| Literature DB >> 32680855 |
R Rebecca Love1,2, Marco Pombi3, Moussa W Guelbeogo4, Nathan R Campbell5, Melissa T Stephens2, Roch K Dabire6, Carlo Costantini6,7, Alessandra Della Torre3, Nora J Besansky8,2.
Abstract
Chromosomal inversion polymorphisms have special importance in the Anopheles gambiae complex of malaria vector mosquitoes, due to their role in local adaptation and range expansion. The study of inversions in natural populations is reliant on polytene chromosome analysis by expert cytogeneticists, a process that is limited by the rarity of trained specialists, low throughput, and restrictive sampling requirements. To overcome this barrier, we ascertained tag single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are highly correlated with inversion status (inverted or standard orientation). We compared the performance of the tag SNPs using two alternative high throughput molecular genotyping approaches vs. traditional cytogenetic karyotyping of the same 960 individual An. gambiae and An. coluzzii mosquitoes sampled from Burkina Faso, West Africa. We show that both molecular approaches yield comparable results, and that either one performs as well or better than cytogenetics in terms of genotyping accuracy. Given the ability of molecular genotyping approaches to be conducted at scale and at relatively low cost without restriction on mosquito sex or developmental stage, molecular genotyping via tag SNPs has the potential to revitalize research into the role of chromosomal inversions in the behavior and ongoing adaptation of An. gambiae and An. coluzzii to environmental heterogeneities.Entities:
Keywords: Anopheles gambiae; chromosomal inversion polymorphism; inversion genotyping; karyotyping; malaria vector; polytene chromosome analysis; tag SNP
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32680855 PMCID: PMC7467005 DOI: 10.1534/g3.120.401418
Source DB: PubMed Journal: G3 (Bethesda) ISSN: 2160-1836 Impact factor: 3.154
The number of tag SNPs by inversion and molecular method
| Inversion | GT-seq tag SNPs | OA tag SNPs |
|---|---|---|
| 2La | 22 | 8 |
| 2Rj | 17 | 6 |
| 2Rb | 22 | 10 |
| 2Rc_col | 23 | 11 |
| 2Rc_gam | 13 | 3 |
| 2Ru | 17 | 6 |
| 2Rd | 17 | 9 |
Figure 1Locations of tag SNPs assayed for each inversion for OA and GT-seq. The bottom panel labeled 2Rdu shows inversions 2Ru and 2Rd on the same panel, as 2Ru is wholly encompassed by 2Rd. Vertical lines indicate SNPs common to both methods.
Figure 2Concordance heat map of genotypes imputed by cytogenetics (CYT), OA, and GT-seq. Each row is an individual mosquito, and each column compares inversion genotypes derived from three genotyping approaches for a given inversion (a, 2La; j, 2Rj; b, 2Rb; c, 2Rc; d, 2Rd; u, 2Ru). Rows are grouped by species; 2Rj and 2Rd tags are not applicable in An. coluzzii. Green represents 3-way genotypic concordance; yellow, concordance between OA and GT-seq; purple, concordance between CYT and GT-seq; black, concordance between CYT and OA; gray is missing data; red is 3-way discordance.
Concordance of genotypes imputed by cytogenetics (CYT), OA, and GT-seq for each inversion
| 2La, N (%) | 2Rj, N (%) | 2Rb, N (%) | 2Rc-col, N (%) | 2Rc-gam, N (%) | 2Rd, N (%) | 2Ru, N (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concordance: | |||||||
| Three-way | 875 (92.30) | 434 (99.77) | 864 (91.14) | 483 (94.15) | 352 (80.92) | 420 (96.55) | 870 (91.77) |
| Discordance: | |||||||
| CYT | 73 (7.70) | 1 (0.23) | 41 (4.32) | 18 (3.51) | 39 (8.97) | 14 (3.22) | 56 (5.91) |
| (CYT + GT-seq) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 43 (4.54) | 11 (2.14) | 31 (7.13) | 1 (0.23) | 19 (1.05) |
| (CYT + OA) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.19) | 10 (2.30) | 0 (0) | 3 (0.32) |
| Three-way | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (0.69) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Specimens assayed by all 3 methods |
Figure 3Venn diagrams showing degree of overlap between tag SNPs developed for in silico inversion genotyping by Love and those developed in this study for OA and GT-seq.
Concordance between CYT and both molecular methods by inversion genotype (0, 1, 2) for specimens for which both molecular methods agree. Shown are the numbers of specimens scored for each pairwise comparison
| GT-seq + OA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CYT | ||||
| 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 2 | |||
| 1 | 70 | |||
| 1 | 7 | |||
| 1 | 9 | |||
| 7 | 16 | |||
| 7 | 0 | |||
| 7 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | |||
| 39 | 10 | |||
| 7 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | |||
| 7 | 0 | |||
| 10 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 0 | |||
| 34 | 0 | |||
| 4 | 0 | |||
CYT, cytogenetics; OA, Open Array.