4.6 Article

The comparative population genetics of Neisseria meningitidis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae

期刊

PEERJ
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PEERJ INC
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7216

关键词

Neisseria gonorhoeae; Neisseria meningitidis; Population genomics; Recombination; Lateral gene transfer; Horizontal gene transfer; Adaptive evolution; Linkage disequilibrium

资金

  1. Erasmus grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neisseria meningitidis and N. gonorrhoeae are closely related pathogenic bacteria. To compare their population genetics, we compiled a dataset of 1,145 genes found across 20 N. meningitidis and 15 N. gonorrhoeae genomes. We find that N. meningitidis is seven-times more diverse than N. gonorrhoeae in their combined core genome. Both species have acquired the majority of their diversity by recombination with divergent strains, however, we find that N. meningitidis has acquired more of its diversity by recombination than N. gonorrhoeae. We find that linkage disequilibrium (LD) declines rapidly across the genomes of both species. Several observations suggest that N. meningitidis has a higher effective population size than N. gonorrhoeae; it is more diverse, the ratio of non-synonymous to synonymous polymorphism is lower, and LD declines more rapidly to a lower asymptote in N. meningitidis. The two species share a modest amount of variation, half of which seems to have been acquired by lateral gene transfer and half from their common ancestor. We investigate whether diversity varies across the genome of each species and find that it does. Much of this variation is due to different levels of lateral gene transfer. However, we also find some evidence that the effective population size varies across the genome. We test for adaptive evolution in the core genome using a McDonald-Kreitman test and by considering the diversity around non-synonymous sites that are fixed for different alleles in the two species. We find some evidence for adaptive evolution using both approaches.

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