4.5 Review

Genetic variability and adaptive evolution in parthenogenetic root-knot nematodes

Journal

HEREDITY
Volume 96, Issue 4, Pages 282-289

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800794

Keywords

apomixis; evolution; clonal diversity; Meloidogyne spp.; parthenogenesis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Root-knot nematodes (RKN) of the genus Meloidogyne are biotrophic plant parasites of major agricultural importance, which exhibit very variable modes of reproduction, from classical amphimixis to mitotic parthenogenesis. This review focuses on those RKN species that reproduce exclusively by mitotic parthenogenesis ( apomixis), in contrast to those that have meiotic/ amphimitic events in their life cycle. Although populations of clonal organisms are often represented as being ecologically isolated and evolutionary inert, a considerable volume of literature provides evidence that asexual RKN are neither: they are widely distributed, extremely polyphagous, and amenable to selection and adaptive variation. The ancestors of the genus are unknown, but it is assumed that the parthenogenetic RKN have evolved from amphimictic species through hybridization and subsequent aneuploidization and polyploidization events. Molecular studies have indeed confirmed that the phylogenetic divergence between meiotic and mitotic RKN lineages occurred early, and have revealed an unexpected level of clonal diversity among populations within apomictic species. Laboratory experiments have shown that asexual RKN can rapidly adapt to new environmental constraints (eg host resistance), although with some fitness costs. Lastly, the molecular and chromosomal mechanisms that could contribute to genome plasticity leading to persistent genetic variation and adaptive evolution in apomictic RKN are discussed. It is concluded that RKN provide an excellent model system in which to study the dynamic nature and adaptive potential of clonal genomes.

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