4.6 Article

Experimental Evolution of Gene Expression and Plasticity in Alternative Selective Regimes

期刊

PLOS GENETICS
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006336

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Little is known of how gene expression and its plasticity evolves as populations adapt to different environmental regimes. Expression is expected to evolve adaptively in all populations but only those populations experiencing environmental heterogeneity are expected to show adaptive evolution of plasticity. We measured the transcriptome in a cadmium-enriched diet and a salt-enriched diet for experimental populations of Drosophila melanogaster that evolved for similar to 130 generations in one of four selective regimes: two constant regimes maintained in either cadmium or salt diets and two heterogeneous regimes that varied either temporally or spatially between the two diets. For populations evolving in constant regimes, we find a strong signature of counter-gradient evolution; the evolved expression differences between populations adapted to alternative diets is opposite to the plastic response of the ancestral population that is naive to both diets. Based on expression patterns in the ancestral populations, we identify a set of genes for which we predict selection in heterogeneous regimes to result in increases in plasticity and we find the expected pattern. In contrast, a set of genes where we predicted reduced plasticity did not follow expectation. Nonetheless, both gene sets showed a pattern consistent with adaptive expression evolution in heterogeneous regimes, highlighting the difference between observing optimal plasticity and improvements in environment-specific expression. Looking across all genes, there is evidence in all regimes of differences in biased allele expression across environments (allelic plasticity) and this is more common among genes with plasticity in total expression.

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