4.5 Article

No evidence for maintenance of a sympatric Heliconius species barrier by chromosomal inversions

期刊

EVOLUTION LETTERS
卷 1, 期 3, 页码 138-154

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1002/evl3.12

关键词

Chromosomal evolution; evolutionary genomics; insects; speciation

资金

  1. European Research Council [339873]
  2. Wellcome Trust [098051]
  3. Higher Education Funding Council for England
  4. Science and Technology Facilities Council
  5. European Research Council Advanced Grant SpeciationGenetics [339873]
  6. Herchel Smith Postdoctoral Research Fellowship
  7. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute Fellowship
  8. St. John's College, Cambridge
  9. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  10. King's College, Cambridge
  11. European Research Council (ERC) [339873] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mechanisms that suppress recombination are known to help maintain species barriers by preventing the breakup of coadapted gene combinations. The sympatric butterfly species Heliconius melpomene and Heliconius cydno are separated by many strong barriers, but the species still hybridize infrequently in the wild, and around 40% of the genome is influenced by introgression. We tested the hypothesis that genetic barriers between the species are maintained by inversions or other mechanisms that reduce between-species recombination rate. We constructed fine-scale recombination maps for Panamanian populations of both species and their hybrids to directly measure recombination rate within and between species, and generated long sequence reads to detect inversions. We find no evidence for a systematic reduction in recombination rates in F1 hybrids, and also no evidence for inversions longer than 50 kb that might be involved in generating or maintaining species barriers. This suggests that mechanisms leading to global or local reduction in recombination do not play a significant role in the maintenance of species barriers between H. melpomene and H. cydno.

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