes as interdependent accounting units. The assigned orientation of C. elegans chromosomes minimizes the total W-base Chargaff difference. Journal of Biological Systems 18:1–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sinclair R (2015) Necessary relations for nucleotide frequencies. Journal of Theoretical Biology 374:179–182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Forsdyke DR (2001) The Origin of Species, Revisited. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  17. Darwin C (1871) Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Appleton, New York, pp 245–311

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Haldane JBS (1922) Sex ratio and unidirectional sterility in hybrid animals. Journal of Genetics 12:101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Coyne JA (1992) Genetics and speciation. Nature 355:511–515

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Forsdyke DR (1995) Fine tuning of intracellular protein concentrations, a collective protein function involved in aneuploid lethality, sex-determination and speciation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 172:335–345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chandley AC, Jones RC, Dott HM, Allen WR, Short RV (1974) Meiosis in interspecific equine hybrids. 1. The male mule (Equus asinus X E. caballus) and hinny (E. caballus X E. asinus). Cytogenetics & Cell Genetics 13:330–341

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Vries H de (1889) Intracellular Pangenesis. Open Court, Chicago, (1910) pp 18–19

    Google Scholar 

  23. Darwin C (1851) A Monograph on the Subclass Cirripedia, vol. 1. The Ray Society, London, pp 281–293

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bateson W (1922) Evolutionary faith and modern doubts. Science 55:55–61

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Goldschmidt R (1940) The Material Basis of Evolution, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 233–236

    Google Scholar 

  26. Forsdyke DR (2000) Haldane's rule: hybrid sterility affects the heterogametic sex first because sexual differentiation is on the path to species differentiation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 204:443–452

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Romanes GJ (1886) Physiological selection: an additional suggestion on the origin of species. Journal of the Linnean Society (Zoology) 19:337–411

    Google Scholar 

  28. Romanes GJ (1897) Darwin, and After Darwin: 3. Isolation and Physiological Selection. Longmans Green, London

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wallace AR (1868) Letter to Darwin, 24th March. Available at https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-6045

  30. Koller PC, Darlington CD (1934) The genetical and mechanical properties of the sex chromosomes. 1. Rattus norvegicus. Journal of Genetics 29:159–173. [In male meiosis, the Y chromosome is an inadequate pairing partner for the X chromosome with respect to error-correction. At that time the X chromosome’s transcription products are not required and it is epigenetically silenced and cordoned off with the Y chromosome as the “XY body” - a process known as “meiotic sex chromosome inactivation” (MSCI). Thus, the X chromosome emerges without error-correction from male meiosis. It can only redeem itself in female generations, where there is a pairing partner. This appears to be an example of a more widely recognized phenomenon - “meiotic silencing of unpaired DNA” (MSUD; see Chapter 18), and is consistent with the shorter lifespans of the daughters of elderly fathers (see Gavrilov et al. 1997, “Mutation load and human longevity.” Mutation Research 377:61–62). The latter is an example of a “paternal age effect.”]

    Google Scholar 

  31. Montoya-Burgos JI, Boursot P, Galtier N (2003) Recombination explains isochores in mammalian genomes. Trends in Genetics 19:128–130

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Willard HF (2003) Tales of the Y chromosome. Nature 423:810–813

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Warburton PE, Giordano J, Cheung F, Gelfand Y, Benson G (2004) Inverted repeat structure of the human genome: the X chromosome contains a preponderance of large, highly homologous inverted repeats that contain testes genes. Genome Research 14:1861–1869

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Flot J-F, et al. (2013) Genomic evidence for ameiotic evolution in the bdelloid rotifer Adineta vaga. Nature 500:453–457

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gladyshev E, Meselson M (2008) Extreme resistance of bdelloid rotifers to ionizing radiation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:5139–5144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gartler SM (2014) A brief history of dosage compensation. Journal of Genetics 93:591–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Carrel L, Cottle AA, Goglin KC, Willard HF (1999) A first-generation X-inactivation profile of the human X chromosome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96:14440–14444

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Papadopulos AST, Chester M, Ridout K, Filatov DA (2015) Rapid Y degeneration and dosage compensation in plant sex chromosomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112:13021–13026 [In some species MSCI extends transgenerationally, so that in daughters only the X chromosome donated by the mother is expressed and the X chromosome donated by the father remains epigenetically silenced (see: Engel 2015, “Imprinted X chromosome inactivation offers up a double dose of epigenetics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112:14408–14409)]

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bridges CB (1922) The origin of variations in sexual and sex-limited characters. American Naturalist 56:51–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Forsdyke DR (1994) Relationship of X chromosome dosage compensation to intracellular self/not-self discrimination: a resolution of Muller's paradox? Journal of Theoretical Biology 167:7–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Forsdyke DR (2009) X chromosome reactivation perturbs intracellular self/not-self discrimination. Immunology & Cell Biology (2009) 87:525–528

    Google Scholar 

  42. Gladstein N, McKeon MN, Horabin JI (2010) Requirement of male-specific dosage compensation in Drosophila females—implications of early X chromosome gene expression. PLoS Genetics 6: e1001041

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Forsdyke DR (2012) Ohno's hypothesis and Muller's paradox: sex chromosome dosage compensation may serve collective gene functions. BioEssays 34:930–933

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhang J, Yang JR (2015) Determinants of the rate of protein sequence evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics 16:409–420

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Yang J-R, Liao B-Y, Zhuang S-M, Zhang J (2012) Protein misinteraction avoidance causes highly expressed proteins to evolve slowly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109:E831–E840

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Monteith WB, Cohen RD, Smith AE, Guzman-Cisneros E, Pielak GJ (2015) Quinary structure modulates protein stability in cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112:1739–42

    Google Scholar 

  47. Laurent JM, et al. (2010) Protein abundances are more conserved than mRNA abundances across diverse taxa. Proteomics 10:4209–4212

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Khan Z, Ford MJ, Cusanovich DA, Mitrano A, Pritchard JK, Gilad Y. (2013) Primate transcript and protein expression levels evolve under compensatory selection pressures. Science 342:1100–1104

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Wiseman FK, Al-Janabi T, Hardy J, Karmiloff-Smith A, Nizetic D, Tybulewicz VLJ, Fisher EMC, Strydom A (2015) A genetic cause of Alzheimer disease: mechanistic insights from Down Syndrome. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 16:564–574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Jacobs PA (2014) An opportune life: 50 years in human cytogenetics. Annual Review of Genomics & Human Genetics 15:29–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Gimenez-Barcons M, Casteras A, Armengol MdP, Porta E, Correa PA, Marın A, Pujol-Borrell R, Colobran R (2014) Autoimmune predisposition in Down syndrome may result from a partial central tolerance failure due to insufficient intrathymic expression of AIRE and Peripheral Antigens. Journal of Immunology 193:3872–3879

    Google Scholar 

  52. Danial NN, Korsmeyer SJ (2004) Cell death. Critical control points. Cell 116:205–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bateson W, Punnett RC (1911) On gametic series involving reduplication of certain terms. Journal of Genetics 1:293–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Weinberg W (1912) Zur Vererbung des Zwergwuchses. Archiv für Rassen- und Gesellschafts-Biologie 9: 710–717

    Google Scholar 

  55. Goriely A, Wilkie AO (2012) Paternal age effect mutations and selfish spermatogonial selection: causes and consequences for human disease: American Journal of Human Genetics 90:175–200

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Shinde DN, Elmer DP, Calabrese P, Boulanger J, Arnheim N, Tiemann-Boege I (2013) New evidence for positive selection helps explain the paternal age effect observed in achondroplasia. 22:4117–4126

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Forsdyke, D.R. (2016). Rebooting the Genome. In: Evolutionary Bioinformatics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28755-3_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics