4.4 Article

Recombination and Speciation: Loci Near Centromeres Are More Differentiated Than Loci Near Telomeres Between Subspecies of the European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)

期刊

GENETICS
卷 181, 期 2, 页码 593-606

出版社

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.108.096826

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia c a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/23786/2005]
  2. National Science Foundation
  3. National Institutes of Health
  4. [PTDC/BIA-BDE/72304/2006]
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/BIA-BDE/72304/2006, SFRH/BD/23786/2005] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent empirical and theoretical studies suggest that regions of restricted recombination play an important role in the formation of new species. To test this idea, we studied nucleotide variation in two parapatric subspecies of the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). We Surveyed five loci near centromeres, where recombination is expected to be suppressed, and five loci near telomeres, where recombination is expected to be higher. We analyzed this multilocus data set using a divergence-with-gene flow framework and we report three main findings. First, we estimated that these subspecies diverged similar to 1.8 MYA and maintained large effective population sizes (O. c. algirus N-e approximate to 1,600,000 and O. c. cuniculus N-e approximate to 780,000). Second, we rejected a strict allopatric model of divergence without gene flow; instead, high rates of gene flow were inferred in both directions. Third, we found different patterns between loci near centromeres and loci near telomeres. Loci near centromeres exhibited higher levels of linkage disequilibrium than loci near telomeres. In addition, while all loci near telomeres showed little differentiation between subspecies, three of five loci near centromeres showed strong differentiation. These results support a view of speciation in which regions of low recombination can facilitate species divergence in the presence of gene flow.

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

4.4
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