Literature DB >> 34297880

Natural selection and the distribution of chromosomal inversion lengths.

Tim Connallon1, Colin Olito2.   

Abstract

Chromosomal inversions contribute substantially to genome evolution, yet the processes governing their evolutionary dynamics remain poorly understood. Theory suggests that a readily measurable property of inversions-their length-can potentially affect their evolutionary fates. Emerging data on the lengths of polymorphic and fixed inversions may therefore provide clues to the evolutionary processes promoting inversion establishment. However, formal predictions for the distribution of inversion lengths remain incomplete, making empirical patterns difficult to interpret. We model the relation between inversion length and establishment probability for four inversion types: (1) neutral, (2) underdominant, (3) directly beneficial, and (4) indirectly beneficial, with selection favouring the latter because they capture locally adapted alleles at migration-selection balance and suppress recombination between them. We also consider how deleterious mutations affect the lengths of established inversions. We show that length distributions of common polymorphic and fixed inversions systematically differ among inversion types. Small rearrangements contribute the most to genome evolution under neutral and underdominant scenarios of selection, with the lengths of neutral inversion substitutions increasing, and those of underdominant substitutions decreasing, with effective population size. Among directly beneficial inversions, small rearrangements are preferentially fixed, whereas intermediate-to-large inversions are maintained as balanced polymorphisms via associative overdominance. Finally, inversions established under the local adaptation scenario are predominantly intermediate-to-large. Such inversions remain polymorphic or approach fixation within the local populations where they are favoured. Our models clarify how inversion length distributions relate to processes of inversion establishment, providing a platform for testing how natural selection shapes the evolution of genome structure.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adaptation; chromosomal rearrangements; inversions; structural variation

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34297880     DOI: 10.1111/mec.16091

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol        ISSN: 0962-1083            Impact factor:   6.622


  6 in total

1.  Sheltering of deleterious mutations explains the stepwise extension of recombination suppression on sex chromosomes and other supergenes.

Authors:  Paul Jay; Emilie Tezenas; Amandine Véber; Tatiana Giraud
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 9.593

2.  Inversion invasions: when the genetic basis of local adaptation is concentrated within inversions in the face of gene flow.

Authors:  Sara M Schaal; Benjamin C Haller; Katie E Lotterhos
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 6.671

3.  Mutation Load in Sunflower Inversions Is Negatively Correlated with Inversion Heterozygosity.

Authors:  Kaichi Huang; Kate L Ostevik; Cassandra Elphinstone; Marco Todesco; Natalia Bercovich; Gregory L Owens; Loren H Rieseberg
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2022-05-03       Impact factor: 8.800

4.  A chromosomal inversion may facilitate adaptation despite periodic gene flow in a freshwater fish.

Authors:  Matt J Thorstensen; Peter T Euclide; Jennifer D Jeffrey; Yue Shi; Jason R Treberg; Douglas A Watkinson; Eva C Enders; Wesley A Larson; Yasuhiro Kobayashi; Ken M Jeffries
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-05-07       Impact factor: 3.167

5.  Three problems in the genetics of speciation by selection.

Authors:  Dolph Schluter; Loren H Rieseberg
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-07-18       Impact factor: 12.779

6.  Consequences of partially recessive deleterious genetic variation for the evolution of inversions suppressing recombination between sex chromosomes.

Authors:  Colin Olito; Suvi Ponnikas; Bengt Hansson; Jessica K Abbott
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2022-05-01       Impact factor: 4.171

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.