Literature DB >> 28067418

Genome-wide selection components analysis in a fish with male pregnancy.

Sarah P Flanagan1,2, Adam G Jones1.   

Abstract

A major goal of evolutionary biology is to identify the genome-level targets of natural and sexual selection. With the advent of next-generation sequencing, whole-genome selection components analysis provides a promising avenue in the search for loci affected by selection in nature. Here, we implement a genome-wide selection components analysis in the sex role reversed Gulf pipefish, Syngnathus scovelli. Our approach involves a double-digest restriction-site associated DNA sequencing (ddRAD-seq) technique, applied to adult females, nonpregnant males, pregnant males, and their offspring. An FST comparison of allele frequencies among these groups reveals 47 genomic regions putatively experiencing sexual selection, as well as 468 regions showing a signature of differential viability selection between males and females. A complementary likelihood ratio test identifies similar patterns in the data as the FST analysis. Sexual selection and viability selection both tend to favor the rare alleles in the population. Ultimately, we conclude that genome-wide selection components analysis can be a useful tool to complement other approaches in the effort to pinpoint genome-level targets of selection in the wild.
© 2017 The Author(s). Evolution © 2017 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FST; RAD-seq; Syngnathus scovelli; population genomics; sexual selection; viability selection

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28067418     DOI: 10.1111/evo.13173

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  13 in total

1.  Genomic Signatures of Sexual Conflict.

Authors:  Katja R Kasimatis; Thomas C Nelson; Patrick C Phillips
Journal:  J Hered       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 2.645

2.  The promise and deceit of genomic selection component analyses.

Authors:  John K Kelly
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  High frequency of an otherwise rare phenotype in a small and isolated tiger population.

Authors:  Vinay Sagar; Christopher B Kaelin; Meghana Natesh; P Anuradha Reddy; Rajesh K Mohapatra; Himanshu Chhattani; Prachi Thatte; Srinivas Vaidyanathan; Suvankar Biswas; Supriya Bhatt; Shashi Paul; Yadavendradev V Jhala; Mayank M Verma; Bivash Pandav; Samrat Mondol; Gregory S Barsh; Debabrata Swain; Uma Ramakrishnan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-09-28       Impact factor: 12.779

4.  Is the X chromosome a hot spot for sexually antagonistic polymorphisms? Biases in current empirical tests of classical theory.

Authors:  Filip Ruzicka; Tim Connallon
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Limits to Genomic Divergence Under Sexually Antagonistic Selection.

Authors:  Katja R Kasimatis; Peter L Ralph; Patrick C Phillips
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 3.154

6.  Sex matters: Otolith shape and genomic variation in deacon rockfish (Sebastes diaconus).

Authors:  Felix Vaux; Leif K Rasmuson; Lisa A Kautzi; Polly S Rankin; Matthew T O Blume; Kelly A Lawrence; Sandra Bohn; Kathleen G O'Malley
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 2.912

7.  Predicting evolutionary change at the DNA level in a natural Mimulus population.

Authors:  Patrick J Monnahan; Jack Colicchio; Lila Fishman; Stuart J Macdonald; John K Kelly
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 5.917

8.  An unbiased test reveals no enrichment of sexually antagonistic polymorphisms on the human X chromosome.

Authors:  Filip Ruzicka; Tim Connallon
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Evaluating human autosomal loci for sexually antagonistic viability selection in two large biobanks.

Authors:  Katja R Kasimatis; Abin Abraham; Peter L Ralph; Andrew D Kern; John A Capra; Patrick C Phillips
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2021-03-03       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Disagreement in FST estimators: A case study from sex chromosomes.

Authors:  William J Gammerdinger; Melissa A Toups; Beatriz Vicoso
Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour       Date:  2020-07-06       Impact factor: 7.090

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.