4.5 Article

ASSESSING MULTILOCUS INTROGRESSION PATTERNS: A CASE STUDY ON THE MOUSE X CHROMOSOME IN CENTRAL EUROPE

期刊

EVOLUTION
卷 65, 期 5, 页码 1428-1446

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01228.x

关键词

Genetic conflict; hybrid zone movement; Mus musculus musculus; Mus musculus domesticus; sex biased introgression; X chromosome

资金

  1. Czech Science Foundation [206/08/0640]
  2. Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation (FCT) [PTDC/BIA-BEC/103440/2008]
  3. MSMT [0021620828]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/BIA-BEC/103440/2008] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multilocus hybrid zone (HZ) studies predate genomics by decades. The power of early methods is becoming apparent and now large datasets are commonplace. Relating introgression along a chromosome to evolutionary process is challenging: although reduced introgression regions may indicate speciation genes, this pattern may be obscured by asymmetric introgression of linked invasive genes. Further, HZ movement may form salients and leave islands in its wake. Barton's concordance was proposed 24 years ago for assessing introgression where geographic patterns are complex. The geographic axis of introgression is replaced with the hybrid index. We compare this, a recently proposed genomic clines approach, and two-dimensional (2D) geographic analyses, for 24 X chromosome loci of 2873 mice from the central-European house mouse HZ. In 2D, 14 loci show linear contact, seven precisely matching previous studies. Four show introgression islands to the east of the zone, suggesting past westward zone movement, two show westward salients. Barton's concordance both recovers and refines this information. A region of reduced introgression on the central X is supported, despite X centromere-proximal male-biased westward introgression matching a westward 2D geographic salient. Genomic clines results are consistent regarding introgression asymmetries, but otherwise more difficult to interpret. Evidence for genetic conflict is discussed.

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