4.7 Article

Insects with similar social complexity show convergent patterns of adaptive molecular evolution

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-28489-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. York University Research Chair in Genomics
  3. NSERC CGS-M scholarship
  4. NSF-IOS Behavioral Systems Grant [1456283]
  5. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2015/05302-0]
  6. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences [1456283] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Eusociality has independently evolved multiple times in the hymenoptera, but the patterns of adaptive molecular evolution underlying the evolution and elaboration of eusociality remain uncertain. Here, we performed a population genomics study of primitively eusocial Polistes (paper wasps), and compared their patterns of molecular evolution to two social bees; Bombus (bumblebees), and Apis (honey bees). This species triad allowed us to study molecular evolution across a gradient of social complexity (Polistes < Bombus < Apis) and compare species pairs that have similar (i.e. Polistes and Bombus) or different (i.e. Polistes and Apis) life histories, while controlling for phylogenetic distance. We found that regulatory genes have high levels of positive selection in Polistes; consistent with the prediction that adaptive changes in gene regulation are important during early stages of social evolution. Polistes and Bombus exhibit greater similarity in patterns of adaptive evolution including greater overlap of genes experiencing positive selection, and greater positive selection on queen-biased genes. Our findings suggest that either adaptive evolution of a few key genes underlie the evolution of simpler forms of eusociality, or that the initial stages of social evolution lead to selection on a few key traits orchestrated by orthologous genes and networks.

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