| Literature DB >> 26002924 |
Martin Laporte1, Sean M Rogers2, Anne-Marie Dion-Côté3, Eric Normandeau3, Pierre-Alexandre Gagnaire4, Anne C Dalziel3, Jobran Chebib2, Louis Bernatchez3.
Abstract
Parallel changes in body shape may evolve in response to similar environmental conditions, but whether such parallel phenotypic changes share a common genetic basis is still debated. The goal of this study was to assess whether parallel phenotypic changes could be explained by genetic parallelism, multiple genetic routes, or both. We first provide evidence for parallelism in fish shape by using geometric morphometrics among 300 fish representing five species pairs of Lake Whitefish. Using a genetic map comprising 3438 restriction site-associated DNA sequencing single-nucleotide polymorphisms, we then identified quantitative trait loci underlying body shape traits in a backcross family reared in the laboratory. A total of 138 body shape quantitative trait loci were identified in this cross, thus revealing a highly polygenic architecture of body shape in Lake Whitefish. Third, we tested for evidence of genetic parallelism among independent wild populations using both a single-locus method (outlier analysis) and a polygenic approach (analysis of covariation among markers). The single-locus approach provided limited evidence for genetic parallelism. However, the polygenic analysis revealed genetic parallelism for three of the five lakes, which differed from the two other lakes. These results provide evidence for both genetic parallelism and multiple genetic routes underlying parallel phenotypic evolution in fish shape among populations occupying similar ecological niches.Entities:
Keywords: adaptive radiation; fish body shape; genotyping-by-sequencing; geometric morphometrics; parallel evolution
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26002924 PMCID: PMC4502382 DOI: 10.1534/g3.115.019067
Source DB: PubMed Journal: G3 (Bethesda) ISSN: 2160-1836 Impact factor: 3.154
Geographic sampling coordinates, dates, and sample sizes of dwarf and normal Whitefish photographed in the five lakes surveyed in this study
| Lakes | Geographic Coordinates | Date | Normal | Dwarf | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cliff | 46°24´20 N | June 2010 | 25 | 35 | 60 |
| 69°15´60 W | |||||
| East | 47°10´42 N | July 2010 | 35 | 33 | 68 |
| 69°32´52 W | |||||
| Indian | 46°15’24 N | June 2010 | 24 | 31 | 55 |
| 69°16´49 W | |||||
| Témiscouasta | 47°39´58 N | July 2010 | 34 | 33 | 67 |
| 68°49´22 W | |||||
| Webster | 46° 09´18 N | June 2010 | 25 | 25 | 50 |
| 69° 05´17 W | |||||
| Total | − | − | 143 | 157 | 300 |
Figure 1Position of 15 landmarks (30 x, y coordinates) used to study body shape in Lake Whitefish (1: lower extent of distal maxilla; 2: upper extent of distal maxilla; 3: tip of snout; 4: anterior extant of orbital; 5: ventral extant of orbital; 6: anterior extant of orbital; 7: anterior insertion of dorsal fin; 8: posterior insertion of dorsal fin; 9: dorsal insertion of caudal fin; 10: base of caudal fin; 11: ventral insertion of caudal fin; 12: posterior insertion of anal fin; 13: anterior insertion of anal fin; 14: anterior insertion of pelvic fin; 15: anterior insertion of pectoral fin).
Figure 2Fish shape variation among individuals along PC1 and PC2 in all five lakes. Each dot represents an individual (black color = normal species; white color = dwarf species). The means fish shape for each species lakes combination were also indicated (circle = Cliff; square = East; diamond = Indian; upper triangle = Témiscouata and lower triangle = Webster).
Figure 3Mean shape comparisons between normal (white dot; dashed line) and dwarf Whitefish (black dot; full line) for Cliff, East, Indian, Témiscouata, and Webster lakes. Red arrows show how shape changes from normal to dwarf Whitefish.
Effect of both “species” (dwarf vs. normal) and “lake” on fish shape
| Effect of | DF | Approx F | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| All lakes | |||
| Species | 1, 215 | 161.25 | <0.001 |
| Lake | 4, 432 | 11.97 | <0.001 |
| Sex | 1, 215 | 2.61 | 0.076 |
| Species × lake | 4, 432 | 2.75 | 0.006 |
| Species × sex | 1, 215 | 0.37 | 0.691 |
| Lake × sex | 4, 432 | 2.14 | 0.031 |
| Species × lake × sex | 4, 432 | 0.99 | 0.444 |
| Within lake | |||
| Cliff | |||
| Species | 1, 29 | 48.10 | <0.001 |
| Sex | 1, 29 | 0.67 | 0.519 |
| Species × sex | 1, 29 | 0.79 | 0.465 |
| East | |||
| Species | 1, 55 | 40.13 | <0.001 |
| Sex | 1, 55 | 1.83 | 0.171 |
| Species × sex | 1, 55 | 0.28 | 0.756 |
| Indian | |||
| Species | 1, 35 | 90.05 | <0.001 |
| Sex | 1, 35 | 2.26 | 0.119 |
| Species × sex | 1, 35 | 1.86 | 0.171 |
| Témiscouata | |||
| Species | 1, 48 | 17.56 | <0.001 |
| Sex | 1, 48 | 3.15 | 0.051+ |
| Species × sex | 1, 48 | 1.13 | 0.332 |
| Webster | |||
| Species | 1, 44 | 27.41 | <0.001 |
| Sex | 1, 44 | 1.33 | 0.275 |
| Species × sex | 1, 44 | 1.18 | 0.317 |
MANOVA, multivariate analysis of variance.
Effect of species identity (Dwarf vs. Normal), lake, sex, and their interaction on the two first axes of a PCA on 15 landmarks representing fish shape tested with a (MANOVA).
Five independent MANOVAs (one for each lake) testing for the effect of species identity, sex and their interaction on the same response variables
Significant result (P-value < 0.05).
Marginally significant result (P-value < 0.1)
Description of SNP markers potentially under divergent selection in wild populations of Lake Whitefish as revealed by Fdist analysis
| SNP | Associated QTL | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LG | Position, cM | Cliff (0.22) | East (0.03) | Indian (0.11) | Témiscouata (0.01) | Webster (0.05) | |
| 46086 | 1 | 20.0 | − | − | 0.49 | − | − |
| 78628 | 4 | 80.3 | − | − | − | 0.13 | − |
| 147541 | 4 | 92.3 | − | 0.22 | − | − | − |
| 107600 | 6 | 16.0 | − | 0.27 | − | − | − |
| 110970 | 10 | 37.0 | − | 0.24 | − | − | − |
| 132516 | 12 | 27.1 | − | 0.26 | − | − | − |
| 12 | 38.2 | − | − | − | |||
| 33001 | 16 | 60.4 | 0.96 | − | − | − | − |
| 123874 | 17 | 51.5 | − | − | − | − | 0.31 |
| 21 | 81.0 | − | − | − | − | ||
| 21 | 82.2 | − | − | − | − | ||
| 1790 | 25 | 29.1 | − | 0.17 | − | − | − |
| 35278 | 26 | 36.7 | − | − | 0.44 | − | − |
| 88462 | 28 | 38.3 | − | 0.27 | − | − | − |
| 101670 | 31 | 10.8 | 0.77 | − | − | − | − |
| 3771 | 31 | 14.9 | − | − | − | 0.27 | − |
| 74955 | 34 | 36.2 | 0.78 | − | − | − | − |
| 45298 | 36 | 19.0 | − | 0.28 | − | − | − |
| 71661 | 39 | 21.9 | − | − | 0.68 | − | − |
The LG as defined in Gagnaire and position of the body shape−associated QTL are indicated. In addition, FST values between dwarf and normal Whitefish in the lake in which potential selection was detected are indicated. The mean FST value for divergence between dwarf and normal Whitefish for 3438 SNPs is indicated in parentheses under the lake names. In bold, a marker (69063) that shows potential genetic parallelism between Indian and Webster species pairs and two others (107544 and 37687) physically ’close’ (1.2 cM) on the genetic map that could represent another case of genetic parallelism between Cliff and Indian species pairs. SNP, single-nucleotide polymorphism; QTL, quantitative trait loci; LG, linkage group.
Figure 4Boxplot of the proportion of “votes” for Whitefish from dwarf populations (dark gray) and normal populations (light gray) (x-axis) for the dwarf species group (y-axis) obtained via 1,000,000 trees produced with random forest analyses on 138 shape-related QTL. A “vote” refers the classification of an individual by a single tree. (A) All 10 populations from five lakes—classification error rate of 24.3%; (B) six of these populations from three lakes (Cliff, Indian, and Webster)—classification error rate of 5.9% and (C) the four remaining populations from two lakes (East and Témiscouata)—classification error rate of 40.5%.