4.7 Review

Ordering microbial diversity into ecologically and genetically cohesive units

Journal

TRENDS IN MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages 235-247

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tim.2014.02.006

Keywords

population genomics; ecological differentiation; reverse ecology; gene flow; selective sweeps; mosaic sympatric speciation

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB 0821391]
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [P30-ES002109]
  3. Moore Foundation
  4. Broad Institute's Scientific Planning and Allocation of Resources Committee program
  5. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  6. Canada Research Chairs program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We propose that microbial diversity must be viewed in light of gene flow and selection, which define units of genetic similarity, and of phenotype and ecological function, respectively. We discuss to what extent ecological and genetic units overlap to form cohesive populations in the wild, based on recent evolutionary modeling and on evidence from some of the first microbial populations studied with genomics. These show that if recombination is frequent and selection moderate, ecologically adaptive mutations or genes can spread within populations independently of their original genomic background (gene-specific sweeps). Alternatively, if the effect of recombination is smaller than selection, genome-wide selective sweeps should occur. In both cases, however, distinct units of overlapping ecological and genotypic similarity will form if microgeographic separation, likely involving ecological tradeoffs, induces barriers to gene flow. These predictions are supported by (meta)genomic data, which suggest that a 'reverse ecology' approach, in which genomic and gene flow information is used to make predictions about the nature of ecological units, is a powerful approach to ordering microbial diversity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available