The randomness that shapes our DNA

Moderating the neutralist-selectionist debate: exactly which propositions are we debating, and which arguments are valid?

Half a century after its foundation, the neutral theory of molecular evolution continues to attract controversy. The debate has been hampered by the coexistence of different interpretations of the core proposition of the neutral theory, the 'neutral mutation-random drift' hypothesis. In this review, we trace the origins of these ambiguities and suggest potential solutions. We highlight the difference between the original, the revised and the nearly neutral hypothesis, and re-emphasise that none of them equates to the null hypothesis of strict neutrality. We distinguish the neutral hypothesis of protein evolution, the main focus of the ongoing debate, from the neutral hypotheses of genomic and functional DNA evolution, which for many species are generally accepted. We advocate a further distinction between a narrow and an extended neutral hypothesis (of which the latter posits that random non-conservative amino acid substitutions can cause non-ecological phenotypic divergence), and we discuss the implications for evolutionary biology beyond the domain of molecular evolution. We furthermore point out that the debate has widened from its initial focus on point mutations, and also concerns the fitness effects of large-scale mutations, which can alter the dosage of genes and regulatory sequences. We evaluate the validity of neutralist and selectionist arguments and find that the tested predictions, apart from being sensitive to violation of underlying assumptions, are often derived from the null hypothesis of strict neutrality, or equally consistent with the opposing selectionist hypothesis, except when assuming molecular panselectionism. Our review aims to facilitate a constructive neutralist-selectionist debate, and thereby to contribute to answering a key question of evolutionary biology: what proportions of amino acid and nucleotide substitutions and polymorphisms are adaptive?

Tumor somatic mutations also existing as germline polymorphisms may help to identify functional SNPs from genome-wide association studies

We hypothesized that a joint analysis of cancer risk-associated single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and somatic mutations in tumor samples can predict functional and potentially causal SNPs from GWASs. We used mutations reported in the Catalog of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC). Confirmed somatic mutations were subdivided into two groups: (1) mutations reported as SNPs, which we call mutational/SNPs and (2) somatic mutations that are not reported as SNPs, which we call mutational/noSNPs. It is generally accepted that the number of times a somatic mutation is reported in COSMIC correlates with its selective advantage to tumors, with more frequently reported mutations being more functional and providing a stronger selective advantage to the tumor cell. We found that mutations reported ≥10 times in COSMIC-frequent mutational/SNPs (fmSNPs) are likely to be functional. We identified 12 cancer risk-associated SNPs reported in the Catalog of published GWASs at least 10 times as confirmed somatic mutations and therefore deemed to be functional. Additionally, we have identified 42 SNPs that are tightly linked (R2 ≥ 0.8) to SNPs reported in the Catalog of published GWASs as cancer risk associated and that are also reported as fmSNPs. As a result, 54 candidate functional/potentially causal cancer risk associated SNPs were identified. We found that fmSNPs are more likely to be located in evolutionarily conserved regions compared with cancer risk associated SNPs that are not fmSNPs. We also found that fmSNPs also underwent positive selection, which can explain why they exist as population polymorphisms.

Identifying adaptive alleles in the human genome: from selection mapping to functional validation

The suite of phenotypic diversity across geographically distributed human populations is the outcome of genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection throughout human evolution. Human genetic variation underlying local biological adaptations to selective pressures is incompletely characterized. With the emergence of population genetics modeling of large-scale genomic data derived from diverse populations, scientists are able to map signatures of natural selection in the genome in a process known as selection mapping. Inferred selection signals further can be used to identify candidate functional alleles that underlie putative adaptive phenotypes. Phenotypic association, fine mapping, and functional experiments facilitate the identification of candidate adaptive alleles. Functional investigation of candidate adaptive variation using novel techniques in molecular biology is slowly beginning to unravel how selection signals translate to changes in biology that underlie the phenotypic spectrum of our species. In addition to informing evolutionary hypotheses of adaptation, the discovery and functional annotation of adaptive alleles also may be of clinical significance. While selection mapping efforts in non-European populations are growing, there remains a stark under-representation of diverse human populations in current public genomic databases, of both clinical and non-clinical cohorts. This lack of inclusion limits the study of human biological variation. Identifying and functionally validating candidate adaptive alleles in more global populations is necessary for understanding basic human biology and human disease.

The natural selection that shapes our genomes

Most of the variation in the human genome (∼95%) is constrained, directly or indirectly, by purifying selection and GC-biased gene conversion, according to a recent article by Pouyet et al. (2018). The use of 'non-neutral' variation to infer human demographies can lead to undesirable biases; for example, in estimation of the time of the most recent common ancestor. Further examination of 'neutral' variation in entire human genomes from The 1000 Genomes Project reveals that ∼99% of this variation lacks exonic function, but ∼35% of it falls in introns. In addition, estimates of biogeographical ancestry using 'non-neutral' SNPs differ very marginally from inferences obtained from 'neutral' variation. Additional investigations should be carried out before establishing the roadmap for future human population and forensic genetic studies.