4.3 Review

Misregulation of Gene Expression and Sterility in Interspecies Hybrids: Causal Links and Alternative Hypotheses

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR EVOLUTION
卷 82, 期 4-5, 页码 176-182

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00239-016-9734-z

关键词

Gene misregulation; Speciation; Fast-male evolution; Fast-X evolution; Drosophila

资金

  1. NSERC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the origin of species is of interest to biologist in general and evolutionary biologist in particular. Hybrid male sterility (HMS) has been a focus in studies of speciation because sterility imposes a barrier to free gene flow between organisms, thus effectively isolating them as distinct species. In this review, I focus on the role of differential gene expression in HMS and speciation. Microarray and qPCR assays have established associations between misregulation of gene expression and sterility in hybrids between closely related species. These studies originally proposed disrupted expression of spermatogenesis genes as a causative of sterility. Alternatively, rapid genetic divergence of regulatory elements, particularly as they relate to the male sex (fast-male evolution), can drive the misregulation of sperm developmental genes in the absence of sterility. The use of fertile hybrids (both backcross and F1 progeny) as controls has lent support to this alternative explanation. Differences in gene expression between fertile and sterile hybrids can also be influenced by a pattern of faster evolution of the sex chromosome (fast-X evolution) than autosomes. In particular, it would be desirable to establish whether known X-chromosome sterility factors can act as trans-regulatory drivers of genome-wide patterns of misregulation. Genome-wide expression studies coupled with assays of proxies of sterility in F1 and BC progeny have identified candidate HMS genes but functional assays, and a better phenotypic characterization of sterility phenotypes, are needed to rigorously test how these genes might contribute to HMS.

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

4.3
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