| Literature DB >> 30774638 |
Concetta Burgarella1,2,3,4, Adeline Barnaud1,2, Ndjido Ardo Kane5,6, Frédérique Jankowski7,8,9, Nora Scarcelli1,2, Claire Billot3,4, Yves Vigouroux1,2, Cécile Berthouly-Salazar1,2,6.
Abstract
Global environmental changes strongly impact wild and domesticated species biology and their associated ecosystem services. For crops, global warming has led to significant changes in terms of phenology and/or yield. To respond to the agricultural challenges of this century, there is a strong need for harnessing the genetic variability of crops and adapting them to new conditions. Gene flow, from either the same species or a different species, may be an immediate primary source to widen genetic diversity and adaptions to various environments. When the incorporation of a foreign variant leads to an increase of the fitness of the recipient pool, it is referred to as "adaptive introgression". Crop species are excellent case studies of this phenomenon since their genetic variability has been considerably reduced over space and time but most of them continue exchanging genetic material with their wild relatives. In this paper, we review studies of adaptive introgression, presenting methodological approaches and challenges to detecting it. We pay particular attention to the potential of this evolutionary mechanism for the adaptation of crops. Furthermore, we discuss the importance of farmers' knowledge and practices in shaping wild-to-crop gene flow. Finally, we argue that screening the wild introgression already existing in the cultivated gene pool may be an effective strategy for uncovering wild diversity relevant for crop adaptation to current environmental changes and for informing new breeding directions.Entities:
Keywords: adaptive introgression; crops; domestication; farmer’s practices; gene flow; selection; wild relatives
Year: 2019 PMID: 30774638 PMCID: PMC6367218 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Summary of studies reviewed.
| Group | Donor | Recipient | Data | Method for detection of introgression | Method for detection of Selection | Adaptive trait | Publication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal | Genomic data | Diagnostic alleles | Haplotype based test; test for temporal evolution of allele frequencies | Pesticide resistance | |||
| Animal | Genomic data | Diagnostic alleles | Differentiation approach; diversity statistics | Pesticide resistance | |||
| Animal | Genomic data (mtDNA) | Genes genealogy; isolation with migration model | Coalescent simulations | ||||
| Animal | Genomic and phenotypic data | Genes genealogy; Hudson–Kreitman–Aguade test | Differentiation approach; fitness measures | Pesticide resistance | |||
| Animal | Genomic data | Genes genealogy | XP-CLR | Pesticide resistance | |||
| Animal | Genomic data | Local ancestry inference | XP-CLR; differentiation approach; coalescent simulations | Genetic disease, alpha-amylase genes | |||
| Animal | Genomic data | Diagnostic alleles | Heterogeneity test of Long (1991) | Fecundity | |||
| Animal | Genomic data | Diagnostic alleles | Heterogeneity test of Long (1991) | ||||
| Animal | Genomic data | Genes genealogy | Differentiation approach | Highland adaptation | |||
| Animal | Genomic data | Genes genealogy; differentiation statistics | Differentiation approach | Aggressive behavior | |||
| Animal | Genomic data | Genes genealogy | Haplotype based test | Concealment during predation | |||
| Animal | Genomic data | D statistic | Haplotype based test; differentiation outlier approach | Highland adaptation | |||
| Animal | Genomic data | Local ancestry inference; populations genealogy | Differentiation outlier approach | ||||
| Animal | Genomic data | Local ancestry inference | Differentiation outlier approach; allele frequencies outlier test | ||||
| Animal | Genomic data | Genes genealogy; isolation with migration model, linkage disequilibrium analysis | Not addressed, but trait previously tested as under natural selection | Wing pattern | |||
| Animal | Genomic data | Gene genealogy; D-statistic and | Not addressed, but trait previously tested as under natural selection | Wing pattern | |||
| Animal | Genomic data | Gene genealogy; D-statistic and | Not addressed, but trait previously tested as under natural selection | Wing pattern | |||
| Animal | Genomic and phenotypic data | Phylogenetic analysis; differentiation statistics; | Composite likelihood ratio (CLR) test; estimation of selection coefficient | Winter-brown-color coat | |||
| Human | Genomic data | D statistic, S∗ statistic | Differentiation outlier approach | Highland adaptation | |||
| Human | Genomic and expression data | Diagnostic alleles | McDonald–Kreitman test; haplotype based test; differentiation outlier approach | Immune response | |||
| Human | Genomic and expression data | Differentiation comparisons; haplotype length vs. ILS (incomplete lineage sorting) | Differentiation outlier approach; gene expression; genotype–phenotype association | Immune response | |||
| Human | Genomic data | Coalescent simulations | Immune response and metabolism | ||||
| Human | Genomic data | Diagnostic alleles | Coalescent simulations | Immune response, defense, regulatory regions, pigmentation | |||
| Human | Genomic data | Differentiation outlier approach | Cold tolerance | ||||
| Human | Genomic data | Genes genealogy | Allele frequencies outlier test | Immune response | |||
| Human | Genomic data | Diagnostic alleles | Coalescent simulations; haplotype based test | Immune response | |||
| Human | Genomic data | Diagnostic alleles | Differentiation outlier approach; haplotype based test; XP-CLR; coalescent simulations | Immune response | |||
| Human | Genomic data | Population genealogy; D statistic and | Allele frequencies outlier test | Highland adaptation | |||
| Plant | Genomic data | Differentiation outlier approach | Serpentine syndrome | ||||
| Plant | Phenotypic data | Experimental hybrid populations | Common garden experiments – Fitness measures | Herbivory, drought | |||
| Plant | Genomic and phenotypic data | Experimental hybrid populations | Genotype–phenotype association – Fitness measures | Number of seeds and pollen export | |||
| Plant | Genomic and phenotypic data | Experimental hybrid populations | Genotype–phenotype association – Fitness measures | Flood tolerance | |||
| Plant | Genomic, expression and phenotypic data | Local ancestry inference | Diversity statistics; genotype–phenotype association | Light response | |||
| Plant | Genomic, expression and phenotypic data | Local ancestry inference | Diversity statistics | Disease resistance | |||
| Plant | Genomic data | Local ancestry inference | Genotype–environment association | Highland adaptation | |||
| Plant | Genomic data | Diagnostic alleles | Haplotype based test | Fragrance | |||
| Plant | Genomic data | Diagnostic alleles | Not addressed but high related fitness trait | Flower asymmetry | |||
| Plant | Genomic data | Differentiation comparisons; isolation with migration model | Not addressed but high related fitness trait | Pistil self-incompatibility | |||
| Plant | Genomic data | Genes genealogy | Not addressed, but trait previously tested as under natural selection | Long-day-maturity phenotype |
FIGURE 1Approaches to detect introgression (A,B) and adaptive introgression (C). On top representation of several genomes of the introgressed population, with introgression regions represented in black. Regions of donor origin in the recipient genome can be revealed by performing ancestry analyses (A) and comparisons of donor–recipient differentiation levels (B). Individuals bearing introgression show an ancestry origin in the donor population (A, in black). In the case of adaptive introgression, a large proportion of individuals of the recipient population show ancestry from donor population (A, right), while only few of them show a donor ancestry in the genome region carrying a neutral introgression (A, left). In the adaptive introgression, donor–recipient differentiation is lower (B, arrow) than the mean genome value. Positive selection increases the frequency of the donor allele and the neutral variants physically linked to it. The result is a higher number and frequency of alleles shared by donor and recipient populations (C, arrow) in this part of the genome. To calculate U and Q95 statistics, another condition should be met, that pattern described in (C) are absent in other non-introgressed populations.
FIGURE 2Effect of introgression and incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) in molecular phylogenetics. Top: The species (or population) tree is represented by the gray area. The dotted line represents a single gene genealogy. The star represents a mutation changing the ancestral allele G (black dotted line) into the derived allele T (red dotted line). Bottom: Gene genealogy inferred from molecular data. (A) Congruent gene genealogy with species/population tree; (B) ILS: ancestral polymorphism is maintained before the divergence between A and B, so that B shares the allele T with C and not with A; (C) Introgression: B receives the allele T from C by gene flow. In the case of ILS and introgression, the gene genealogy (bottom) is not consistent with the species/population tree but similar between the two. The two processes cannot be distinguished from each other when only using gene genealogy approaches.
FIGURE 3Measure of the fitness of adaptive introgression. Direct evidence of the adaptive value of the introgressed fragment (black segment) consists in showing that it confers greater fitness to the recipient genome. This can be achieved by experimental crosses: neutral introgression (A) vs. adaptive introgression (B). Several generations of crosses are needed to generate multiples genotypes with an homogeneous genetic background that allows to quantify the fitness effect of the introgressed fragment.