4.5 Review

Mitonuclear discordance is caused by rampant mitochondrial introgression in Neodiprion (hymenoptera:diprionidae) sawflies

Journal

EVOLUTION
Volume 61, Issue 6, Pages 1417-1438

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00114.x

Keywords

Hybridization; introgression; IM; mitochondrial DNA; Neodiprion; phylogenetic discordance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigate the pervasiveness of hybridization and mitochondrial introgression in Neodiprion Rohwer (Hymenoptera; Diprionidae), a Holarctic genus of conifer-feeding sawflies. A phylogenetic analysis of the lecontei species group revealed extensive discordance between a contiguous mitochondrial region spanning three genes (COI, tRNA-leucine, and COII) and three nuclear loci (EF1 alpha, CAD, and an anonymous nuclear locus). Bayesian tests of monophyly and Shimodaira-Hasegawa (SH) tests of topological congruence were consistent with mitochondrial introgression; however, these patterns could also be explained by lineage sorting (i.e., deep coalescence). Therefore, to explicitly test the mitochondrial introgression hypothesis, we used a novel application of coalescent-based isolation with migration (IM) models to measure interspecific gene flow at each locus. In support of our hypothesis, mitochondrial gene flow was consistently higher than nuclear gene flow across 120 pairwise species comparisons (P < 1 x 10(-12)). We combine phylogenetic and coalescent evidence to identify likely cases of recent and ancient introgression in Neodiprion, and based on these observations, we hypothesize that shared hosts and/or pheromones facilitate hybridization, whereas disparate abundances between hybridizing species promote mitochondrial introgression. Our results carry implications for phylogenetic analysis, and we advocate the separation of high and low gene flow regions to inform analyses of hybridization and speciational history, respectively.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available