| Literature DB >> 28427326 |
Nikolas Vellnow1, Dita B Vizoso2,3, Gudrun Viktorin2, Lukas Schärer2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytoplasmic sex allocation distorters, which arise from cytonuclear conflict over the optimal investment into male versus female reproductive function, are some of the best-researched examples for genomic conflict. Among hermaphrodites, many such distorters have been found in plants, while, to our knowledge, none have been clearly documented in animals.Entities:
Keywords: Animal; Cytonuclear conflict; Cytoplasmic male sterility; Genomic conflict; Sex allocation; Simultaneous hermaphrodite
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28427326 PMCID: PMC5397761 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-017-0952-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
The number of initiated inbred DV lines, those used in the experiment, and those surviving until the current moment, grouped by their source populations in the Northern Adriatic Sea [41]
| Source (Site) | Initiated (n) (in 2004) | Used DV lines (in 2006) | Surviving DV lines (currently) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lignano Sabbiadoro 1995 (P1) | 30 | 22f, 39g, 57g | 18g, 22f, 27g, 39g, 41g, 57g, 71e, 83g | ||||||||
| Lignano Sabbiadoro 2002 (P1) | 7 | na | 25d | ||||||||
| Isola di Martignano 2002 (X) | 8 | 47i | 47i | ||||||||
| Isola di Martignano 2003 (PS) | 90 | 26c, 28c, 33c, 49j, 67a, 68b, | 16c, 26c, 28c, 33c, 49j, 51c, 65c, 67a, 68b, 81c, 84j | ||||||||
| Bibione 2003 (UV) | 105 | 1c, 3d, 6d, 8d, 12d, 13c, | 1c, 3d, 6d, 8d, 10c, 12d, 13c, 20g, 29c, 31c, 35d, 37c, 44d, 46d, 50d, 61d, 69d, 75h | ||||||||
| Total (n) | 240 | 30 | 39 | ||||||||
| The letters indicate the different mitochondrial haplotypes of DV lines, with the following polymorphic bases and resulting amino acid substitutions (base positions are given with respect to the start of the sequences for each fragment): | |||||||||||
| Haplotype | 350 | 373 | 408 | 421 | 587 | 40 | 127 | 148 | 386 | 441 | 528 |
| a | A | C | C | A | G | A | A | C | T | C | T |
| b | A | C | C | T | G | A | A | C | C | C | T |
| c | A | C | C | T | G | A | A | C | T | C | T |
| d | A | C | T | T | G | A | A | C | T | C | T |
| e | A | T | C | A | A | A | A | C | T | C | T |
| f | A | T | C | A | G | G | A | C | T | A | C |
| g | A | T | C | A | G | G | A | C | T | C | C |
| h | A | T | C | A | G | G | A | C | T | C | T |
| i | A | T | C | T | G | A | A | T | T | C | T |
| j | G | C | C | T | G | A | G | C | T | C | T |
| Encoded amino acids | I/V | F | A/V | L/F | V/I | L | W | R | F/S | F/L | V |
| Open reading frame |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underlined DV lines were used in the experiment but are no longer available. Note that DV stands for Dita Vizoso, who was mainly responsible for their establishment. The table footer indicates the observed haplotypes in the sequenced genes (see also main text)
Fig. 1Crossing scheme used in this study (shown here for one of the 15 independent pairs of inbred line crosses) in which the stripe pattern of the inner circular area represents the nuclear genome and the shade of gray of the outer rim indicates the cytotype. Note how both lines were replicated and grown independently for one generation to account for maternal effects in the analysis and how the resulting offspring of the line crosses share the (approximately) identical nuclear genome, but differ in the cytotype depending on which line is the maternal parent.
Shown are the percentages of explained variance by the different random effects (and their respective p-values) for the measured morphological traits
| Factors | Body size | Testis size | Ovary size | Sex allocation | Seminal vesicle size | Eye size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Line cross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cytotype | 0.6 (0.17) | 0.1 (0.66) |
| 0.0 (1) | 0.0 (0.68) | 0.0 (0.83) |
| Line replication | 4.4 (0.09) | 0.0 (0.65) | 0.0 (0.70) | 0.6 (0.52) | 1.4 (0.36) |
|
| Cross replication | 2.3 (0.50) | 0.2 (0.62) | 0.0 (0.66) | 0.0 (0.68) | 0.0 (1) | 4.9 (0.06) |
| Plate ID | 0.8 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 3.0 | 5.2 | 0.0 |
| Residual | 63.9 | 63.2 | 70.4 | 72.3 | 64.6 | 26.1 |
The percentages of explained variance were calculated from the variance estimates in the full model and bold values indicate significant effects
Fig. 3Power analysis for different simulated cytotype effect sizes (x-axis) assuming the same variance components as those empirically found for ovary size (see main text for rationale). Each black dot represents the proportion of 1000 simulations that resulted in a significant cytotype effect (with a significance threshold of 0.05). To achieve a power of 0.8 one needs a cytotype effect size of about 9% or more (dotted line).
Fig. 2Effect of the specific line cross (e.g. DV14 x DV26) and their two respective cytotypes (box plots are gray for the first and white for the second line in each cross) on all the other measured traits. Black dots represent the individual measurements, the bottom and the top of the box represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively, and whiskers extend to 1.5 times the interquatile range. Note that all traits are plotted on their original measurement scales for visualization (see also the “Statistics” section in the Methods).