4.7 Article

Cross-species microsatellite markers for elucidating population genetic structure in Arabidopsis and Arabis (Brassicaeae)

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 591-601

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1046/j.0962-1083.2002.01465.x

关键词

Arabidopsis lyrata; Arabidopsis thaliana; Boechera; bottleneck; heterozygosity; microsatellite markers; population genetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Species closely related to model organisms present the opportunity to efficiently apply molecular and functional tools developed by a large research community to taxa with different ecological and evolutionary histories. We complied 42 microsatellite loci that amplify under common conditions in four closely related Arabidopsis: A. thaliana; A. halleri; A. lyrata ssp. lyrata; and A. lyrata ssp. petraea, as well as in one more distantly related crucifer, Arabis drummondii. Variation at these loci is amenable to a diversity of applications including population genetics, phylogeographical analyses, mapping of inter and intraspecific crosses, and recombination mapping. Our analysis of microsatellite variation illustrates significant differences in population genetic parameters among three Arabidopsis species. A population of A. thaliana, an inbreeding annual plant associated with disturbed habitats, was highly monomorphic (P=8% percent polymorphic loci) and only 0.2% heterozygous for 648 locus-by-individual combinations. A population of the self-incompatible perennial herb,A. halleri, was more genetically variable (P=71%) and had an excess of heterozygosity that may reflect a recent population bottleneck associated with human-mediated founder events. A population of the self-incompatible perennial herb,A. lyrata ssp. petraea, was even more genetically variable (P=86%) and appeared to be at mutation-drift equilibrium. Population structure estimated from neutrally evolving loci provides an empirical expectation against which hypotheses of adaptive evolution at functional loci can be tested.

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

4.7
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