| Literature DB >> 28266616 |
Yaping Lin1,2, Yiyong Chen1,2, Changho Yi3, Jonathan J Fong4, Won Kim5, Marc Rius6,7, Aibin Zhan1,2.
Abstract
Invasive species represent promising models to study species' responses to rapidly changing environments. Although local adaptation frequently occurs during contemporary range expansion, the associated genetic signatures at both population and genomic levels remain largely unknown. Here, we use genome-wide gene-associated microsatellites to investigate genetic signatures of natural selection in a model invasive ascidian, Ciona robusta. Population genetic analyses of 150 individuals sampled in Korea, New Zealand, South Africa and Spain showed significant genetic differentiation among populations. Based on outlier tests, we found high incidence of signatures of directional selection at 19 loci. Hitchhiking mapping analyses identified 12 directional selective sweep regions, and all selective sweep windows on chromosomes were narrow (~8.9 kb). Further analyses indentified 132 candidate genes under selection. When we compared our genetic data and six crucial environmental variables, 16 putatively selected loci showed significant correlation with these environmental variables. This suggests that the local environmental conditions have left significant signatures of selection at both population and genomic levels. Finally, we identified "plastic" genomic regions and genes that are promising regions to investigate evolutionary responses to rapid environmental change in C. robusta.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28266616 PMCID: PMC5339779 DOI: 10.1038/srep44080
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Basic information about sampling sites and measures of genetic variation.
| Site | Genetic variation | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Code | Region/state and country | Salinity (ppt) | Temperature (°C) | |||||
| AM | Arenys de Mar, Spain | 48 | 37.7 | 18.0 | 3.16 | 0.302 | 0.420 | 0.283 |
| BL | Blanes, Spain | 22 | 38.0 | 17.4 | 3.13 | 0.299 | 0.446 | 0.336 |
| SA | Cape Town, South Africa | 33 | 35.2 | 16.0 | 3.33 | 0.319 | 0.438 | 0.276 |
| NMF | Nelson, New Zealand | 17 | 34.8 | 13.6 | 4.19 | 0.394 | 0.559 | 0.303 |
| GAP | Gampo, Korea | 30 | 33.7 | 17.7 | 4.04 | 0.388 | 0.530 | 0.271 |
Annual average values for both salinity and temperature are shown here. N = the number of individuals; AR = allelic richness; HO = observed heterozygosity; HE = expected heterozygosity; FIS = inbreeding coefficient.
Pairwise population genetic differentiation (pairwise F ST estimates) based on 152 microsatellites markers.
| AM | BL | SA | NMF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BL | 0.0169** | |||
| SA | 0.0318** | 0.0474** | ||
| NMF | 0.2041** | 0.1966** | 0.2019** | |
| GAP | 0.1958** | 0.1834** | 0.1973** | 0.0874** |
Population abbreviations as per Table 1. **P < 0.01.
Figure 1Three-dimensional factorial correspondence analysis (3D-FCA) and individual Bayesian assignment proportions determined using STRUCTURE for all populations (a,d), Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean populations (b,e) and Pacific Ocean populations (c,f) based on all neutral polymorphic microsatellites. For Bayesian clustering analysis (d,e and f), each genotype is represented by a thin vertical line, with proportional membership in different clusters. Bold vertical lines separate collection sites.
Summary of loci under directional selection in LOSITAN, BAYESCAN and ARLEQUIN analyses using the global analysis based on all populations, and results for correlation with environmental variables in the SAM test (P < 0.001, Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons).
| Locus | Annotation | LOSITAN | ARLEQUIN | BAYESCAN | SAM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IAM | SMM | Association with environmental variables | ||||
| Cin10 | no hit | — | — | * | ** | Min. sal. |
| — | Min. temp., Min. sal. | |||||
| Ann. temp., Min. temp., Min. sal. | ||||||
| Min. temp., Ann. sal., Min. sal., Max. sal. | ||||||
| Cin36 | flocculation protein FLO11 | * | — | * | — | Min. temp., Ann. sal., Min. sal., Max. sal. |
| — | ||||||
| Cin60 | LOC104265676 | — | — | * | — | Min. sal. |
| Min, temp., Ann. sal., Min. sal. | ||||||
| — | ||||||
| Cin106 | LOC100180535 | * | — | * | — | Min. temp., Min. sal. |
| — | Min. temp., Ann. sal., Min. sal., Max. sal. | |||||
| Cin153 | IST1 homolog | — | — | * | — | Ann. sal., Min. sal., Max. sal. |
| — | — | |||||
| Cin189 | GPI-anchor transamidase | — | — | * | ** | Min. sal. |
| Cin211 | no hit | * | — | * | — | Min. temp., Ann. sal., Min. sal., Max. sal. |
| Cin225 | persulfide dioxygenase ETHE1, mitochondrial-like | — | — | * | — | Min. sal. |
| Cin229 | carboxypeptidase Z-like | — | — | * | ** | Min. temp., Min. sal. |
IAM, infinite alleles model; SMM, stepwise mutation model; SAM, spatial analysis method; *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; –, not significant; Ann. temp., Annual water temperature; Min. temp., Lowest monthly average water temperature; Max. temp., Highest monthly average water temperature; Ann. sal., Annual salinity; Min. sal., Lowest monthly average salinity; Max. sal., Highest monthly average salinity. The loci detected consistently across all the three methods (i.e. LOSITAN, BAYESCAN and ARLEQUIN) are bolded.
Figure 2Outlier detection at 150 microsatellite loci among five populations with programs LOSITAN under infinite alleles model (a), LOSITAN under stepwise mutation model (b), ARLEQUIN (c) and BAYESCAN (d). Solid vertical line in (d) represents false discovery rate of 0.05. Orange and blue lines in (a), (b) and (c) represent upper and lower 95% confidence intervals, respectively.
Figure 3The chromosomal locations of the 177 gene-associated microsatellite markers used in this study.
Numbers on the left represent the chromosomal location for each microsatellite marker based on the KH assembly of Satou et al.18. The names of microsatellite markers are labelled on the right. Bold names indicate loci used for genome scan for all individual in all populations; candidate loci for directional selection (orange) and balancing selection (blue) are highlighted. Regions revealed as hotspots of introgression by Roux et al.39 are indicated by gray boxes.
Figure 4Four examples of the genes under directional selection in the selective sweep windows within a 20-kb distance up- and down-stream.
The location for each gene was assessed by BLAST against the KH assembly of Satou et al.18.