4.5 Article

Gene flow and gene flux shape evolutionary patterns of variation in Drosophila subobscura

期刊

HEREDITY
卷 110, 期 6, 页码 520-529

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2012.118

关键词

Drosophila subobscura; nuclear genes; gene flow; gene flux; inversion dating

资金

  1. Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia (MCYT, Spain) [CGL2006-13423-C02-02, BFU200907564, CTM2010-22218-C02-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gene flow (defined as allele exchange between populations) and gene flux (defined as allele exchange during meiosis in heterokaryotypic females) are important factors decreasing genetic differentiation between populations and inversions. Many chromosomal inversions are under strong selection and their role in recombination reduction enhances the maintenance of their genetic distinctness. Here we analyze levels and patterns of nucleotide diversity, selection and demographic history, using 37 individuals of Drosophila subobscura from Mount Parnes (Greece) and Barcelona (Spain). Our sampling focused on two frequent O-chromosome arrangements that differ by two overlapping inversions (O-ST and O3+4), which are differentially adapted to the environment as observed by their opposing latitudinal clines in inversion frequencies. The six analyzed genes (Pif1A, Abi, Sqd, Yrt, Atpa and Fmr1) were selected for their location across the O-chromosome and their implication in thermal adaptation. Despite the extensive gene flux detected outside the inverted region, significant genetic differentiation between both arrangements was found inside it. However, high levels of gene flow were detected for all six genes when comparing the same arrangement among populations. These results suggest that the adaptive value of inversions is maintained, regardless of the lack of genetic differentiation within arrangements from different populations, and thus favors the Local Adaptation hypothesis over the Coadapted Genome hypothesis as the basis of the selection acting on inversions in these populations.

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