4.5 Review

Selection and genomic differentiation during ecological speciation:: Isolating the contributions of host association via a comparative genome scan of Neochlamisus bebbianae leaf beetles

期刊

EVOLUTION
卷 62, 期 5, 页码 1162-1181

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00352.x

关键词

AFLPs; divergent natural selection; herbivorous insects; population divergence; reproductive isolation; speciation genetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study uses a comparative genome scan to evaluate the contributions of host plant related divergent selection to genetic differentiation and ecological speciation in maple- and willow-associated populations of Neochlamisus bebbianae leaf beetles. For each of 15 pairwise population comparisons, we identified outlier loci whose strong differentiation putatively reflects divergent selection. Of 447 AFLP loci, 15% were outliers across multiple population comparisons, and low linkage disequilibrium indicated that these outliers derived from multiple regions of the genome. Outliers were further classified as host-specific if repeatedly observed in different-host population comparisons but never in same-host comparisons. Outliers exhibiting the opposite pattern were analogously classified as host-independent. Host-specific outliers represented 5% of all loci and were more frequent than host-independent outliers, thus revealing a large role for host-adaptation in population genomic differentiation. Evidence that host-related selection can promote divergence despite gene flow was provided by population trees. These were structured by host-association when datasets included host-specific outliers, but not when based on neutral loci, which united sympatric populations. Lastly, three host-specific outliers were highly differentiated in all nine different-host comparisons. Because host-adaptation promotes reproductive isolation in these beetles, these loci provide promising candidate gene regions for future molecular studies of ecological speciation.

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