4.5 Review

Genetic load in marine animals: a review

期刊

CURRENT ZOOLOGY
卷 62, 期 6, 页码 567-579

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/cz/zow096

关键词

dn/ds ratios; high fecundity; larval mortality; life history; mutation; oyster; segregation distortion

类别

资金

  1. Deerbrook Cheritable Trust [DCT 15-30]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Marine invertebrates and fish are well known for their remarkable genetic diversity, which is commonly explained by large population size and the characteristic dispersive nature of their early, planktonic life history. Other potential sources of diversity in marine animals, such as a higher mutation rate, have been much less considered, though evidence for a high genetic load in marine bivalves has been accumulating for nearly half a century. In this review, I examine evidence for a higher genetic load in marine animals from studies of molecular marker segregation and linkage over the last 40 years, and survey recent work examining mutational load with molecular evolution approaches. Overall, marine animals appear to have higher genetic load than terrestrial animals (higher dn/ds ratios, inbreeding load, and segregation dis'tortion), though results are mixed for marine fish and data are lacking for many marine animal groups. Bivalves (oysters) have the highest loads observed among marine animals, comparable only to long-lived plants; however, more data is needed from other bivalves and more marine invertebrate taxa generally. For oysters, a higher load may be related to a chronically lower effective population size that, in concert with a higher mutational rate, elevate the number of deleterious mutations observed. I suggest that future studies use high-throughput sequencing approaches to examine (1) polymorphism in genome-scale datasets across a wider range of marine animals at the population level and (2) intergenerational mutational changes between parents and offspring in crosses of aquaculture species to quantify mutation rates.

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

4.5
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