| Literature DB >> 26614097 |
Dau Dayal Aggarwal1, Eugenia Rashkovetsky1, Pawel Michalak2, Irit Cohen1, Yefim Ronin1, Dan Zhou3, Gabriel G Haddad3,4, Abraham B Korol5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Population genetics predicts that tight linkage between new and/or pre-existing beneficial and deleterious alleles should decrease the efficiency of natural selection in finite populations. By decoupling beneficial and deleterious alleles and facilitating the combination of beneficial alleles, recombination accelerates the formation of high-fitness genotypes. This may impose indirect selection for increased recombination. Despite the progress in theoretical understanding, interplay between recombination and selection remains a controversial issue in evolutionary biology. Even less satisfactory is the situation with crossover interference, which is a deviation of double-crossover frequency in a pair of adjacent intervals from the product of recombination rates in the two intervals expected on the assumption of crossover independence. Here, we report substantial changes in recombination and interference in three long-term directional selection experiments with Drosophila melanogaster: for desiccation (~50 generations), hypoxia, and hyperoxia tolerance (>200 generations each).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26614097 PMCID: PMC4661966 DOI: 10.1186/s12915-015-0206-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Biol ISSN: 1741-7007 Impact factor: 7.431
Fig. 1Change in recombination rates (± SE) in D. melanogaster caused by directional selection for desiccation tolerance. Significant increases in recombination rates were observed in selection lines (red) compared to control (blue) in intervals cv-v and v-f of chromosome X; net-dp, cn-kn, and c-px of chromosome 2; and h-th of chromosome 3. Asterisks indicate significant differences between selection and control at 0.01 and 0.001 levels using false discovery rate adjusted P values
Effect of desiccation selection on recombination rates in 16 regions of the D. melanogaster genome
| Control | Desiccation | Control versus desiccation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interval |
| χ2a |
| χ2a | δ | χ2c |
|
| X chromosome | |||||||
|
| 10.28 ± 0.54 | 0.38 | 10.68 ± 0.55 | 8.52e | 3.89 | 0.27 | 1 |
|
| 19.69 ± 0.71 | 1.34 | 26.44 ± 0.79 | 2.43 | 34.28 | 40.74 | 4.1 × 10–9 |
|
| 21.89 ± 0.74 | 0.85 | 32.12 ± 0.83 | 3.23 | 46.73 | 84.86 | 3.1 × 10–18 |
| 2L chromosome | |||||||
|
| 10.70 ± 0.65 | 1.58 | 16.92 ± 0.79 | 0.53 | 58.13 | 36.85 | 2.5 × 10–8 |
|
| 29.36 ± 0.96 | 0.72 | 29.37 ± 0.96 | 0.21 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
| 5.44 ± 0.48 | 1.92 | 5.49 ± 0.48 | 0.49 | 0.91 | 0.01 | 1 |
|
| 2.08 ± 0.30 | 0.31 | 1.91 ± 0.29 | 1.04 | −8.17 | 0.16 | 1 |
| 2R chromosome | |||||||
|
| 12.11 ± 0.69 | 3.37 | 19.01 ± 0.82 | 3.63 | 56.98 | 41.26 | 4.1 × 10–9 |
|
| 2.03 ± 0.30 | 5.60 | 1.74 ± 0.28 | 0.94 | −14.29 | 0.52 | 1 |
|
| 24.13 ± 0.90 | 0.13 | 28.95 ± 0.95 | 6.59e | 19.98 | 13.44 | 1.0 × 10–3 |
|
| 6.07 ± 0.50 | 1.72 | 5.88 ± 0.50 | 0.75 | −3.13 | 0.07 | 1 |
| 3rd chromosome | |||||||
|
| 18.80 ± 0.82 | 1.75 | 20.75 ± 0.85 | 0.36 | 10.37 | 2.70 | 0.43 |
|
| 14.40 ± 0.74 | 2.85 | 21.11 ± 0.86 | 3.32 | 46.60 | 35.05 | 5.1 × 10–8 |
|
| 5.64 ± 0.49 | 0.17 | 4.86 ± 0.45 | 1.71 | −13.83 | 1.37 | 0.89 |
|
| 8.20 ± 0.58 | 0.63 | 9.18 ± 0.61 | 6.76e | 11.95 | 1.37 | 0.89 |
|
| 4.94 ± 0.46 | 0.95 | 5.99 ± 0.50 | 1.42 | 21.26 | 2.40 | 0.50 |
We scored 1,050 individuals of each line (three lines in control and three in selection variant); the total sample size was 6,300 for estimation of recombination frequency (rf) in X chromosome intervals. For each of the other crosses (2L, 2R, and 3), we scored 750 individuals per line, i.e. 4,500 per cross. Thus, the total sample for recombination analysis in desiccation selection experiment was 19,800 flies
aχ2 test for between-lines heterogeneity within either control of selection variants (df = 2)
bδ (%), relative change of rf in selection variant compared to control variant
cχ2 test for significance between rf values in selection versus control (df = 1), see Methods
dFalse discovery rate corrected P values (two-tailed test) based on χ 2 c are present to take into account the effect of multiple comparisons
e P <0.05; for more details of this table, see Methods and Additional file 3
Effect of desiccation selection on the coefficient of coincidence in adjacent intervals of the major chromosomes of D. melanogaster
| Intervals | Control | Desiccation | χ2 ML |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.564 ± 0.086 | 0.947 ± 0.084 | 9.39 | 8.4 × 10–3 |
|
| 0.698 ± 0.061 | 1.395 ± 0.045 | 72.75 | 1.1 × 10–16 |
|
| 0.352 ± 0.065 | 0.813 ± 0.069 | 21.13 | 2.3 × 10–5 |
|
| 0.110 ± 0.054 | 0.220 ± 0.075 | 1.44 | 0.66 |
|
| 0.060 ± 0.042 | 0.052 ± 0.036 | 0.02 | 1 |
|
| 0.814 ± 0.099 | 1.101 ± 0.081 | 0.41 | 0.09 |
|
| 0.109 ± 0.076 | 0.680 ± 0.154 | 10.20 | 5.4 × 10–3 |
|
| 0.192 ± 0.134 | 0.478 ± 0.206 | 1.34 | 0.71 |
|
| 0.109 ± 0.108 | 0.234 ± 0.133 | 0.50 | 1 |
P values (two-tailed test) are based on unweighted likelihood tests for the difference between control and selection estimates, corrected for false discovery rate
For more details, see Additional file 1: Table S2
ML, Maximum likelihood
Fig. 2Change in recombination rates (±SE) in D. melanogaster caused by directional selection for (a) hypoxia and (b) hyperoxia tolerance. Significant increases in recombination rates were observed in hypoxia selection variant (red) compared to control (blue) in intervals y-cv, cv-v, and v-f of chromosome X; net-dp and dp-b of chromosome 2; and cu-sr and sr-e of chromosome 3. In hyperoxia selection variant, a significant increase in recombination rate was observed in all tested intervals of chromosome X, while only dp-b interval in chromosome 2 and in no interval of chromosome 3. Asterisks indicate significant differences between selection and control variants at 0.05 and 0.001 levels using false discovery rate adjusted P values
Effect of hypoxia and hyperoxia selection on recombination rates in 16 regions of the D. melanogaster genome
| Control | Hypoxia | Control vs. Hypoxia | Hyperoxia | Control vs. Hyperoxia | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interval |
|
|
|
| δ |
|
|
|
| δ |
|
|
| X chromosome | ||||||||||||
|
| 13.15 ± 0.71 | 0.10 | 17.46 ± 0.80 | 6.31e | 32.78 | 16.21 | 4.6 × 10–4 | 15.97 ± 0.77 | 2.37 | 21.44 | 7.21 | 4.1 × 10–2 |
|
| 18.96 ± 0.83 | 0.57 | 26.29 ± 0.93 | 3.40 | 38.66 | 34.77 | 5.1 × 10–8 | 27.25 ± 0.94 | 1.99 | 43.72 | 43.43 | 2.1 × 10–9 |
|
| 22.57 ± 0.88 | 0.14 | 28.98 ± 0.96 | 2.04 | 28.40 | 24.30 | 9.8 × 10–6 | 27.52 ± 0.94 | 1.94 | 21.93 | 14.69 | 9.6 × 10–4 |
| 2 L chromosome | ||||||||||||
|
| 12.20 ± 0.69 | 3.41 | 17.01 ± 0.79 | 1.79 | 39.43 | 21.07 | 4.2 × 10–5 | 14.50 ± 0.74 | 0.91 | 18.85 | 5.19 | 0.12 |
|
| 30.48 ± 0.97 | 0.42 | 37.20 ± 1.02 | 0.08 | 22.85 | 22.05 | 2.8 × 10–5 | 36.16 ± 1.01 | 1.04 | 18.64 | 16.42 | 4.5 × 10–4 |
|
| 6.65 ± 0.53 | 2.63 | 7.99 ± 0.57 | 0.14 | 20.15 | 2.98 | 0.38 | 6.65 ± 0.52 | 2.73 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
|
| 2.19 ± 0.31 | 0.71 | 2.12 ± 0.30 | 0.41 | −3.20 | 0.03 | 1 | 1.95 ± 0.29 | 2.20 | −10.96 | 0.32 | 1 |
| 2R chromosome | ||||||||||||
|
| 9.99 ± 0.63 | 0.37 | 10.38 ± 0.64 | 0.46 | 3.90 | 0.29 | 1 | 10.01 ± 0.63 | 0.89 | 0.20 | 0.02 | 1 |
|
| 2.02 ± 0.30 | 1.69 | 1.73 ± 0.27 | 3.84 | 14.36 | 0.52 | 1 | 2.40 ± 0.32 | 1.02 | 18.81 | 0.77 | 1 |
|
| 24.67 ± 0.91 | 5.88 | 22.21 ± 0.88 | 0.54 | −9.97 | 3.79 | 0.26 | 23.42 ± 0.89 | 3.76 | −5.07 | 0.95 | 1 |
|
| 7.58 ± 0.56 | 0.51 | 7.01 ± 0.54 | 2.73 | −7.52 | 0.55 | 1 | 7.71 ± 0.56 | 1.82 | 1.72 | 0.03 | 1 |
| 3rd chromosome | ||||||||||||
|
| 14.89 ± 0.75 | 2.94 | 14.84 ± 0.75 | 2.89 | −0.34 | 0.01 | 1 | 14.39 ± 0.74 | 0.40 | −3.36 | 0.22 | 1 |
|
| 11.82 ± 0.68 | 5.27 | 13.09 ± 0.71 | 3.34 | 10.74 | 1.67 | 0.80 | 11.66 ± 0.68 | 0.79 | −1.35 | 0.03 | 1 |
|
| 5.24 ± 0.47 | 4.52 | 6.58 ± 0.52 | 4.72 | 25.57 | 3.59 | 0.28 | 5.48 ± 0.48 | 1.82 | 4.58 | 0.13 | 1 |
|
| 5.98 ± 0.50 | 1.69 | 8.79 ± 0.60 | 1.40 | 46.99 | 13.08 | 1.8 × 10–3 | 6.70 ± 0.53 | 0.38 | 12.04 | 1.23 | 0.96 |
|
| 4.50 ± 0.44 | 0.84 | 7.06 ± 0.54 | 0.28 | 56.89 | 13.55 | 1.6 × 10–3 | 4.75 ± 0.45 | 0.14 | 5.56 | 0.16 | 1 |
For each cross, we scored 750 individuals of each line (3 lines each in control, hypoxia and hyperoxia variant) i.e., 6750 per cross. Thus, a total 27,000 flies were scored for recombination analysis in X chromosome, 2L arm, 2R arm and 3 chromosome in hypxoxia-hyperoxia experiment.
a χ 2test for between-lines heterogeneity within either control of selection variants (df = 2)
bδ (%), relative change of rf in selection variant compared to control variant
c χ 2 test for significance between rf values in selection versus control (df = 1), see Methods
dFalse discovery rate corrected P values (two-tailed test) based on χ 2c are present to take into account the effect of multiple comparisons
e P <0.05; for more details of this table, see Methods and Additional file 3
Effect of hypoxia and hyperoxia selection on the coefficient of coincidence in adjacent intervals of the major chromosomes of D. melanogaster
| Intervals | Control | Hypoxia | χ2 ML |
| Hyperoxia | χ2 ML |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.712 ± 0.099 | 1.108 ± 0.078 | 8.88 | 1.1 × 10–2 | 0.883 ± 0.076 | 1.72 | 0.55 |
|
| 0.737 ± 0.074 | 1.118 ± 0.056 | 16.07 | 2.8 × 10–4 | 1.200 ± 0.058 | 22.83 | 9.7 × 10–6 |
|
| 0.332 ± 0.058 | 1.295 ± 0.062 | 96.20 | 7.9 × 10–22 | 1.014 ± 0.068 | 49.46 | 1.4 × 10–11 |
|
| 0.540 ± 0.097 | 1.195 ± 0.095 | 20.45 | 3.2 × 10–5 | 1.146 ± 0.107 | 16.42 | 2.3 × 10–4 |
|
| 0.301 ± 0.295 | 0.262 ± 0.258 | 0.01 | 1 | 0.643 ± 0.442 | 0.41 | 1 |
|
| 0.272 ± 0.129 | 0.179 ± 0.124 | 0.01 | 1 | 0.422 ± 0.148 | 0.84 | 0.97 |
|
| 0.283 ± 0.078 | 0.253 ± 0.081 | 0.08 | 1 | 0.316 ± 0.083 | 0.08 | 1 |
|
| 0.495 ± 0.103 | 0.995 ± 0.129 | 8.97 | 1.0 × 10–2 | 0.396 ± 0.097 | 0.44 | 1 |
|
| 0.137 ± 0.095 | 0.598 ± 0.162 | 5.50 | 0.06 | 0.342 ± 0.148 | 1.42 | 0.60 |
P values (two-tailed test) are based on unweighted likelihood tests for the difference between control and selection estimates, corrected for false discovery rate
For more details, see Additional file 1: Table S3
ML, Maximum likelihood