| Literature DB >> 30670611 |
Ty Russell1, Catherine Cullingham2, Arun Kommadath3, Paul Stothard3, Allen Herbst3, David Coltman2.
Abstract
Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are endemic to a wide variety of habitats in western North America, many of which are shared in sympatry with their closely related sister-species white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), whom they hybridize with in wild populations. Although mule deer meet many ideal conditions for a molecular ecological research species, such as high abundance, ecological importance, and broad dispersal and gene flow, conservation genetic studies have been limited by a relative lack of existing genomic resources and inherent difficulties caused by introgression with white-tailed deer. Many molecular tools currently available for the study of cervids were designed using reference assemblies of divergent model species, specifically cattle (Bos taurus). Bovidae and Cervidae diverged approximately 28 million years ago, therefore, we sought to ameliorate the available resources by contributing the first mule deer whole genome sequence draft assembly with an average genome-wide read depth of 25X, using the white-tailed genome assembly (Ovir.te_1.0) as a reference. Comparing the two assemblies, we identified ∼33 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and insertion/deletion variants. We then verified fixed SNP differences between the two species and developed a 40-loci SNP assay capable of identifying pure mule deer, white-tailed deer, and interspecific hybrids. Assignment capacity of the panel, which was tested on simulated datasets, is reliable up to and including the third backcross hybrid generation. Identification of post-F1 hybrids will be necessary for hybrid zone population studies going forward, and the new mule deer assembly will be a valuable resource for genetic and comparative genomics studies.Entities:
Keywords: SNP; genome; hybridization; introgression; mule deer; white-tailed deer
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30670611 PMCID: PMC6404596 DOI: 10.1534/g3.118.200838
Source DB: PubMed Journal: G3 (Bethesda) ISSN: 2160-1836 Impact factor: 3.154
Assignment criteria and category definition of white-tailed (WT) and mule deer (MD) hybrids. Heterozygous and homozygous genotype frequencies are required as input prarmeters in NewHybrids to specify the number and configuration of hybrid classes
| Genotype frequency | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NewHybrid category | WT (AA) | H (AB) | MD (BB) | NewHybrid category expanded | |
| WT | Parental WT | 1 | 0 | 0 | WT |
| MD | Parental MD | 0 | 0 | 1 | MD |
| F1 | First-generation hybrid | 0 | 1 | 0 | (WT x MD) |
| F2 | Second-generation hybrid | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.25 | ((WT x MD) x (WT x MD)) |
| BxWT | First-generation backcross | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | (WT x (WT x MD)) |
| BxMD | First-generation backcross | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | (MD x MD x WT)) |
| Bx2WT | Second-generation backcross | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0 | (WT x (WT x (WT x MD))) |
| Bx2MD | Second-generation backcross | 0 | 0.25 | 0.75 | (MD x (MD x (MD x WT))) |
| Bx3WT | Third-generation backcross | 0.875 | 0.125 | 0 | (WT x (WT x (WT x (WT x MD)))) |
| Bx3MD | Third-generation backcross | 0 | 0.125 | 0.875 | (MD x (MD x (MD x (MD x WT)))) |
Figure 1MD/WT species discriminating SNP loci mapped to Red Deer genome assembly. Red bars indicate the positions on the Red deer chromosomes that the 40 loci SNP assay mapped to. The mapping positions were determined by alignments of the SNP loci along with the 100 bp flanking sequences onto the Red deer genome assembly (CerEla1.0) using BLAT. The loci covered 24 of the 35 chromosomes, with some chromosomes harboring multiple loci (chromosomes not covered are shaded gray). One of the loci mapped to an unplaced contig (not depicted here).
Figure 2Hybrid assignment efficacy as determined by the hybridPowerComp function in the R package hybriddetective. Facets labeled as Pure indicate parental WT and MD, Generational Hybrids refers to F1 and F2 individuals (lines overlaid), and Back-cross includes first, second, and third generation backcrosses of both species. Accuracy was calculated as [correct assignments] / [total assignments of a particular category]. Efficiency was calculated as [correct assignments] / [total individuals of a particular category].