Gene expression isn't that different

A review paper worth checking out in Molecular Ecology, Variation within and among species in gene expression: raw material for evolution. The salient bit:

We find: (i) microarray-based measures of gene expression are precise given appropriate experimental design; (ii) there is large inter-individual variation, which is composed of a minor nongenetic component and a large heritable component; (iii) variation among populations and species appears to be affected primarily by neutral drift and stabilizing selection, and to a lesser degree by directional selection; and (iv) neutral evolutionary divergence in gene expression becomes nonlinear with greater divergence times due to functional constraint.

In Darwin's Dangerous Idea Daniel Dennett contended that selection is "substrate neutral." If that is so than the wide open realm of gene regulation and differential expression is going to be a twist on a familiar theme.

Tags

More like this

I commented a couple of days ago on a news item about a journal article on the evolution of gene expression in primates that had yet to be published. Well, the article has been published, and I've read it (Nature has also published a news and views piece on the study by Rasmus Nielsen). I have a…
How do evolutionary novelties arise? The conventional explanation is that the first step is the chance formation of a genetic mutation, which results in a new phenotype, which, if it is favored by selection, may be fixed in a population. No one sensible can seriously argue with this idea—it…
Philosopher Jerry Fodor offers up the latest example of a familiar genre: essays declaring the forthcoming demise of natural selection, coupled with very little in the way of supporting argument. He is writing in the London Review of Books. There's quite a bit I find wrong with Fodor's essay. In…
Friday - PLoS Genetics, Pathogens, Computational Biology and ONE published today. As always, you should rate the articles, post notes and comments and send trackbacks when you blog about the papers. You can now also easily place articles on various social services (CiteULike, Mendeley, Connotea,…

I agree with Dennett. It's the code that's important. Gene expression became easy to understand when I started thinking of it in terms of programming conditional statements: IF (foo) THEN {bar}. (Or for loops, while loops, etc.) Just like in any program you can also have nested conditionals, where activation of one gene causes a cascade of expression in numerous others. So mutation/selection for gene expression is just mutation/selection on the conditional portion of the code rather than the corresponding commands. In this light there's nothing novel or surprising about it.

Also demystifies a lot of the nonsense about "humans and chimps (or whatever) share 90-howevermuch % of their genes in common! How can they be so different?" A small change in the "if"s can make a huge diff.