| Literature DB >> 25996870 |
Rike Bahati Stelkens1, Corinne Schmid2, Ole Seehausen2.
Abstract
Studies from a wide diversity of taxa have shown a negative relationship between genetic compatibility and the divergence time of hybridizing genomes. Theory predicts the main breakdown of fitness to happen after the F1 hybrid generation, when heterosis subsides and recessive allelic (Dobzhansky-Muller) incompatibilities are increasingly unmasked. We measured the fitness of F2 hybrids of African haplochromine cichlid fish bred from species pairs spanning several thousand to several million years divergence time. F2 hybrids consistently showed the lowest viability compared to F1 hybrids and non-hybrid crosses (crosses within the grandparental species), in agreement with hybrid breakdown. Especially the short- and long-term survival (2 weeks to 6 months) of F2 hybrids was significantly reduced. Overall, F2 hybrids showed a fitness reduction of 21% compared to F1 hybrids, and a reduction of 43% compared to the grandparental, non-hybrid crosses. We further observed a decrease of F2 hybrid viability with the genetic distance between grandparental lineages, suggesting an important role for negative epistatic interactions in cichlid fish postzygotic isolation. The estimated time window for successful production of F2 hybrids resulting from our data is consistent with the estimated divergence time between the multiple ancestral lineages that presumably hybridized in three major adaptive radiations of African cichlids.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25996870 PMCID: PMC4440740 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127207
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Experimental crosses with genetic distance, divergence time and sample sizes.
| female parent | male parent | geo- graphy | genetic distance | divergence internal clock | divergence fossil record | divergence Gondwana break up | n F1 families fert | n F1 families hatch | n F1 families 14 surv | n F1 families 180 surv | n F1 families cumul | n F1 families to prod. F2 | n F2 families fert | n F2 families hatch | n F2 families 14 surv | n F2 families 180 surv | n F2 families cumul |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| sym | 0.007 | 0.35–0.61 | 0.104 | 0.135 | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | - |
|
|
| sym | 0.007 | 0.35–0.61 | 0.104 | 0.135 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 6 |
|
|
| sym | 0.019 | 0.93–1.64 | 0.58 | 0.919 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 |
|
|
| sym | 0.019 | 0.93–1.65 | 0.58 | 0.919 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 3 |
|
|
| sym | 0.024 | 1.19–2.1 | 0.891 | 1.485 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 5 |
|
|
| allo | 0.041 | 2.02–3.56 | 2.226 | 4.117 | 14 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 14 | 3 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 9 |
|
|
| allo | 0.055 | 2.74–4.82 | 3.779 | 7.426 | 14 | 13 | 10 | 10 | 14 | 1 (mixed) | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 6 |
|
|
| sym | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||
|
|
| sym | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||
|
|
| sym | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||
|
|
| sym | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||
|
|
| sym | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||||
|
|
| sym | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||
|
|
| sym | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Crosses with parental species names, geography (sym = sympatric, allo = allopatric), genetic distance (uncorrected p), and divergence times in million years based on the lower and upper bounds of an internally calibrated, linear clock (using the age of Lake Malawi [30]), and two relaxed non-linear molecular clocks using the cichlid fossil record and the break up of Gondwanaland [31]. For details on these calibrations see Stelkens et al. [12]. The number of families used for the calculation of the different fitness components are shown (fert = fertilization rate, hatch = hatching rate, 14 surv = survival rate until 14 days after hatching, 180 surv = survival rate until 180 days after hatching, cumul = cumulative fitness), and the number of F1 families used to produce F2 (“mixed” indicates one case where we were forced to merge several F1 families before generating F2). Homospecific, non-hybrid crosses are listed in the lower part of the table. Hyphens indicate missing data. The number of families available usually drops with developmental stage because mortality increases with each successive measurement. For some families fitness was measured at later stages but not at earlier stages or vice versa, which is why the number of families is not stable or does not always decrease as the experiment progressed.
Fig 1Average inviability of homospecific, F1 and F2 hybrid crosses.
Five different measures of post-mating failure rates (in %) in homospecific, F1 and F2 interspecific hybrid crosses. Bars show inviability averaged across replicated F2 families of the same cross type, and then across the different cross types within homospecifics, F1 hybrids and F2 hybrids. Error bars are standard deviations. Numbers under bars represent the number of families entering analysis. Significant pairwise posthoc comparisons (after Bonferroni correction) are indicated by brackets with asterisks.
Results (two-tailed p-values) of Student’s t-tests comparing five components of fitness between homospecific, non-hybrid crosses, F1 hybrid crosses, and F2 hybrid crosses.
| Fitness component | homospecific v. F1 | homospecific vs. F2 | F1 vs. F2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| fertilization | 0.073 | 0.561 | 0.027 |
| hatching | 0.12 | 0.004 | 0.164 |
| 14-day survival | 0.982 |
|
|
| 180-day survival | 0.53 | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| cumulative | 0.099 |
| 0.106 |
Italics indicate significant comparisons after Bonferroni correction.
Fig 2F2 hybrid inviability as a function of genetic distance.
Accumulation of fertilization, hatching, 14-day survival, 180-day survival and cumulative failure rates as a function of genetic distance (uncorrected p-distances calculated from D-loop sequences) in F2 hybrids. Error bars are standard deviations. Regression lines indicate significant relationships.