Kathleen G Ferris1, Tullia Rushton2, Anna B Greenlee3, Katherine Toll2, Benjamin K Blackman3, John H Willis2. 1. Department of Biology, Duke University, 125 Science Drive, Durham, NC 27705, USA and kgf7@berkeley.edu. 2. Department of Biology, Duke University, 125 Science Drive, Durham, NC 27705, USA and. 3. Department of Biology, University of Virginia, 485 McCormick Road Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The genetic basis of leaf shape has long interested botanists because leaf shape varies extensively across the plant kingdom and this variation is probably adaptive. However, knowledge of the genetic architecture of leaf shape variation in natural populations remains limited. This study examined the genetic architecture of leaf shape diversification among three edaphic specialists in the Mimulus guttatus species complex. Lobed and narrow leaves have evolved from the entire, round leaves of M. guttatus in M. laciniatus, M. nudatus and a polymorphic serpentine M. guttatus population (M2L). METHODS: Bulk segregant analysis and next-generation sequencing were used to map quantitative trait loci (QTLs) that underlie leaf shape in an M. laciniatus × M. guttatus F2 population. To determine whether the same QTLs contribute to leaf shape variation in M. nudatus and M2L, F2s from M. guttatus × M. nudatus and lobed M2L × unlobed M. guttatus crosses were genotyped at QTLs from the bulk segregant analysis. KEY RESULTS: Narrow and lobed leaf shapes in M. laciniatus, M. nudatus and M. guttatus are controlled by overlapping genetic regions. Several promising leaf shape candidate genes were found under each QTL. CONCLUSIONS: The evolution of divergent leaf shape has taken place multiple times in the M. guttatus species complex and is associated with the occupation of dry, rocky environments. The genetic architecture of elongated and lobed leaves is similar across three species in this group. This may indicate that parallel genetic evolution from standing variation or new mutations is responsible for the putatively adaptive leaf shape variation in Mimulus.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The genetic basis of leaf shape has long interested botanists because leaf shape varies extensively across the plant kingdom and this variation is probably adaptive. However, knowledge of the genetic architecture of leaf shape variation in natural populations remains limited. This study examined the genetic architecture of leaf shape diversification among three edaphic specialists in the Mimulus guttatus species complex. Lobed and narrow leaves have evolved from the entire, round leaves of M. guttatus in M. laciniatus, M. nudatus and a polymorphic serpentine M. guttatus population (M2L). METHODS: Bulk segregant analysis and next-generation sequencing were used to map quantitative trait loci (QTLs) that underlie leaf shape in an M. laciniatus × M. guttatus F2 population. To determine whether the same QTLs contribute to leaf shape variation in M. nudatus and M2L, F2s from M. guttatus × M. nudatus and lobed M2L × unlobed M. guttatus crosses were genotyped at QTLs from the bulk segregant analysis. KEY RESULTS: Narrow and lobed leaf shapes in M. laciniatus, M. nudatus and M. guttatus are controlled by overlapping genetic regions. Several promising leaf shape candidate genes were found under each QTL. CONCLUSIONS: The evolution of divergent leaf shape has taken place multiple times in the M. guttatus species complex and is associated with the occupation of dry, rocky environments. The genetic architecture of elongated and lobed leaves is similar across three species in this group. This may indicate that parallel genetic evolution from standing variation or new mutations is responsible for the putatively adaptive leaf shape variation in Mimulus.
Authors: Brody J DeYoung; Kristen L Bickle; Katherine J Schrage; Paul Muskett; Kanu Patel; Steven E Clark Journal: Plant J Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 6.417
Authors: Rajani Sarojam; Pia G Sappl; Alexander Goldshmidt; Idan Efroni; Sandra K Floyd; Yuval Eshed; John L Bowman Journal: Plant Cell Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 11.277
Authors: Priscilla A Erickson; Andrew M Glazer; Emily E Killingbeck; Rachel M Agoglia; Jiyeon Baek; Sara M Carsanaro; Anthony M Lee; Phillip A Cleves; Dolph Schluter; Craig T Miller Journal: Evolution Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Daniel Fulop; Aashish Ranjan; Itai Ofner; Michael F Covington; Daniel H Chitwood; Donelly West; Yasunori Ichihashi; Lauren Headland; Daniel Zamir; Julin N Maloof; Neelima R Sinha Journal: G3 (Bethesda) Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 3.154