The term “selfish DNA” refers to genetic components that can reproduce without regard for the health of the host organism. The presence of selfish DNA in various creatures, from plants to animals to humans, has had a major impact on the development of more complex life forms. Werren et al. defined a selfish gene as a piece of a genome that increases its own replication relative to the rest of the genome in their first thorough examination of parasitic or selfish genes (Werren, 2011). It has no effect on the organism as a whole. Heritable bacteria and organelles that influence sex determination, as well as transposable elements (TEs), meiotic drivers, supernumerary B chromosomes, post-segregation killers, and meiotic drivers, are examples.

In 1976, molecular biologist John Cairns and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins came up with the idea of selfish DNA. Transposable elements, which may move across a genome and replicate on their own, were cited as genetic components that could multiply and spread without regard for the organism’s health. Evolutionary theory, as it had previously been understood, was called into question because of this hypothesis.

In two studies published back-to-back in Nature in 1980, Leslie Orgel, Francis Crick, Ford Doolittle, and Carmen Sapienza introduced the concept of selfish genetic components (at the time dubbed “selfish DNA”) to the general scientific world. The gene-Centered evolutionary ideas made popular by Williams and Dawkins served as the inspiration for these publications. Both studies emphasized that genes may propagate across a population as long as they have a transmission advantage, regardless of how they alter organismal fitness. Previously discovered selfish genetic components have been found in most animal groupings, and they demonstrate a remarkable diversity in how they aid their own transmission. They were formerly disregarded as genetic oddities with little bearing on evolution, but it is now recognized that they have an impact on a variety of biological processes, including evolution and genome size and structure. (Sheinman et al., 2016).

Aim

In this paper, we’ll look at how selfish DNA has played a role in developing sophisticated species over time. This research topic will examine the role of selfish DNA in the evolution of complex organisms. It will analyze the evidence for and against the idea that selfish DNA has been selected over time and how it may have contributed to the development of complex organisms. Additionally, the research will explore how selfish DNA may interact with other evolutionary processes and the potential implications of its presence in the genome. The concept of “selfish DNA” is a source of ongoing controversy in evolutionary biology. Selfish DNA is defined as DNA sequences that appear to exist for no purpose but their own replication. Some scientists have argued that these sequences may have been selected over time due to their ability to increase their abundance. Proponents of this idea argue that selfish DNA may have played a role in the evolution of complex organisms. In contrast, others dispute this idea and point to evidence that suggests that selfish DNA may be a mere by-product of other evolutionary processes.

Scope

As a result of factual and conceptual advances in genetics and evolutionary biology, a gene-centric view of evolution is becoming increasingly commonly accepted. In this regard, Dawkins The Selfish Gene is a notable book. In general, animals were referred to as “vehicles” for transmitting genes, and genes themselves were described as “selfish replicators” that encode traits that improve their transmission to subsequent generations.There was a lot of discussion about their potential function inside the genome. On the other hand, quick progress in molecular biology showed that many eukaryotic genomes include significant quantities of repetitive DNA with no known purpose. There are still many unanswered concerns concerning selfish DNA and evolution. As a result, the primary focus of this study is on how selfish DNA influences complex organisms.

Literature review

Types of Selfish DNA

Selfish gene elements can be classified into the following broad categories: Transposed elements, biased gene converters, meiotic drivers, post-segregation drivers, and cytoplasmic drivers. These components seek to promote their transmission at the expense of other regions of a person’s genome. Nevertheless, these characteristics can have long-term evolutionary benefits, and several on the following list can have both selfish and beneficial components (Crespi & Nosil, 2013).

Transposons

Mobile elements include Transposed elements, endogenous viruses, and plasmids. Because of their ability to copy and proliferate across the genome, Transposed elements can accumulate over time. Doolittle, Sapienza, Orgel, and Crick were the first to classify them as Selfish gene elements, and this is now widely accepted. DNA transposons and retrotransposons are the two main forms of TEs, and they both migrate utilizing copies of DNA as an intermediate. Nonautonomous Transposed elements (those that do not encode the proteins necessary for transposition but use the cellular infrastructure or proteins provided by other Transposed elements) or autonomous Transposed elements (those that do encode the proteins that assist their transposition) (Sheinman et al., 2016).

Meiotic Drivers

Haploid gametes are created during the meiotic process from diploid germ cells. When meiosis is described as “fair,” it means there is an equal likelihood that the identical two identical chromosomes will develop into functional gametes (eggs or sperm). However, Meiosis provides Selfish gene components with opportunities that may boost their transmission compared to a non-driving homolog Wong (2001). The latter variation is usually found in men because it produces an excess of gametes that effectively compete for the fertilization of eggs. Gamete death increases the amount of sperm available from heterozygous males to fertilize eggs with the driving chromosome. Wong (2001)

Evidence of Selfish DNA in complex organisms

Changes in mating systems were made to compensate for the shortage of males caused by meiotic drivers and cytoplasmic sex ratio distorters. Given that the germ granule, an essential component in defining germ cells, contains proteins necessary for TE suppression, SGEs may have contributed to the emergence of a segregated genome. According to Suzuki et al., genomic imprinting and the development of the mammalian birth canal come before DNA methylation suppresses Transposed elements. These findings suggest that some selfish genetics may have various evolutionary consequences.

It has been demonstrated that transposable elements and selfish B chromosomes, in particular, contribute to the variability in genome size. The most focus has been placed on how transposable elements affect plant genomes. Due to transposon accumulation, the genome of the Norwegian spruce (Picea abies), which has a genome identical to the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana (which has about thirty thousand genes), is about one hundred times larger. The presence of transposable elements has also been connected to the extremely large genomes reported in salamanders (Werren, 2011).

Certain selfish genetic components impact the genetic transmission process in order to benefit themselves, resulting in their overrepresentation in gametes. The term “segregation distortion” refers to all of these distortions, which can take many forms. When meiosis occurs, some components can be transmitted preferentially in egg cells instead of polar bodies; only the former will be fertilized and handed down to the following generation (Larracuente & Presgraves, 2012). It will be easier to transmit genes that increase the possibility that they will end up in an egg rather than a polar body (Fedoroff, 2012).

The number of TEs in eukaryotic genomes may vary substantially. For example, TEs are found in just 3% of the genome of pufferfish but in 42% of the human genome. Plants differ in the same way. Transposed elements and other repetitive DNA can therefore have a significant influence on genome size within taxa. The taxonomic breadth of the TE distribution also varies greatly. Currently, ten or more DNA TE superfamilies have been found, and several show significant host taxonomic dispersion and laterally transfer signals. Blood-sucking triatomine bugs and vertebrates include members of four DNA TE groups, suggesting putative intertaxon transmission routes. Retroposons have been seen to transmit from reptiles to mammals through adenoviruses. (Werren, 2011). According to a study of Drosophila genomes, 0.07 interspecies lateral transfers per family happened on average per million years, implying that around one-third of the TE families had recently occurred origins. Indeed, lateral movement among host taxa is believed to be critical to the long-term survival of Transposed elements families. According to this theory, the host’s evolutionary limitation of transposed elements would ultimately lead to their mutational degeneration and loss, with the exception of transposed elements that travel laterally to “infect” and invade other hosts. 2011 (Werren).

Selfish genetic element’s consequences on the evolution

Selfish chromosomes and other genetic components have been shown to boost their transmission rate at the expense of the rest of the genome, which can have serious consequences for the creatures that carry them (Shapiro,2021). These segregation distortions are hypothesized to either stabilize (perhaps leading to population extinction) or, more frequently, drive the emergence of genetic suppression to rebalance transmission (Price,2019).

SGEs accelerate the evolution of additional genomic areas. The development of important eukaryotic genome traits, including DNA methylation, RNAi, short RNA regulatory pathways, and R-M systems, can be partially attributed to their development as defense mechanisms against SGEs. Many genetic components exhibit both “beneficial” (“mutualistic”) and selfish (parasitic) traits in their phenotypes. The mitochondrion is a prime example because, despite its undeniable advantages, it also possesses self-centered traits (such as cytoplasmic male sterility), lowering nuclear gene fitness and leading to genetic conflict. Evolutionary reliance can form in hosts with significant SGEs, eventually leading to irreversible dependence. SGEs may have a role in species extinction as well as eukaryotic proliferation and diversity, according to mounting data. Evolutionary advances like acquiring new genes and gene control from TEs, heritable microorganisms (like Wolbachia), and self-serving plasmids result from the domestication of SGE genomes. Safe havens help SGEs establish stronger ties to host lineages and, possibly, domesticate. 2012 (Fedoroff). The origins of SGEs’ evolutionary influences and those that maintain them through time are separated in the last section.

In order to produce male and female gametes, both male and female humans must undergo extensive cellular division over a period of several years. Hence, gametogenesis allows a wide range of de novo mutations to be acquired. In particular, several of these have the potential to alter the intracellular pathways that connect the genes, proteins, RNA, and metabolites that make up the cellular machinery. There has been a lot of research on the complexity, resilience, and evolutionary potential of these networks of individual cells. They have enough independence to be labeled “selfish” and keep tabs on their own development. These resilient networks are essential for gametogenesis, and they are safeguarded by quality control mechanisms built into and act upon the individual nodes. Before being passed on to the offspring, fundamental household chores would be regulated and evolved in the parents during gametogenesis. Additionally, the classical selection is likely to have influenced the evolution of the most complicated organisms, including man, by acting on additional characteristics of the organisms that affect their fitness with respect to the environment. (Price,2019).

Many side consequences of selfish DNA have been observed in complex organisms. It has the potential to trigger mutations, which can result in the appearance of novel characteristics. Moreover, it can lead to the duplication of genes, which can increase an organism’s complexity. Alterations in gene expression due to selfish DNA can produce novel phenotypes.

Findings

Selfish genetic elements are widespread in eukaryotes and can take many different shapes. They include components that alter segregation, such as transposons and meiotic drive chromosomes, as well as post-segregational elements, such as the Medea locus found in many insects.

The variety of selfish genetic traits in a species affects its outbreeding rate; sexual reproduction increases the transmission of selfish genetic traits, but inbreeding reduces it. The selfish component phenotype is frequently seen in hybrids produced by between-population crossovers because these crossings enhance variance and may lessen the suppression of selfish traits. Host speciation may be impacted by selfish genetic factors, such as Wolbachia-mediated cytoplasmic incompatibility, which encourages reproductive isolation in some Drosophila species. Due to significant sex-ratio bias, segregation distorters, particularly meiotic-drive sex chromosomes, may cause host extinction.Ågren and Clark (2018).

Selfish genetic variables significantly impact the eukaryotic genomic organization. Het-A class I transposable elements make up Drosophila telomeres, and the “introns late” theory postulates that introns descended from transposon-like elements. RNA interference and methylation may have developed as a host defense against inversion.

There are several different sex-determination systems in both plants and animals. The struggle between non-Mendelian sex-ratio distorters and Mendelian nuclear genes, which may make sex determination genetically unstable, may have influenced the evolution of sex-determination systems. (gren et al., 2014).

Finally, generous DNA is not the only determinant in species evolution. This is due to the fact that the rapid spread of selfish DNA throughout a population can cause changes in gene frequencies. These changes may allow some populations to adapt to their new circumstances faster than others, resulting in the emergence of a new species (Brookfield, 2005).

As a result, selfish DNA has played a significant role in deciding how complex organisms have developed. It can alter the connections between genes as well as the structure of DNA, resulting in mutations, gene duplication, and altered expression patterns. Because some populations are more suited to adapt to their new settings than others, this process may result in entirely new species Hurst and Warren (2001). The impact of selfish DNA on evolution has significantly impacted the variety of life on Earth.

Doolittle, Sapienza, Orgel, and Crick published significant publications proposing that repeating DNA may be seen as parasitic or self-centered replicators. Cosmides and Tooby established the concept of genetic antagonism between nuclear and cytoplasmic (such as mitochondrial) components over sex determination in 1981. SGEs and genetic conflict remained disputed, with some arguing that these components exist because they are important regulators of cells and evolution. Third, more genetic studies found non-Mendelian and other components in a range of organisms with “self-promoting” traits that could not be attributed only to organism adaptations (Fagundes et al., 2022). Meiotic drive and heritable elements like killer genes and a genetic code-erasing temporary chromosome, a great example of a nonadaptive self-promoting replicator, have been discovered in various species.

Conclusion and Future Directions

A detailed exploration of this concept will be possible with particular definitions of evolvability as a strategy for the evolutionary maintenance of SGEs. The data, however, points to SGEs being sustained by their features that facilitate transmission and that the evolutionary novelties they produce arise from their persistence rather than their inception.

Selfish genetic components are increasingly accepted as essential factors in evolution after being dismissed as genetic abnormalities with little value. We now know that they can influence a wide range of genomic, phenotypic, and ecological traits through their existence and co-evolution with suppressors. The influx of whole genome data, especially for the study of transposable elements, has been the main driver of this transition, while advances in mathematical modeling have also been important.

In order to create testable hypotheses, such as that advantageous mutations are necessary for the maintenance of active selfish genes or that clade selection favors lineages with active TEs, evolvability arguments must be adequately articulated (and described in non teleological language). This makes it possible to explore the evolvability concept in greater detail. The current findings demonstrate that TEs have significant evolutionary effects yet are retained because of their advantageous replication characteristics.

Reference

Sheinman, M., Ramisch, A., Massip, F., & Arndt, P. F. (2016). The evolutionary dynamics of selfish DNA explain the abundance distribution of genomic subsequences. Scientific Reports, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep30851

Werren, J. H. (2011). Selfish genetic elements, genetic conflict, and evolutionary innovation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(supplement_2), 10863–10870. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102343108

Fedoroff, N. V. (2012). Transposable Elements, Epigenetics, and Genome Evolution. Science, 338(6108), 758–767. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.338.6108.758

Ågren, J. A., & Clark, A. G. (2018). Selfish genetic elements. PLOS Genetics, 14(11), e1007700. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007700

Brookfield, J. F. Y. (2005). The ecology of the genome — mobile DNA elements and their hosts. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6(2), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1524

Fagundes, N. J. R., Bisso-Machado, R., Figueiredo, P., Varal, M., & Da Silva Zani, A. L. (2022). What We Talk About When We Talk About “Junk DNA.” Genome Biology and Evolution, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evac055

Wong, H. (2001). Selfish DNA. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 1805–1808). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1006/rwgn.2001.1170

Hurst, G. D. D., & Werren, J. H. (2001). The role of selfish genetic elements in eukaryotic evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics, 2(8), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1038/35084545

Shapiro, J., & Noble, D. (2021). What prevents mainstream evolutionists from teaching the whole truth about how genomes evolve? Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 165, 140-152.

Price, T. A. R., Verspoor, R., & Wedell, N. (2019). Ancient gene drives: an evolutionary paradox. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 286(1917), 20192267.

Ågren, J. A., Wang, W., Koenig, D., Neuffer, B., Weigel, D., & Wright, S. J. (2014). Mating system shifts and transposable element evolution in the plant genus Capsella. BMC Genomics, 15(1), 602. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-602

Crespi, B. J., & Nosil, P. (2013). Conflictual speciation: species formation via a genomic conflict. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28(1), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.015

Larracuente, A. M., & Presgraves, D. C. (2012). The Selfish Segregation Distorter Gene Complex of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics, 192(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.112.141390