4.4 Article

Selective Advantages of a Parasexual Cycle for the Yeast Candida albicans

期刊

GENETICS
卷 200, 期 4, 页码 1117-+

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.115.177170

关键词

Candida albicans; mating; parasexual cycle; cryptic sexual cycle

资金

  1. Marsden [MAU0603]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The yeast Candida albicans can mate. However, in the natural environment mating may generate progeny (fusants) fitter than clonal lineages too rarely to render mating biologically significant: C. albicans has never been observed to mate in its natural environment, the human host, and the population structure of the species is largely clonal. It seems incapable of meiosis, and most isolates are diploid and carry both mating-type-like (MTL) locus alleles, preventing mating. Only chromosome loss or localized loss of heterozygosity can generate mating-competent cells, and recombination of parental alleles is limited. To determine if mating is a biologically significant process, we investigated if mating is under selection. The ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous mutations in mating genes and the frequency of mutations abolishing mating indicated that mating is under selection. The MTL locus is located on chromosome 5, and when we induced chromosome 5 loss in 10 clinical isolates, most of the resulting MTL-homozygotes could mate with each other, producing fusants. In laboratory culture, a novel environment favoring novel genotypes, some fusants grew faster than their parents, in which loss of heterozygosity had reduced growth rates, and also faster than their MTL-heterozygous ancestorsalbeit often only after serial propagation. In a small number of experiments in which co-inoculation of an oral colonization model with MTL-homozygotes yielded small numbers of fusants, their numbers declined over time relative to those of the parents. Overall, our results indicate that mating generates genotypes superior to existing MTL-heterozygotes often enough to be under selection.

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

4.4
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