4.7 Article

Putting hornets on the genomic map

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-31932-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hornets are important regulators of insect populations in their native ranges, but they can also have devastating effects as invasive species. Understanding the success of hornet invasions is crucial for managing future introductions. This study provides annotated genomes for two hornets, and reveals selection pressure on reproduction-associated genes, as well as differentially expressed genes in their brains.
Hornets are the largest of the social wasps, and are important regulators of insect populations in their native ranges. Hornets are also very successful as invasive species, with often devastating economic, ecological and societal effects. Understanding why these wasps are such successful invaders is critical to managing future introductions and minimising impact on native biodiversity. Critical to the management toolkit is a comprehensive genomic resource for these insects. Here we provide the annotated genomes for two hornets, Vespa crabro and Vespa velutina. We compare their genomes with those of other social Hymenoptera, including the northern giant hornet Vespa mandarinia. The three hornet genomes show evidence of selection pressure on genes associated with reproduction, which might facilitate the transition into invasive ranges. Vespa crabro has experienced positive selection on the highest number of genes, including those putatively associated with molecular binding and olfactory systems. Caste-specific brain transcriptomic analysis also revealed 133 differentially expressed genes, some of which are associated with olfactory functions. This report provides a spring-board for advancing our understanding of the evolution and ecology of hornets, and opens up opportunities for using molecular methods in the future management of both native and invasive populations of these over-looked insects.

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