4.5 Article

Admixture in European Populus hybrid zones makes feasible the mapping of loci that contribute to reproductive isolation and trait differences

期刊

HEREDITY
卷 98, 期 2, 页码 74-84

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800898

关键词

hybrid zone; admixture; introgression; linkage disequilibrium; rare alleles; Populus

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/C507037/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of admixed human populations to scan the genome for chromosomal segments affecting complex phenotypic traits has proved a powerful analytical tool. However, its potential in other organisms has not yet been evaluated. Here, we use DNA microsatellites to assess the feasibility of this approach in hybrid zones between two members of the 'model tree' genus Populus: Populus alba (white poplar) and Populus tremula (European aspen). We analyzed samples of both species and a Central European hybrid zone (N = 544 chromosomes) for a genome-wide set of 19 polymorphic DNA microsatellites. Our results indicate that allele frequency differentials between the two species are substantial (mean delta = 0.619 +/- 0.067). Background linkage disequilibrium (LD) in samples of the parental gene pools is moderate and should respond to sampling schemes that minimize drift and account for rare alleles. LD in hybrids decays with increasing number of backcross generations as expected from theory and approaches background levels of the parental gene pools in advanced generation backcrosses. Introgression from P. tremula into P. alba varies strongly across marker loci. For several markers, alleles from P. tremula are slightly over-represented relative to neutral expectations, whereas a single locus exhibits evidence of selection against P. tremula genotypes. We interpret our results in terms of the potential for admixture mapping in these two ecologically divergent Populus species, and we validate a modified approach of studying genotypic clines in 'mosaic' hybrid zones.

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