| Literature DB >> 21151911 |
Elhan S Ersoz1, Mark H Wright, Santiago C González-Martínez, Charles H Langley, David B Neale.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Host-pathogen interactions that may lead to a competitive co-evolution of virulence and resistance mechanisms present an attractive system to study molecular evolution because strong, recent (or even current) selective pressure is expected at many genomic loci. However, it is unclear whether these selective forces would act to preserve existing diversity, promote novel diversity, or reduce linked neutral diversity during rapid fixation of advantageous alleles. In plants, the lack of adaptive immunity places a larger burden on genetic diversity to ensure survival of plant populations. This burden is even greater if the generation time of the plant is much longer than the generation time of the pathogen. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21151911 PMCID: PMC2997792 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014234
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Bottleneck models tested.
N0 , NB and NA refer to current, during bottleneck and before bottleneck effective population sizes, while TA and TB refer to time in 2N0 generations to the change from NB to N0 and from NA to NB , respectively.
Figure 2MKPRF analysis showing the posterior distribution of the mean selection coefficient across groups of loci (panel A), and the mean and 95% credible interval of the posterior distributions for per-locus selection coefficients (panel B).
A selection coefficient less than zero implies selective constraint at amino acid replacement sites while a coefficient greater than zero implies accelerated fixation of amino acid replacements.
Fitted model likelihoods for neutral, two-epoch and three-epoch demography models (see parameter meaning in Figure 1).
| TB | NB/N0 | TA | NA/N0 | log-likelihood | SE | LRT | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.046 | 0.133 | 0.168 | 2.976 | -1088.59 | 0.17 | ||
| 0.041 | 0.097 | 0.132 | 2.637 | -1088.67 | 0.30 | ||
| 0.041 | 0.182 | 0.242 | 3.793 | -1088.74 | 0.24 | ||
| 0.041 | 0.097 | 0.132 | 2.976 | -1088.77 | 0.26 | ||
| 0.033 | 0.133 | 0.168 | 2.976 | -1088.78 | 0.25 | ||
| 0.041 | 0.182 | 0.242 | 4.281 | -1089.08 | 0.23 | ||
| 0.046 | 0.133 | 0.168 | 2.637 | -1089.09 | 0.23 | ||
| 0.037 | 0.097 | 0.132 | 2.976 | -1089.10 | 0.22 | ||
| 0.033 | 0.133 | 0.168 | 3.360 | -1089.19 | 0.20 | ||
| 0.037 | 0.097 | 0.132 | 2.637 | -1089.20 | 0.24 | ||
| 0.037 | 0.097 | 0.132 | 2.336 | -1089.42 | 0.21 | ||
| 0.027 | 0.113 | 0.132 | 2.069 | -1089.44 | 0.28 | ||
| 0.033 | 0.182 | 0.242 | 2.976 | -1089.62 | 0.34 | ||
| 0.058 | 0.182 | 0.242 | 4.281 | -1089.92 | 0.38 | ||
| 0.027 | 0.113 | 0.132 | 1.833 | -1089.96 | 0.17 | ||
| 0.046 | 0.155 | 0.214 | 2.976 | -1090.11 | 0.30 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.314 | 11.555 | -1114.65 | 0.27 | ||
|
|
| 1.314 | 10.392 | -1115.20 | 0.32 | ||
|
|
| 1.664 | 19.632 | -1115.52 | 0.34 | ||
|
|
| 1.664 | 15.881 | -1115.60 | 0.27 | ||
|
|
| 1.421 | 15.881 | -1115.63 | 0.37 | ||
|
|
| 1.214 | 1 1.555 | -1115.81 | 0.35 | ||
|
|
| 1.421 | 10.392 | -1115.86 | 0.33 | ||
|
|
| 1.538 | 17.657 | -1115.91 | 0.30 | ||
|
|
| 1.314 | 9.347 | -1115.98 | 0.13 | ||
|
|
| 1.664 | 17.657 | -1116.22 | 0.31 | ||
|
|
| 1.538 | 10.392 | -1116.37 | 0.29 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Best fit demographic models for each model class are shown in bold, competing models within 2 log likelihood units of the maximum likelihood model are given below. N0 , NB and NA refer to current, during bottleneck and before bottleneck effective population sizes, while TA and TB refer to time in 2N0 generations to the change from NB to N0 and from NA to NB , respectively. SE stands for standard error while LRT stands for likelihood-ratio test.
Isolation model (IM) for Scots and loblolly pines.
|
|
|
|
|
| ∑ |
|
| Sig. | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| 11 | 7.18 | 2 | 1.18 | 0 | 0.32 | 2 | 6.31 | 6.90 | 4 | 0.23 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 | 4.91 | 0 | 1.41 | 0 | 0.16 | 3 | 3.53 | 3.99 | 4 | 1.23 | |
|
| 14 | 12.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 11.49 | 0.40 | 4 | 14.30 | |
|
| 4 | 3.83 | 0 | 0.63 | 0 | 0.17 | 4 | 3.36 | 1.75 | 4 | 5.03 | |
|
| 10 | 5.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.79 | 13.03 | 4 | - | |
|
| 11 | 8.83 | 0 | 2.53 | 0 | 0.28 | 7 | 6.36 | 6.18 | 4 | 0.35 | |
|
| 8 | 15.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 14.37 | 8.02 | 4 | 0.12 | |
|
| 22 | 23.07 | 1 | 6.61 | 0 | 0.73 | 24 | 16.59 | 11.85 | 4 | 0.07 | |
|
| 6 | 10.41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 9.58 | 4.01 | 4 | 1.22 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 | 12.76 | 3 | 3.65 | 0 | 0.41 | 12 | 9.18 | 1.98 | 4 | 10.03 | |
|
| 14 | 11.78 | 3 | 3.37 | 0 | 0.38 | 7 | 8.47 | 1.46 | 4 | 13.01 | |
|
| 18 | 16.29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 13.71 | 0.39 | 4 | 22.16 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 | 5.21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 4.79 | 0.01 | 4 | 24.71 | |
|
| 11 | 14.19 | 1 | 4.09 | 0 | 0.45 | 17 | 10.27 | 8.71 | 4 | 0.35 | |
|
| 19 | 15.65 | 1 | 4.51 | 0 | 0.5 | 12 | 11.34 | 5.71 | 4 | 1.55 | |
|
| 6 | 8.34 | 5 | 2.39 | 0 | 0.27 | 6 | 6 | 3.43 | 4 | 1.73 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18 | 18.59 | 4 | 5.36 | 1 | 0.59 | 15 | 13.46 | 0.80 | 4 | 22.96 | |
|
| 25 | 21.88 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 20.12 | 0.94 | 4 | 9.00 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 | 12.27 | 8 | 3.51 | 0 | 0.39 | 11 | 8.83 | 9.43 | 4 | 0.24 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 | 12.76 | 3 | 3.65 | 0 | 0.41 | 11 | 9.18 | 1.32 | 4 | 13.94 | |
|
| 7 | 5.4 | 1 | 1.55 | 2 | 0.17 | 1 | 3.88 | 9.87 | 4 | 0.53 | |
Number of polymorphisms detected in loblolly pine sequences (N = 27–32).
Number of polymorphisms detected in Scots pine sequences (N = 2).
Number of shared polymorphisms between loblolly pine and Scots pine.
Number of fixed differences between loblolly pine and Scots pine.
Sum of the chi-squared values for each class of variation per locus.
Significance of the chi-squared values.
*Indicates P<0.05 for the significance of the results, after Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. Bonferroni corrected threshold for α = 0.05 is 1.85×10−3.
The results from comparing observed values to 10,000 simulations under the fit model (see text) are also presented. P-values reported in the table below can be multiplied by the number of loci analyzed (27) to provide a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests. Loci that deviated from the fit model are shown in bold.