| Literature DB >> 25691993 |
Pedram Samani1, Etienne Low-Decarie2, Kyra McKelvey3, Thomas Bell4, Austin Burt4, Vassiliki Koufopanou4, Christian R Landry5, Graham Bell1.
Abstract
Ecological diversification depends on the extent of genetic variation and on the pattern of covariation with respect to ecological opportunities. We investigated the pattern of utilization of carbon substrates in wild populations of budding yeast Saccharomyces paradoxus. All isolates grew well on a core diet of about 10 substrates, and most were also able to grow on a much larger ancillary diet comprising most of the 190 substrates we tested. There was substantial genetic variation within each population for some substrates. We found geographical variation of substrate use at continental, regional, and local scales. Isolates from Europe and North America could be distinguished on the basis of the pattern of yield across substrates. Two geographical races at the North American sites also differed in the pattern of substrate utilization. Substrate utilization patterns were also geographically correlated at local spatial scales. Pairwise genetic correlations between substrates were predominantly positive, reflecting overall variation in metabolic performance, but there was a consistent negative correlation between categories of substrates in two cases: between the core diet and the ancillary diet, and between pentose and hexose sugars. Such negative correlations in the utilization of substrate from different categories may indicate either intrinsic physiological trade-offs for the uptake and utilization of substrates from different categories, or the accumulation of conditionally neutral mutations. Divergence in substrate use accompanies genetic divergence at all spatial scales in S. paradoxus and may contribute to race formation and speciation.Entities:
Keywords: Ecological diversification; Saccharomyces paradoxus; evolution; genetic variation; metabolic trade-offs; microbial metabolic diversity
Year: 2015 PMID: 25691993 PMCID: PMC4328774 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1376
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Rank distribution of yield among substrates. The bar plot shows yield for the 95 most efficiently utilized substrates in the MSH (black) and Silwood (gray) surveys. Ten substrates are clearly identified by the ability of isolates to reach higher yields on these substrates. The core diet can also be identified by the fact that all isolates in both locations achieve higher yield on these substrates (Fig.6).
Figure 6Number of isolates from MSH (black) and Silwood (gray) preferring given substrates. The criterion for preference is that the yield deviation from mean yield across all substrates is positive, that is, yield on target substrate > mean yield across substrates. Substrates in the core diet are preferred by all isolates from both locations. Substrates from the ancillary diet that differ in preference between sites are grouped according to the site with most isolates preferring the substrate and ordered by the difference in isolate preference between sites.
Figure 2Variance of growth among substrates. The histogram bar indicates the square root of the among-isolates variance component (“genetic standard deviation”) for 72 h scores in the MSH (black) and Silwood (gray) surveys. Substrates are in the same order as in Figure1. Asterisk denotes testwise significance at P < 0.001 (experiment-wise P < 0.1).
Figure 3Genetic correlation coefficient between pairs of substrate grouped by diet category (mean value with standard deviation). The core/core and ancillary/ancillary groupings express correlation coefficients between pairs of substrates from the core diet and ancillary diets, respectively, whereas the core/ancillary grouping expresses correlation coefficients between a substrate from the core diet and a substrate in the ancillary diet.
Figure 4Genetic correlation coefficient between pairs of sugars grouped by number of carbon (mean value with standard deviation). Pentoses and hexoses are compared together (two values at left) or with one another (value at right).
Figure 5The divergence of yield among isolates summarized by projection on the two dominant principle component axes. Mean value for each isolate is presented. MSH isolates are shown as triangles, race B as solid triangles, and race C as hollow triangles, and Silwood isolates by gray squares. Ellipses show 95% confidence intervals. The ordination of the ten substrates that contribute most to PC1 are shown as red lines.