<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bacterial genomes and evolution.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:46:45 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: SteveF</title>
		<link>http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-520</link>
		<dc:creator>SteveF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/#comment-520</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s an upcoming paper on bacterial genomes and evolution, from Nancy Moran:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;Obligate symbioses with nutrient-provisioning bacteria have originated often during animal evolution and have been key to the ecological diversification of many invertebrate groups. To date, genome sequences of insect nutritional symbionts have been restricted to a related cluster within Gammaproteobacteria and have revealed distinctive features, including extreme reduction, rapid evolution, and biased nucleotide composition. Using recently developed sequencing technologies, we show that Sulcia muelleri, a member of the Bacteroidetes, underwent similar genomic changes during coevolution with its sap-feeding insect host (sharpshooters) and the coresident symbiont Baumannia cicadellinicola (Gammaproteobacteria). At 245 kilobases, Sulcia&#039;s genome is approximately one tenth of the smallest known Bacteroidetes genome and among the smallest for any cellular organism. Analysis of the coding capacities of Sulcia and Baumannia reveals striking complementarity in metabolic capabilities.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0708855104v1</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s an upcoming paper on bacterial genomes and evolution, from Nancy Moran:</p>
<p><i>Obligate symbioses with nutrient-provisioning bacteria have originated often during animal evolution and have been key to the ecological diversification of many invertebrate groups. To date, genome sequences of insect nutritional symbionts have been restricted to a related cluster within Gammaproteobacteria and have revealed distinctive features, including extreme reduction, rapid evolution, and biased nucleotide composition. Using recently developed sequencing technologies, we show that Sulcia muelleri, a member of the Bacteroidetes, underwent similar genomic changes during coevolution with its sap-feeding insect host (sharpshooters) and the coresident symbiont Baumannia cicadellinicola (Gammaproteobacteria). At 245 kilobases, Sulcia&#8217;s genome is approximately one tenth of the smallest known Bacteroidetes genome and among the smallest for any cellular organism. Analysis of the coding capacities of Sulcia and Baumannia reveals striking complementarity in metabolic capabilities.</i></p>
<p><a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0708855104v1" rel="nofollow">http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0708855104v1</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake Stacey</title>
		<link>http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-518</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake Stacey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/#comment-518</guid>
		<description>While we&#039;re on the general subject, I&#039;d be interested to hear a biology person&#039;s opinion of &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3580&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this preprint&lt;/a&gt; I noticed, &quot;An evolutionary model with Turing machines&quot;, which investigates via simulation the growth of non-coding genetic material.  My comments, from a decidedly amateur perspective, are &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=407&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I have no stake in this issue and (to my knowledge) no connection with the authors &#8212; it just caught my eye whilst I was browsing &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://export.arxiv.org/rss/q-bio&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the arXiv&#039;s quantitative biology RSS feed&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While we&#8217;re on the general subject, I&#8217;d be interested to hear a biology person&#8217;s opinion of <a HREF="http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3580" REL="nofollow">this preprint</a> I noticed, &#8220;An evolutionary model with Turing machines&#8221;, which investigates via simulation the growth of non-coding genetic material.  My comments, from a decidedly amateur perspective, are <a HREF="http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=407" REL="nofollow">here</a>.</p>
<p>I have no stake in this issue and (to my knowledge) no connection with the authors &mdash; it just caught my eye whilst I was browsing <a HREF="http://export.arxiv.org/rss/q-bio" REL="nofollow">the arXiv&#8217;s quantitative biology RSS feed</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TR Gregory</title>
		<link>http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-516</link>
		<dc:creator>TR Gregory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/#comment-516</guid>
		<description>Anyway, I&#039;m with you on the usefulness of other sources of data, but the larger point of my post is that only certain bacterial genomes shrink and that this follows established evolutionary principles.  That there is disagreement about which of those principles is the most important in this instance is a fine illustration that in evolution we can argue about the explanation but this has no bearing on the underlying fact.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anyway, I&#8217;m with you on the usefulness of other sources of data, but the larger point of my post is that only certain bacterial genomes shrink and that this follows established evolutionary principles.  That there is disagreement about which of those principles is the most important in this instance is a fine illustration that in evolution we can argue about the explanation but this has no bearing on the underlying fact.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TR Gregory</title>
		<link>http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-515</link>
		<dc:creator>TR Gregory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/#comment-515</guid>
		<description>Then I guess you&#039;ll have to continue assuming it&#039;s selection until evidence that fits your requirement arises. :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Then I guess you&#8217;ll have to continue assuming it&#8217;s selection until evidence that fits your requirement arises. :-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RPM</title>
		<link>http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-514</link>
		<dc:creator>RPM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/#comment-514</guid>
		<description>microsats have a different mutational process than non-microsats. I&#039;d be very hesitant to generalize from microsats.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>microsats have a different mutational process than non-microsats. I&#8217;d be very hesitant to generalize from microsats.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TR Gregory</title>
		<link>http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-513</link>
		<dc:creator>TR Gregory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/#comment-513</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think a general bias toward deletion is particularly controversial. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;There&#039;s at least one study that looked at the question at the level you suggest (including a competition experiment).&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Genome Research 12: 408-413 (2002)&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;b&gt;Domain-Level Differences in Microsatellite Distribution and Content Result from Different Relative Rates of Insertion and Deletion Mutations&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;David Metzgar, Li Liu, Christian Hansen, Kevin Dybvig, and Christopher Wills&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Abstract&lt;br/&gt;Microsatellites (short tandem polynucleotide repeats) are found throughout eukaryotic genomes at frequencies many orders of magnitude higher than the frequencies predicted to occur by chance. Most of these microsatellites appear to have evolved in a generally neutral manner. In contrast, microsatellites are generally absent from bacterial genomes except in locations where they provide adaptive functional variability, and these appear to have evolved under selection. We demonstrate a mutational bias towards deletion (repeat contraction) in a native chromosomal microsatellite of the bacterium Mycoplasma gallisepticum, through the collection and analysis of independent mutations in the absence of natural selection. Using this and similar existing data from two other bacterial species and four eukaryotic species, we find strong evidence that deletion biases resulting in repeat contraction are common in bacteria, while eukaryotic microsatellites generally experience unbiased mutation or a bias towards insertion (repeat expansion). This difference in mutational bias suggests that eukaryotic microsatellites should generally expand wherever selection does not exclude them, whereas bacterial microsatellites should be driven to extinction by mutational pressure wherever they are not maintained by selection. This is consistent with observed bacterial and eukaryotic microsatellite distributions. Hence, mutational biases that differ between eukaryotes and bacteria can account for many of the observed differences in microsatellite DNA content and distribution found in these two groups of organisms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think a general bias toward deletion is particularly controversial. </p>
<p>There&#8217;s at least one study that looked at the question at the level you suggest (including a competition experiment).</p>
<p>Genome Research 12: 408-413 (2002)</p>
<p><b>Domain-Level Differences in Microsatellite Distribution and Content Result from Different Relative Rates of Insertion and Deletion Mutations</b></p>
<p>David Metzgar, Li Liu, Christian Hansen, Kevin Dybvig, and Christopher Wills</p>
<p>Abstract<br />Microsatellites (short tandem polynucleotide repeats) are found throughout eukaryotic genomes at frequencies many orders of magnitude higher than the frequencies predicted to occur by chance. Most of these microsatellites appear to have evolved in a generally neutral manner. In contrast, microsatellites are generally absent from bacterial genomes except in locations where they provide adaptive functional variability, and these appear to have evolved under selection. We demonstrate a mutational bias towards deletion (repeat contraction) in a native chromosomal microsatellite of the bacterium Mycoplasma gallisepticum, through the collection and analysis of independent mutations in the absence of natural selection. Using this and similar existing data from two other bacterial species and four eukaryotic species, we find strong evidence that deletion biases resulting in repeat contraction are common in bacteria, while eukaryotic microsatellites generally experience unbiased mutation or a bias towards insertion (repeat expansion). This difference in mutational bias suggests that eukaryotic microsatellites should generally expand wherever selection does not exclude them, whereas bacterial microsatellites should be driven to extinction by mutational pressure wherever they are not maintained by selection. This is consistent with observed bacterial and eukaryotic microsatellite distributions. Hence, mutational biases that differ between eukaryotes and bacteria can account for many of the observed differences in microsatellite DNA content and distribution found in these two groups of organisms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RPM</title>
		<link>http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-512</link>
		<dc:creator>RPM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/#comment-512</guid>
		<description>A competition experiment is not necessary. Just grow up a population of bacteria starting with a genome that contains pseudogenese and give them unlimited resources. If there is a deletion bias, you should see more deletions than insertions in the pseudogenes.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The problem with looking across species in any evolutionary analysis is that it&#039;s nearly impossible to separate mutation from selection (if in &quot;junk DNA&quot;). To really do that, you need to look at smaller time scales.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A competition experiment is not necessary. Just grow up a population of bacteria starting with a genome that contains pseudogenese and give them unlimited resources. If there is a deletion bias, you should see more deletions than insertions in the pseudogenes.</p>
<p>The problem with looking across species in any evolutionary analysis is that it&#8217;s nearly impossible to separate mutation from selection (if in &#8220;junk DNA&#8221;). To really do that, you need to look at smaller time scales.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed Yong</title>
		<link>http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-511</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed Yong</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/#comment-511</guid>
		<description>Lovely post TR - I suspect that the problem the creationists are having with this (aside from, you know, the general idiocy) is the false idea that evolution is about progress. It&#039;s the trite pop definition of the word which can&#039;t possibly be in line with a &lt;i&gt;deletion&lt;/i&gt; of genetic material.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lovely post TR &#8211; I suspect that the problem the creationists are having with this (aside from, you know, the general idiocy) is the false idea that evolution is about progress. It&#8217;s the trite pop definition of the word which can&#8217;t possibly be in line with a <i>deletion</i> of genetic material.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TR Gregory</title>
		<link>http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-510</link>
		<dc:creator>TR Gregory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/#comment-510</guid>
		<description>What kind of experiment do you have in mind? And what do you expect the selection pressure to be for favouring small deletions to pseudogenes?  Do you mean competition experiments within populations, perhaps on the basis of cell division rate due to faster DNA replication?  They looked across species and found no such relationship, but presumably you could look at a microevolutionary scale also.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What kind of experiment do you have in mind? And what do you expect the selection pressure to be for favouring small deletions to pseudogenes?  Do you mean competition experiments within populations, perhaps on the basis of cell division rate due to faster DNA replication?  They looked across species and found no such relationship, but presumably you could look at a microevolutionary scale also.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RPM</title>
		<link>http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-509</link>
		<dc:creator>RPM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/11/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution/#comment-509</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m really not happy with the conclusion that the deletion bias in bacteria is the result of mutational bias. Mira et al inferred the deletion bias by comparing pseudogenes from different species, which does not allow one to decouple mutation from selection. A more appropriate analysis would look at polymorphism data or lab experiments that would allow for more decoupling between mutational and selection pressures.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m really not happy with the conclusion that the deletion bias in bacteria is the result of mutational bias. Mira et al inferred the deletion bias by comparing pseudogenes from different species, which does not allow one to decouple mutation from selection. A more appropriate analysis would look at polymorphism data or lab experiments that would allow for more decoupling between mutational and selection pressures.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

