| Literature DB >> 28546383 |
Neda Barghi1, Raymond Tobler1,2, Viola Nolte1, Christian Schlötterer3.
Abstract
The combination of experimental evolution with high-throughput sequencing of pooled individuals-i.e., evolve and resequence (E&R)-is a powerful approach to study adaptation from standing genetic variation under controlled, replicated conditions. Nevertheless, E&R studies in Drosophila melanogaster have frequently resulted in inordinate numbers of candidate SNPs, particularly for complex traits. Here, we contrast the genomic signature of adaptation following ∼60 generations in a novel hot environment for D. melanogaster and D. simulans For D. simulans, the regions carrying putatively selected loci were far more distinct, and thus harbored fewer false positives, than those in D. melanogaster We propose that species without segregating inversions and higher recombination rates, such as D. simulans, are better suited for E&R studies that aim to characterize the genetic variants underlying the adaptive response.Entities:
Keywords: Drosophila melanogaster; Drosophila simulans; chromosomal inversions; evolve and resequence; experimental evolution
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28546383 PMCID: PMC5499140 DOI: 10.1534/g3.117.043349
Source DB: PubMed Journal: G3 (Bethesda) ISSN: 2160-1836 Impact factor: 3.154
Figure 1Allele frequency distribution of candidate SNPs averaged across replicates in (A) D. simulans and (B) D. melanogaster. Founder population (top panels), generation 60/59 (middle panels), and frequency change (bottom panels) of candidate SNPs. Candidate SNPs were determined from an empirical 2% false positive rate determined by neutral simulations assuming no linkage.
Figure 2The genomic distribution of candidate SNPs in D. simulans (top panel) and D. melanogaster (bottom panel): The Manhattan plots show the negative log10-transformed p-values of SNPs corresponding to the genomic positions. The p-values were determined using CMH test by comparing the founder and evolved populations using the same sequencing coverage for both species. The dotted lines show the CMH cutoff based on empirical 2% false positive rate determined by neutral simulations assuming no linkage. Because the relative N estimates of X chromosomes and autosomes were nonconcordant between both species, we did not determine outlier SNPs for the X chromosome.
Figure 3Identification of selected regions on two chromosome arms: Manhattan plots of chromosome arms 2R (left panels) and 3R (right panels) are shown for D. simulans (top panels) and D. melanogaster (bottom panels). The CMH p-values of candidate SNPs (black dots) were averaged across 200-kb windows, over sliding intervals every 100 kb. Adjacent windows with average p-values above CMH cutoffs (see Materials and Methods) were merged (red lines). Boundaries of the inversion in 2R [In(2R)Ns] are shown in dashed lines. Three overlapping inversions in 3R, i.e., In(3R)Payne, In(3R)Mo, and In(3R)C are indicated with dashed, dotted, and solid lines, respectively.