4.8 Article

Genetic diversity and the evolutionary history of plant immunity genes in two species of Zea

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 22, 期 12, 页码 2480-2490

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msi247

关键词

coevolution; disease resistance; innate immunity; inducible defense; natural selection; population structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant pathogenesis-related genes (PR genes) code for enzymes, enzyme inhibitors, and other peptides that confer resistance to pathogens and herbivores. Although several PR genes have been the subject of molecular population genetic analyses, a general understanding of their long-term evolutionary dynamics remains incomplete. Here we analyze sequence data from 17 PR genes from two closely related teosinte species of central Mexico. In addition to testing whether patterns of diversity at individual loci depart from expectations under a neutral model, we compared patterns of diversity at defense genes, as a class, to nondefense genes. In Zea diploperennis, the majority of defense genes have patterns of diversity consistent with neutral expectations while at least two genes showed evidence of recent positive selection consistent with arms-race models of antagonistic coevolution. In Zea mays ssp. parviglumis, by contrast, analyses of both defense and nondefense genes revealed strong and consistent departures from the neutral model, suggestive of nonequilibrium population dynamics or population structure. Nevertheless, we found a significant excess of replacement polymorphism in defense genes compared to nondefense genes. Although we cannot exclude relaxed selective constraint as an explanation, our results are consistent with temporally variable (transient or episodic) selection or geographically variable selection acting on parviglumis defense genes. The different patterns of diversity found in the two Zea species may be explained by parviglumis' greater distribution and population structure together with geographic variation in selection.

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

4.8
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