Skip Navigation


MBE Advance Access originally published online on June 4, 2008
Molecular Biology and Evolution 2008 25(8):1737-1749; doi:10.1093/molbev/msn126
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrowOA All Versions of this Article:
25/8/1737    most recent
msn126v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zhao, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Epstein, R. J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zhao, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Epstein, R. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2008 The Authors
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Research Articles

Programmed Genetic Instability: A Tumor-Permissive Mechanism for Maintaining the Evolvability of Higher Species through Methylation-Dependent Mutation of DNA Repair Genes in the Male Germ Line

Yongzhong Zhao1 and Richard J. Epstein

Laboratory of Computational Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

E-mail: repstein{at}hku.hk

Accepted for publication May 26, 2008.

Tumor suppressor genes are classified by their somatic behavior either as caretakers (CTs) that maintain DNA integrity or as gatekeepers (GKs) that regulate cell survival, but the germ line role of these disease-related gene subgroups may differ. To test this hypothesis, we have used genomic data mining to compare the features of human CTs (n = 38), GKs (n = 36), DNA repair genes (n = 165), apoptosis genes (n = 622), and their orthologs. This analysis reveals that repair genes are numerically less common than apoptosis genes in the genomes of multicellular organisms (P < 0.01), whereas CT orthologs are commoner than GK orthologs in unicellular organisms (P < 0.05). Gene targeting data show that CTs are less essential than GKs for survival of multicellular organisms (P < 0.0005) and that CT knockouts often permit offspring viability at the cost of male sterility. Patterns of human familial oncogenic mutations confirm that isolated CT loss is commoner than is isolated GK loss (P < 0.00001). In sexually reproducing species, CTs appear subject to less efficient purifying selection (i.e., higher Ka/Ks) than GKs (P = 0.000003); the faster evolution of CTs seems likely to be mediated by gene methylation and reduced transcription-coupled repair, based on differences in dinucleotide patterns (P = 0.001). These data suggest that germ line CT/repair gene function is relatively dispensable for survival, and imply that milder (e.g., epimutational) male prezygotic repair defects could enhance sperm variation—and hence environmental adaptation and speciation—while sparing fertility. We submit that CTs and repair genes are general targets for epigenetically initiated adaptive evolution, and propose a model in which human cancers arise in part as an evolutionarily programmed side effect of age- and damage-inducible genetic instability affecting both somatic and germ line lineages.

Key Words: molecular evolution • adaptive evolution • carcinogenesis • DNA repair


1 Present address: NE20, Department of Molecular Genetics, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH

Takashi Gojobori, Associate Editor


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.