| Literature DB >> 18074018 |
Hernán López-Fernández1, Daniel I Bolnick.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interspecific hybrid crosses often produce offspring with reduced but non-zero survivorship. In this paper we ask why such partial inviability occurs. This partial inviability could arise from incomplete penetrance of lethal Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities (DMIs) shared by all members of a hybrid cross. Alternatively, siblings may differ with respect to the presence or number of DMIs, leading to genotype-dependent variation in viability and hence non-Mendelian segregation of parental alleles in surviving F1 hybrids. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2007 PMID: 18074018 PMCID: PMC2121587 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001294
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Variation in F1 viability among different animal crosses.
| Taxon | Number of crosses | Complete viability (%) | Partial viability (%) | Complete inviability (%) |
| Butterflies (one-direction crosses) | 105 | 58 (55.0) | 24 (22.9) | 23 (22.1) |
| Butterflies (reciprocal crosses) | 56 | 35 (62.5) | 21 (37.5) | 0 |
| Fish (Centrarchidae) | 35 | 4 (11.4) | 26 (74.3) | 5 (14.3) |
| Frogs (Egg hatching rate) | 106 | 3 (2.8) | 85 (80.1) | 18 (17.0) |
| Frogs (Larvae metamorphose rate) | 89 | 4 (4.5) | 49 (55.1) | 36 (40.4) |
| Birds | 407 | 357 (87.7) | 14 (3.4) | 36 (8.8) |
See references listed below for details on how viability was estimated in each case. Data for this table were obtained from studies focused on postzygotic isolation and not on hybrid inviability; as a result, we could not include examples in which inviability and hybrid infertility were combined into a unified metric of isolation [50], [51]. Cases listed in this table should be taken as examples of partial inviability and not as an exhaustive review of known cases. Many cases (e.g., butterflies) involve partial inviability arising from Haldane's Rule. Because different studies use different methods to quantify inviability, values across studies are not necessarily comparable. Data from each source are as follows a: “Inviability index” data from Presgraves [52]. b: mean hybrid viability from supplemental material to Bolnick et al. [41] and see Bolnick & Near [17]. c: Based on “Percentage of embryos hatched” and “percentage of larvae metamorphosed” from Sasa et al. [53] (Appendix). d: Based on viability categories from supplemental data to Price and Bouvier [54]; estimates of partial viability and complete inviability are based on crosses in categories 3.5 to 5; crosses in categories 1 to 3 vary in degree of hybrid fertility but were considered completely viable for the purpose of this summary.
Viability of green and hybrid crosses at different points of egg and larval development.
| Cross | Total eggs | Fertilized eggs (%) | Total hatched eggs (%) | Hatched normal (%) | Alive at swimup (%) |
| Green: | 754 | 729 (96.7) | 656 (90) | 656 (100) | 656 (100) |
| Hybrid: | 2189 | 2075 (94.7) | 756 (36.4) | 283 (37.4) | 221 (78.1) |
Figure 1F1 hybrids between a female Lepomis cyanellus and a male L. megalotis approximately six days after hatching, just before the swimming stage.
Scale bars are approximate. A. Morphologically normal larva; notice the elongate and straight spine and the comparatively reduced size of the body cavity. B. Morphologically deformed sibling of the fish in A; the spine is variously kinked and twisted, especially on the distal third, and the body cavity is notoriously enlarged. The arrow indicates the heart morphology, which appears analogous to that of the heartstrings developmental mutation observed in zebrafish (see discussion and [43], Fig. 1E). Approximately two thirds of the hybrid offspring described in this study showed morphological abnormalities of the types observed in this example (Table 2).
AFLP loci linked to sex in 14 female and 13 male individuals of Lepomis cyanellus (25 offspring and parents from green cross).
| Primer pair | Locus size (base pairs) | Females with allele (percent, n = 14) | Males with allele (percent, n = 13) | χ2 | p-value |
| 3 | 202 | 14 (100) | 0 (0) | 27 | 2.7*10−7*** |
| 223 | 1 (7) | 12 (92) | 19.58 | 9.6*10−6** | |
| 4 | 97 | 13 (93) | 1 (8) | 19.58 | 9.6*10−6** |
| 105 | 12 (86) | 2 (15) | 13.35 | 2.6*10−4 NS | |
| 134 | 12 (86) | 1 (8) | 16.4 | 5.0*10−5* | |
| 135 | 2 (14) | 12 (92) | 16.4 | 5.0*10−5* | |
| 238 | 9 (64) | 0 (0) | 12.54 | 4.0*10−4 NS |
* = p<0.05, ** = p< 0.005, *** = p<0.0005
Significance values were obtained from chi-square tests with sequential Bonferroni correction for 429 polymorphic AFLP alleles.
Sequences of adaptor oligos, preselective and selective primers used in this study.
| Oligonucleotide sequence | |
|
| |
|
| CTC GTA GAC TGC GTA CC |
|
| AAT TGG TAC GCA GTC TAC |
|
| GAC GAT GAG TCC TGA G |
|
| TAC TCA GGA CTC AT |
|
| |
|
| GAC TGC GTA CCC AAT TC |
|
| GAT GAG TCC TGA GTA A |
|
| |
|
| GAC TGC GTA CCC AAT TCA |
|
| GAT GAG TCC TGA GTA AC |
|
| GAT GAG TCC TGA GTA AC |
|
| GAT GAG TCC TGA GTA AC |
|
| GAT GAG TCC TGA GTA AC |
|
| GAT GAG TCC TGA GTA AC |
|
| GAT GAG TCC TGA GTA AC |
|
| GAT GAG TCC TGA GTA AC |
Underlined bases indicate the number of selective nucleotides in each primer. See text for protocol details.