| Literature DB >> 33739390 |
Juanita Gutiérrez-Valencia1, P William Hughes1, Emma L Berdan1, Tanja Slotte1.
Abstract
Supergenes are genomic regions containing sets of tightly linked loci that control multi-trait phenotypic polymorphisms under balancing selection. Recent advances in genomics have uncovered significant variation in both the genomic architecture as well as the mode of origin of supergenes across diverse organismal systems. Although the role of genomic architecture for the origin of supergenes has been much discussed, differences in the genomic architecture also subsequently affect the evolutionary trajectory of supergenes and the rate of degeneration of supergene haplotypes. In this review, we synthesize recent genomic work and historical models of supergene evolution, highlighting how the genomic architecture of supergenes affects their evolutionary fate. We discuss how recent findings on classic supergenes involved in governing ant colony social form, mimicry in butterflies, and heterostyly in flowering plants relate to theoretical expectations. Furthermore, we use forward simulations to demonstrate that differences in genomic architecture affect the degeneration of supergenes. Finally, we discuss implications of the evolution of supergene haplotypes for the long-term fate of balanced polymorphisms governed by supergenes.Entities:
Keywords: balancing selection; degeneration; hemizygosity; inversion; recombination suppression; structural variation
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33739390 PMCID: PMC8160319 DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evab057
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genome Biol Evol ISSN: 1759-6653 Impact factor: 3.416
Supergenes Identified Using Genomic Methods, Including Information on the Trait under Selection, the Type of Selection Maintaining Polymorphism, the Inferred Age, Size, Gene Content, Identification Strategy, and Evolutionary Genetic Evidence for Degeneration
| Trait (Locus) | Lineage | Origin | Structural Variation | Selection | Age (Myr) | Size (kb) | No. Genes in Region | Candidate Genes | ID Strategy | Signs of Degeneration | Refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Batesian mimicry wing color patterning ( |
1. 2. | Multiple | 1. Inversion | Positive frequency-dependent selection | Unknown |
1. 130 2. 168 | 3 |
|
1. Genetic association mapping, morph-specific expression 2. Coverage, genetic differentiation | Accumulation of TEs and repetitive sequences |
|
|
Batesian mimicry wing color patterning ( |
| Single | Inversion introduced by introgression | Antagonistic frequency-dependent selection | Inversion: 2.41, introgression: 2.30–2.24 |
P1 = 400 P2 = 200 P3 = 1,150 |
P1 = 21 P2 = 15 P3 = 71 |
| Genetic linkage mapping, linkage disequilibrium (LD) analyses in natural populations and positional cloning | Accumulation of deleterious mutations and TEs, degenerative expansion |
|
| Colony social organization (Social S-locus) |
| Single | Inversion | Maternal effect killer in | 40–20 | 11,000 | Varies |
| Genetic association mapping, genetic differentiation between haplotypes, morphotype–genotype association | No major evidence for degeneration, low differentiation between haplotypes except at clusters of |
|
| Colony social organization (Social S-locus) |
| Single | Two large inversions |
| 0.5 | 13,000 | 616 |
| Genetic association mapping, differential expression analyses | High frequency of deleterious mutations, repetitive elements, degenerative expansion |
|
| Cryptic coloration morphs ( |
| Single | Inversion | Balancing selection, spatial heterogeneity | Between m and U :13.5–8.0; between U and S: 2.7–1.8 | 13,000 | 83 | A 1,000-kb deletion in this region controls coloration across several species | Genome-wide association study (GWAS), differences in read depth coverage | Not studied |
|
| Heterostyly ( |
| Single | Insertion | Disassortative mating, long-term balancing selection | 50 | 278 | 5 |
| Differentially expressed genes in specific floral organs of the two floral morphs, identification of | TEs accumulation: 64% in region versus 37% genome wide |
|
| Heterostyly ( |
| Single | Three hemizygous genes + two inversions | Disassortative mating, long-term balancing selection | Unknown | 241 | 21 + 3 |
| Deletion mapping to sequence BAC clones and genome scaffolds to construct haplotypes, organ-specific gene expression | Higher TE content in dominant |
|
| Male mating morphs |
| Single | Inversion | Balancing selection | 3.8 | 4,400 | 25 |
| Genetic linkage mapping, GWAS, genetic sequence divergence analyses | Not studied |
|
| Male-restricted dimorphism ( |
| Single | Insertion | Balancing selection | 10 | 120 | 12 |
| QTL analysis, coverage differences and genetic sequence differentiation between morphs | Not studied |
|
| Mating morphs (ZAL2/ZAL2m) |
| Single | Two inversions | Disassortative mating | 2.5–1.9 | 100,000 | 1,137 |
| Comparative chromosome painting, cytogenetic mapping, genetic sequence diversity and divergence analyses, LD analyses in natural populations | Reduced genetic diversity, excess of nonsynonymous mutations, no substantial degeneration but gene expression changes |
|
| Mating type (MAT loci) |
| Multiple | Chromosomal rearrangements, fusion of the MAT chromosomes | Balancing selection | Five independent times in the last 2.3–0.2 | 1,000–10,000 | 120–547 | Homeodomain transcription factor genes |
Cosegregation of MAT type, chromosome dimorphism and markers; finding of contigs carrying comparative genomics (homology and synteny) | Gene losses, TEs accumulation |
|
| Rainbow trout migration |
| Single | Two inversions | Sexually antagonistic balancing selection | 1.5 | 5,500 | 1,091 |
| Genetic linkage mapping, genetic sequence diversity, and divergence analyses | Not studied |
|
| Sperm morphology |
| Single | Z-linked inversion | Heterozygote advantage | Unknown | ∼63,000 | 648 |
| GWAS, trait artificial selection, population genetic differentiation, expression quantitative trait locus analysis | Not studied |
|
Signatures of divergence and degeneration as a result of suppressed recombination have been used to pinpoint the location of supergenes. Different strategies can be applied depending on the extent of differentiation between the recombining and non-recombining allele. (A) Haplotypes remain homomorphic but mutations accumulate in the non-recombining one, such that genetic differentiation (e.g., FST) between morphs, or divergence (d) between haplotypes can aid supergene identification (Tuttle et al. 2016). (B) The non-recombining haplotype has expanded through the accumulation of repetitive elements, such that frequent and large insertions can indicate the occurrence of long-term suppressed recombination (Stolle et al. 2019). (C) If there is hemizygosity at the supergene, analyses based on the detection of regions showing consistently reduced read depth relative to the rest of the genome in relevant morphs can aid in identification of the supergene (Li et al. 2016).
Fig. 1.Balanced polymorphisms governed by supergenes. (A) Colony social form (monogynous vs. polygynous) in Solenopsis invicta. Monogynous colonies have a single queen (top image, courtesy of Alex Wild), whereas polygynous colonies have multiple queens (bottom image, courtesy of SD Porter, USDA-ARS). (B) Polymorphic female-limited Batesian mimicry in Papilio polytes. The non-mimetic female form cyrus and male P. polytes (top), the mimetic female form polytes and its model Pachliopta aristolochiae (male form), and the mimetic female form romulus and its model Pachliopta hector (male form) (image courtesy of Krushnamegh Kunte). (C) Heterostyly in Primula veris. The pin morph (left) has the stigma in a high position (blue arrow) and anthers in a low position (white arrow) in the floral tube, whereas the thrum morph (right) has anthers in a high position (white arrow) and the stigma in a low position (blue arrow) (image courtesy of Tanja Slotte).
Dynamics of deleterious mutation accumulation in supergenes. (A) Deleterious mutation accumulation over time is accelerated in the hemizygous S-haplotype (blue) compared with the collinear region (black). Shape indicates the size of the indel (circle −0.625%, triangle 1.25%, square 2.5%). (B) Deleterious mutation accumulation over time is accelerated in the inverted S-haplotype (blue) compared with the collinear region (black) and the standard arrangement s-haplotype (pink). Histogram showing selection coefficients of fixed mutations at the end of the simulation (600 k generations) in the (C) collinear region of the indel simulations, (D) hemizygous S-haplotype, (E) inversion S-haplotype, and (F) inversion standard arrangement s-haplotype. Error bars indicate ±standard error.
Fig. 2.Differences in size and structure of four classic supergenes. (A) The social supergene of Solenopsis invicta. The Sb haplotype harbors at least three large inversions relative to the SB haplotype and is longer than the SB haplotype due to repeat expansion (length of SB and Sb haplotypes not drawn to scale here). (B) The female-limited mimicry supergene of Papilio polytes. The mimetic haplotype (H) harbors an approximately 130-kb inversion that flanks the gene dsx relative to the non-mimetic haplotype (h). (C) The Heliconius numata P supergene. The haplotype with the ancestral arrangement (Hn0) differs from the derived and more dominant haplotypes (Hn1 and Hn123) with respect to a 400-kb inversion (P1) introduced by introgression from Heliconius pardalinus. Haplotype Hn123 harbors two additional derived inversions (P2 and P3) relative to both Hn0 and Hn1. (D) The Primula vulgaris S-locus contains a 278-kb region present only on the dominant S-haplotype and not on the recessive s-haplotype.