| Literature DB >> 29279400 |
Tao Ma1, Kun Wang1, Quanjun Hu1, Zhenxiang Xi1, Dongshi Wan2, Qian Wang1, Jianju Feng2, Dechun Jiang2, Hamid Ahani3, Richard J Abbott4, Martin Lascoux5, Eviatar Nevo6, Jianquan Liu7.
Abstract
How genome divergence eventually leads to speciation is a topic of prime evolutionary interest. Genomic islands of elevated divergence are frequently reported between diverging lineages, and their size is expected to increase with time and gene flow under the speciation-with-gene-flow model. However, such islands can also result from divergent sorting of ancient polymorphisms, recent ecological selection regardless of gene flow, and/or recurrent background selection and selective sweeps in low-recombination regions. It is challenging to disentangle these nonexclusive alternatives, but here we attempt to do this in an analysis of what drove genomic divergence between four lineages comprising a species complex of desert poplar trees. Within this complex we found that two morphologically delimited species, Populus euphratica and Populus pruinosa, were paraphyletic while the four lineages exhibited contrasting levels of gene flow and divergence times, providing a good system for testing hypotheses on the origin of divergence islands. We show that the size and number of genomic islands that distinguish lineages are not associated with either rate of recent gene flow or time of divergence. Instead, they are most likely derived from divergent sorting of ancient polymorphisms and divergence hitchhiking. We found that highly diverged genes under lineage-specific selection and putatively involved in ecological and morphological divergence occur both within and outside these islands. Our results highlight the need to incorporate demography, absolute divergence measurement, and gene flow rate to explain the formation of genomic islands and to identify potential genomic regions involved in speciation.Entities:
Keywords: gene flow; genome divergence; natural selection; paraphyletic; speciation
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29279400 PMCID: PMC5777044 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1713288114
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205
Fig. 1.Phylogenetic and population genetic analyses of P. euphratica and P. pruinosa. (A) The biogeographic regions of whole-genome–sequenced individuals for P. euphratica (three lineages identified here: PeC, PeE, and PeW) and P. pruinosa (a single lineage identified here: Pp). The colored areas indicate biogeographic distribution of P. euphratica (gray) and P. pruinosa (pink), and the frequencies of each lineage in potential hybrid and/or backcross populations are shown using larger pie charts. (B) Phylogenetic network inferred using the Neighbor-Net method based on genome-wide SNPs. The ancestral state was identified by genotyping the segregating sites with 10 additional poplar species (see for detailed information). (C and D) PCA plots of SNP data for P. euphratica (+) and P. pruinosa (x). (E) Population structure bar plots. Each vertical bar represents a single individual, and the height of each color represents the probability of assignment to that cluster. The number of individuals in each lineage is also shown.
Fig. 2.Inferred demographic history for P. euphratica (PeC, PeE, and PeW) and P. pruinosa (Pp). (A) Changes in effective population size (N) through time inferred by the Pairwise Sequentially Markovian Coalescent model. (B) Schematic of demographic scenario modeled using fastsimcoal2. Split times (kya), population size, and migration rates correspond to 95% CIs obtained from this model are shown in . Estimates of gene flow between populations are given in the migration fraction per generation. (C) The maximum likelihood tree inferred using TreeMix with two allowed migration events. P. ilicifolia was assigned as an outgroup. The scale bar shows 10 times the average SE of the entries in the sample covariance matrix, and migration edges are depicted as arrows colored by migration weight. (D) Estimated haplotype sharing between individuals. Heat-map colors represent the total length of IBD blocks for each pairwise comparison. IBD, identical-by-descent.
Fig. 3.The heterogeneity of genomic divergence in P. euphratica (PeC, PeE, and PeW) and P. pruinosa (Pp). (A) Pairwise genetic divergence (FST) in 10-kb sliding windows along an example chromosome (chromosome 1) for all comparisons (see , for all chromosomes). Genomic islands of divergence are shown in red. (B) Correlation of 10-kb window-based estimates of genetic divergence (FST), absolute divergence (Dxy), nucleotide diversity (π), and population-scaled recombination rate (ρ) for all six pairwise comparisons. Red circles indicate a positive correlation, while blue ones indicate a negative correlation. The color intensity and circle size are proportional to Spearman’s correlation coefficient.