4.5 Article

Genetic architecture of ovary size and asymmetry in European honeybee workers

期刊

HEREDITY
卷 106, 期 5, 页码 894-903

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2010.138

关键词

worker caste; social evolution; Apis mellifera; QTL; trait network; ovarioles

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [0615502, 0634182]
  2. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2010-65104-20533]
  3. National Institute on Aging [NIA P01 AG22500]
  4. Norwegian Research Council [180504, 185306]
  5. NIFA [581025, 2010-65104-20533] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The molecular basis of complex traits is increasingly understood but a remaining challenge is to identify their co-regulation and inter-dependence. Pollen hoarding (pln) in honeybees is a complex trait associated with a well-characterized suite of linked behavioral and physiological traits. In European honeybee stocks bidirectionally selected for pln, worker (sterile helper) ovary size is pleiotropically affected by quantitative trait loci that were initially identified for their effect on foraging behavior. To gain a better understanding of the genetic architecture of worker ovary size in this model system, we analyzed a series of crosses between the selected strains. The crossing results were heterogeneous and suggested non-additive effects. Three significant and three suggestive quantitative trait loci of relatively large effect sizes were found in two reciprocal backcrosses. These loci are not located in genome regions of known effects on foraging behavior but contain several interesting candidate genes that may specifically affect worker-ovary size. Thus, the genetic architecture of this life history syndrome may be comprised of pleiotropic, central regulators that influence several linked traits and other genetic factors that may be downstream and trait specific. Heredity (2011) 106, 894-903; doi:10.1038/hdy.2010.138; published online 3 November 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