4.8 Article

Molecular basis of the copulatory plug polymorphism in Caenorhabditis elegans

期刊

NATURE
卷 454, 期 7207, 页码 1019-U66

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature07171

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [P20 RR-016463, R01 HG004321, P50 GM071508]
  2. INBRE Program of the National Center for Research Resources
  3. NSF [0110994]
  4. Howard Hughes Medical Institute under the Undergraduate Science Education Program
  5. James S. McDonnell Foundation Centennial Fellowship
  6. Jane Coffin Childs Fellowship
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences
  8. Division Of Environmental Biology [0110994] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heritable variation is the raw material for evolutionary change, and understanding its genetic basis is one of the central problems in modern biology. We investigated the genetic basis of a classic phenotypic dimorphism in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Males from many natural isolates deposit a copulatory plug after mating, whereas males from other natural isolates - including the standard wild- type strain ( N2 Bristol) that is used in most research laboratories - do not deposit plugs(1). The copulatory plug is a gelatinous mass that covers the hermaphrodite vulva, and its deposition decreases the mating success of subsequent males(2). We show that the plugging polymorphism results from the insertion of a retrotransposon into an exon of a novel mucin- like gene, plg-1, whose product is a major structural component of the copulatory plug. The gene is expressed in a subset of secretory cells of the male somatic gonad, and its loss has no evident effects beyond the loss of male mate- guarding. Although C. elegans descends from an obligate- outcrossing, male - female ancestor(3,4), it occurs primarily as self- fertilizing hermaphrodites(5-7). The reduced selection on male - male competition associated with the origin of hermaphroditism may have permitted the global spread of a loss-of-function mutation with restricted pleiotropy.

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

4.8
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