Evolutionary computation and the c-value paradox

ABSTRACT

The C-value Paradox is the name given in biology to the wide variance in and often very large amount of DNA in eukaryotic genomes and the poor correlation between DNA length and perceived organism complexity. Several hypotheses exist which purport to explain the Paradox. Surprisingly there is a related phenomenon in evolutionary computation, known as code bloat, for which a different set of hypotheses has arisen. This paper describes a new hypothesis for the C-value Paradox derived from models of code bloat. The new explanation is that there is a selective bias in preference of genetic events which increase DNA material over those which decrease it. The paper suggests one possible concrete mechanism by which this may occur: deleting strands of DNA is more likely to damage genomic material than migrating or copying strands. The paper also discusses other hypotheses in biology and in evolutionary computation, and provides a simulation example as a proof of concept.

REFERENCES

• 1: Wolfgang Banzhaf , Frank D. Francone , Robert E. Keller , Peter Nordin, Genetic programming: an introduction: on the automatic evolution of computer programs and its applications, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1998
• 2: M. D. Bennett. Nuclear DNA content and minimum generation time in herbaceous plants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 181:109--135, 1972.
• 3: T. Blickle. Theory of Evolutionary Algorithms and Application to System Synthesis. PhD thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Nov. 1996.
• 4: T. A. Brown. Genetics: A Modern Approach. Chapman and Hall, London, 1992.
• 5: T. Cavalier-Smith. Nuclear volume control by nucleoskeletal DNA, selection for cell volume and cell growth rate and the solution of the DNA C-value paradox. Journal of Cell Science, 34:247--278, 1978.
• 6: T. Cavalier-Smith. How selfish is DNA? Nature, 285:617--618, June 1980.
• 7: B. Charlesworth, P. Sniegowski, and W. Stephan. The evolutionary dynamics of repetitive DNA in eukaryotes. Nature, 371:215--220, September 1994.
• 8: R. Dawkins. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, new edition, 1989.
• 9: K. M. Devos, J. K. M. Brown, and J. L. Bennetzen. Genome size reduction through illegitimate recombination counteracts genome expansion in arabidopsis. Genome Research, 12(7):1075--1079, July 2002.
• 10: W. F. Doolittle and C. Sapienza. Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution. Nature, 284:601--603, April 1980.
• 11: T. R. Gregory. Coincidence, coevolution, or causation? DNA content, cell size, and the C-value enigma. Biological Reviews, 76:65--101, 2001.
• 12: W. B. Langdon. Quadratic bloat in genetic programming. In D. Whitley, D. Goldberg, E. Cantu-Paz, L. Spector, I. Parmee, and H.-G. Beyer, editors, Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2000), pages 451--458, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 10-12 July 2000. Morgan Kaufmann.
• 13: Sean Luke, Modification point depth and genome growth in genetic programming, Evolutionary Computation, v.11 n.1, p.67-106, Spring 2003 [doi>10.1162/106365603321829014]
• 14: S. Luke. ECJ 12: An evolutionary computation research system in Java. Available at http://cs.gmu.edu/~eclab/projects/ecj/, 2004.
• 15: Peter Nordin , Wolfgang Banzhaf, Complexity Compression and Evolution, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, p.310-317, July 15-19, 1995
• 16: S. Ohno. Evolution by Gene Duplication. Springer, New York, 1970.
• 17: L. E. Orgel and F. H. C. Crick. Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite. Nature, 284:604--607, April 1980.
• 18: M. Pagel and R. A. Johnstone. Variation across species in the size of the nuclear genome supports the junk-DNA explanation for the C-value paradox. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 249(1325):119--124, August 1992.
• 19: A. Prachhumwat, L. DeVincentis, and M. F. Palopoli. Intron size correlates positively with recombination rate in caenorhabditis elegans. Genome Research, 166:1585--1590, March 2004.
• 20: Stephen Frederick Smith, A learning system based on genetic adaptive algorithms, 1980
• 21: T. Soule and J. A. Foster. Removal bias: a new cause of code growth in tree based evolutionary programming. In 1998 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, pages 781--186, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 5-9 May 1998. IEEE Press.
• 22: Walter Alden Tackett, Recombination, selection, and the genetic construction of computer programs, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 1994
• 23: C. A. Thomas. The genetic organization of chromosomes. Annual Review of Genetics, (5):237--256, 1971.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  J. Computer Applications
  J.3 LIFE AND MEDICAL SCIENCES
      Subjects: Biology and genetics

General Terms:
Experimentation

Keywords:
C-value paradox, code bloat, evolutionary genetics, genetic programming, theoretical biology