4.3 Article

Population genomics and subgenome evolution of the allotetraploid frog Xenopus laevis in southern Africa

Journal

G3-GENES GENOMES GENETICS
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/g3journal/jkac325

Keywords

gene flow; phylogeography; polyploid ratchet; population genetics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Allotetraploid genomes consist of two subgenomes derived from separate diploid ancestral species. The study found that there is no significant difference in subgenome population structure and gene flow. However, the population structure in both the nuclear genome and the mitochondrial genome roughly correspond with seasonal rainfall variation and the topography of southern Africa.
Allotetraploid genomes have two distinct genomic components called subgenomes that are derived from separate diploid ancestral species. Many genomic characteristics such as gene function, expression, recombination, and transposable element mobility may differ significantly between subgenomes. To explore the possibility that subgenome population structure and gene flow may differ as well, we examined genetic variation in an allotetraploid frog-the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis)-over the dynamic and varied habitat of its native range in southern Africa. Using reduced representation genome sequences from 91 samples from 12 localities, we found no strong evidence that population structure and gene flow differed substantially by subgenome. We then compared patterns of population structure in the nuclear genome to the mitochondrial genome using Sanger sequences from 455 samples from 183 localities. Our results provide further resolution to the geographic distribution of mitochondrial and nuclear diversity in this species and illustrate that population structure in both genomes corresponds roughly with variation in seasonal rainfall and with the topography of southern Africa.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available