4.5 Article

Intron sequences of arginine kinase in an intertidal snail suggest an ecotype-specific selective sweep and a gene duplication

期刊

HEREDITY
卷 106, 期 5, 页码 808-816

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2010.123

关键词

Littorina spp.; selective sweep; concerted ecotype evolution; parallel evolution; local adaptation; intron

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council VR
  2. Kungliga Fysiografiska sallskapet i Lund (Nilsson Ehle donationen)
  3. Swedish Research Council Formas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many species with restricted gene flow repeatedly respond similarly to local selection pressures. To fully understand the genetic mechanisms behind this process, the phylogeographic history of the species (inferred from neutral markers) as well as the loci under selection need to be known. Here we sequenced an intron in the arginine kinase gene (Ark), which shows strong clinal variation between two locally adapted ecotypes of the flat periwinkle, Littorina fabalis. The 'small-sheltered' ecotype was almost fixed for one haplotype, H1, in populations on both sides of the North Sea, unlike the 'large-moderately exposed ecotype', which segregated for ten different haplotypes. This contrasts with neutral markers, where the two ecotypes are equally variable. H1 could have been driven to high frequency in an ancestral population and then repeatedly spread to sheltered habitats due to local selection pressures with the colonization of both sides of the North Sea, after the last glacial maximum (similar to 18 000 years ago). An alternative explanation is that a positively selected mutation, in or linked to Ark, arose after the range expansion and secondarily spread through sheltered populations throughout the distribution range, causing this ecotype to evolve in a concerted fashion. Also, we were able to sequence up to four haplotypes consistently from some individuals, suggesting a gene duplication in Ark. Heredity (2011) 106, 808-816; doi:10.1038/hdy.2010.123; published online 29 September 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据