4.6 Review

Recombination rate variation and speciation: theoretical predictions and empirical results from rabbits and mice

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0249

关键词

genetic hitchhiking; background selection; gene flow; Mus musculus; Oryctolgaus cuniculus

类别

资金

  1. NSF
  2. NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently diverged taxa may continue to exchange genes. A number of models of speciation with gene flow propose that the frequency of gene exchange will be lower in genomic regions of low recombination and that these regions will therefore be more differentiated. However, several population-genetic models that focus on selection at linked sites also predict greater differentiation in regions of low recombination simply as a result of faster sorting of ancestral alleles even in the absence of gene flow. Moreover, identifying the actual amount of gene flow from patterns of genetic variation is tricky, because both ancestral polymorphism and migration lead to shared variation between recently diverged taxa. New analytic methods have been developed to help distinguish ancestral polymorphism from migration. Along with a growing number of datasets of multi-locus DNA sequence variation, these methods have spawned a renewed interest in speciation models with gene flow. Here, we review both speciation and population-genetic models that make explicit predictions about how the rate of recombination influences patterns of genetic variation within and between species. We then compare those predictions with empirical data of DNA sequence variation in rabbits and mice. We find strong support for the prediction that genomic regions experiencing low levels of recombination are more differentiated. In most cases, reduced gene flow appears to contribute to the pattern, although disentangling the relative contribution of reduced gene flow and selection at linked sites remains a challenge. We suggest fruitful areas of research that might help distinguish between different models.

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

4.6
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