Abstract
There has been a large literature in the last two decades affirming adaptive DNA sequence evolution between species. The main lines of evidence are from (i) the McDonald-Kreitman (MK) test, which compares divergence and polymorphism data, and (ii) the phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood (PAML) test, which analyzes multispecies divergence data. Here, we apply these two tests concurrently to genomic data of Drosophila and Arabidopsis. To our surprise, the >100 genes identified by the two tests do not overlap beyond random expectation. Because the non-concordance could be due to low powers leading to high false negatives, we merge every 20-30 genes into a 'supergene'. At the supergene level, the power of detection is large but the calls still do not overlap. We rule out methodological reasons for the non-concordance. In particular, extensive simulations fail to find scenarios whereby positive selection can only be detected by either MK or PAML, but not both. Since molecular evolution is governed by positive and negative selection concurrently, a fundamental assumption for estimating one of these (say, positive selection) is that the other is constant. However, in a broad survey of primates, birds, Drosophila and Arabidopsis, we found that negative selection rarely stays constant for long in evolution. As a consequence, the variation in negative selection is often misconstrued as a signal of positive selection. In conclusion, MK, PAML and any method that examines genomic sequence evolution has to explicitly address the variation in negative selection before estimating positive selection. In a companion study, we propose a possible path forward in two stages-first, by mapping out the changes in negative selection and then using this map to estimate positive selection. For now, the large literature on positive selection between species has to await reassessment.