| Literature DB >> 26085592 |
Hosseinali Asgharian1, Peter L Chang1, Sergey Lysenkov2, Victoria A Scobeyeva3, William K Reisen4, Sergey V Nuzhdin5.
Abstract
We present the first genome-wide study of recent evolution in Culex pipiens species complex focusing on the genomic extent, functional targets and likely causes of global and local adaptations. We resequenced pooled samples of six populations of C. pipiens and two populations of the outgroup Culex torrentium. We used principal component analysis to systematically study differential natural selection across populations and developed a phylogenetic scanning method to analyse admixture without haplotype data. We found evidence for the prominent role of geographical distribution in shaping population structure and specifying patterns of genomic selection. Multiple adaptive events, involving genes implicated with autogeny, diapause and insecticide resistance were limited to specific populations. We estimate that about 5-20% of the genes (including several histone genes) and almost half of the annotated pathways were undergoing selective sweeps in each population. The high occurrence of sweeps in non-genic regions and in chromatin remodelling genes indicated the adaptive importance of gene expression changes. We hypothesize that global adaptive processes in the C. pipiens complex are potentially associated with South to North range expansion, requiring adjustments in chromatin conformation. Strong local signature of adaptation and emergence of hybrid bridge vectors necessitate genomic assessment of populations before specifying control agents.Entities:
Keywords: Culex pipiens; differential selection; histones; population structure; principal component analysis; selective sweeps
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26085592 PMCID: PMC4590483 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2015.0728
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Biol Sci ISSN: 0962-8452 Impact factor: 5.349
Samples used in this study and their average genome-wide variability statistics.
| sample | location | habitat | taxonomical identification | no. pooled individuals | average | average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Aleksin | urban | 224 | 0.01937 | 0.02030 | |
| A4 | Aleksin | suburban | 132 | 0.02403 | 0.02531 | |
| M1 | Moscow | urban | 26 | 0.01821 | 0.01905 | |
| M2b | Moscow | suburban | 28 | 0.01933 | 0.02070 | |
| M4b | Moscow | suburban | 195 | 0.01740 | 0.01820 | |
| S1 | Sacramento | urban (males) | 15 | 0.02291 | 0.02354 | |
| S2b | Sacramento | suburban (males) | 13 | 0.02347 | 0.02438 | |
| S3b | Sacramento | suburban (females) | 64 | 0.02276 | 0.02365 |
aAverage of 10 kb sliding windows. Only positions covered 4–40× were included.
bThe two Moscow suburban samples and the two Sacramento suburban samples were each caught independently at different sites and represent different populations.
Population structure in the eight samples demonstrated through pairwise Fst values and phylogenetic frequency of neighbourhood. The lower half of the table reports the average Fst of 10 kb sliding windows in pairwise comparisons. The upper half shows in what percentage of the phylogenetic trees based on 10 kb windows each two populations are nearest neighbours.
| A1 | A4 | M1 | M2 | M4 | S1 | S2 | S3 | Ref | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | − | 15.60 | 12.16 | 0.64 | 0.80 | 7.68 | 7.83 | 8.54 | 8.07 |
| A4 | 0.166 | − | 12.90 | 2.24 | 1.50 | 5.19 | 6.05 | 6.66 | 3.90 |
| M1 | 0.211 | 0.211 | − | 1.32 | 1.10 | 8.66 | 10.59 | 13.05 | 3.41 |
| M2 | 0.487 | 0.457 | 0.497 | − | 78.23 | 0.58 | 0.77 | 0.58 | 2.55 |
| M4 | 0.502 | 0.461 | 0.499 | 0.144 | − | 1.14 | 0.71 | 0.58 | 4.97 |
| S1 | 0.193 | 0.219 | 0.241 | 0.451 | 0.460 | − | 15.29 | 15.72 | 9.18 |
| S2 | 0.176 | 0.201 | 0.228 | 0.430 | 0.427 | 0.143 | − | 18.61 | 5.86 |
| S3 | 0.160 | 0.187 | 0.217 | 0.414 | 0.402 | 0.143 | 0.138 | − | 3.56 |
Coding sequence polymorphisms within and outside sweep regions. Sweep status 0: gene resides in a region not detected by Pool-hmm or detected with a score of less than 4; sweep status 1: gene resides in a region detected by Pool-hmm with a score of greater than or equal to 4; N: number of genes; total: genewise average of all polymorphisms in the coding DNA sequence; syn: genewise average of synonymous polymorphisms; nsyn: genewise average of non-synonymous polymorphisms; values in the correlation columns represent Spearman partial correlation coefficients controlled for gene length; n.s.: correlation not significant at p = 0.05; figures in parentheses: p-value of the correlation (p-value less than 0.0001 where not stated). Repeating the analysis with sweep scores greater than or equal to 2 or 8 as the cut-off (instead of 4) yielded very similar results (not shown). In calculation of the ratio, 0.5 was added to both syn and nsyn counts to avoid division by zero.
| genes with sweep status 0 | genes with sweep status 1 | correlation with sweep status 1 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sample | total | syn | nsyn | total | syn | nsyn | total | syn | nsyn | nsyn/syn ratio | ||
| A1 | 19 120 | 43.52 | 30.00 | 13.52 | 1186 | 17.50 | 7.94 | 9.56 | −0.1574 | −0.1985 | −0.0743 | 0.2147 |
| A4 | 19 129 | 40.91 | 29.27 | 11.64 | 1177 | 22.51 | 11.81 | 10.70 | −0.1210 | −0.1634 | −0.0263 | 0.1894 |
| M1 | 16 114 | 44.54 | 27.42 | 17.12 | 4192 | 29.90 | 14.93 | 14.97 | −0.1896 | −0.2407 | −0.0990 | 0.2441 |
| M2 | 18 376 | 26.48 | 15.03 | 11.44 | 1930 | 34.75 | 18.72 | 16.03 | 0.0330 | 0.0157 (0.0252) | 0.0563 | 0.0622 |
| M4 | 19 260 | 9.70 | 5.77 | 3.93 | 1046 | 10.23 | 5.81 | 4.42 | n.s. | n.s. | 0.0256 (0.0003) | 0.0202 (0.0040) |
| S1 | 17 713 | 39.48 | 28.62 | 10.87 | 2593 | 19.95 | 11.06 | 8.89 | −0.2221 | −0.2748 | −0.0934 | 0.2655 |
| S2 | 18 055 | 62.80 | 42.74 | 20.06 | 2251 | 30.11 | 16.29 | 13.81 | −0.2390 | −0.2828 | −0.1336 | 0.2647 |
| S3 | 17 510 | 61.82 | 40.12 | 21.70 | 2796 | 30.39 | 16.45 | 13.94 | −0.2766 | −0.3107 | −0.1852 | 0.2478 |
Figure 1.The first three PCs of Pool-hmm scores of genes from C. pipiens samples (a,b) or C. pipiens and C. torrentium together (c,d).