4.8 Article

Contrasting levels of nucleotide diversity on the avian Z and W sex chromosomes

Journal

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
Volume 18, Issue 11, Pages 2010-2016

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003742

Keywords

germ line; male bias; mutation; selective sweep; back-ground selection; sex chromosomes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sex chromosomes may provide a context for studying the local effects, of mutation rate on molecular evolution, since the two types of sex chromosomes are generally exposed to different mutational environments in male and female germ lines. Importantly, recent studies of some vertebrates have provided evidence for a higher mutation rate among males than among females. Thus, in birds, the Z chromosome, which spends two thirds of its time in the male germ line, is exposed to more mutations than the female-specific W chromosome. We show here that levels of nucleotide diversity are drastically higher on the avian Z chromosome than in paralogous sequences on the W chromosome. In fact, no intraspecific polymorphism whatsoever was seen in about 3.4 kb of CHDIW intron sequence from a total of > 150 W chromosome copies of seven different bird species. In contrast, the amount of genetic variability in paralogous sequences on the Z chromosome was significant, with an average pairwise nucleotide diversity (delta) of 0.0020 between CHDIZ introns and with 37 segregating sites in a total of 3.8 kb of Z sequence. The contrasting levels of genetic variability on the avian sex chromosomes are thus in a direction predicted from a male-biased mutation rate. However, although a low gene number, as well as some other factors, argues against background selection and/or selective sweeps shaping the genetic variability of the avian W chromosome, we cannot completely exclude selection as a contributor to the low levels of variation on the W chromosome.

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