4.8 Article

Comparative transcriptomics reveals patterns of selection in domesticated and wild tomato

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1309606110

Keywords

domestication; biotic stress; abiotic stress

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation Grant [IOS-0820854]
  2. Human Frontier Science Program Fellowship [LT000783]
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1052395] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems [1052395] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences [0820854] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24770047] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although applied over extremely short timescales, artificial selection has dramatically altered the form, physiology, and life history of cultivated plants. We have used RNAseq to define both gene sequence and expression divergence between cultivated tomato and five related wild species. Based on sequence differences, we detect footprints of positive selection in over 50 genes. We also document thousands of shifts in gene-expression level, many of which resulted from changes in selection pressure. These rapidly evolving genes are commonly associated with environmental response and stress tolerance. The importance of environmental inputs during evolution of gene expression is further highlighted by large-scale alteration of the light response coexpression network between wild and cultivated accessions. Human manipulation of the genome has heavily impacted the tomato transcriptome through directed admixture and by indirectly favoring nonsynonymous over synonymous substitutions. Taken together, our results shed light on the pervasive effects artificial and natural selection have had on the transcriptomes of tomato and its wild relatives.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available