4.7 Review

Genome-wide patterns of standing genetic variation in a marine population of three-spined sticklebacks

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 635-649

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05680.x

关键词

copy-number variation; Gasterosteus aculeatus; inversions; population genome evolution; standing genetic variation; structural variation

资金

  1. ERG [270891]
  2. DFG [SPP 1399, BO-2544/7-1]
  3. Max-Planck-Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since the end of the Pleistocene, the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) has repeatedly colonized and adapted to various freshwater habitats probably originating from ancestral marine populations. Standing genetic variation and the underlying genomic architecture both have been speculated to contribute to recent adaptive radiations of sticklebacks. Here, we expand on the current genomic resources of this fish by providing extensive genome-wide variation data from six individuals from a marine (North Sea) stickleback population. Using next-generation sequencing and a combination of paired-end and mate-pair libraries, we detected a wide size range of genetic variation. Among the six individuals, we found more than 7% of the genome is polymorphic, consisting of 2 599 111 SNPs, 233 464 indels and structural variation (SV) (>50 bp) such as 1054 copy-number variable regions (deletions and duplications) and 48 inversions. Many of these polymorphisms affect gene and coding sequences. Based on SNP diversity, we determined outlier regions concordant with signatures expected under adaptive evolution. As some of these outliers overlap with pronounced regions of copy-number variation, we propose the consideration of such SV when analysing SNP data from re-sequencing approaches. We further discuss the value of this resource on genome-wide variation for further investigation upon the relative contribution of standing variation on the parallel evolution of sticklebacks and the importance of the genomic architecture in adaptive radiation.

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

4.7
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