Do highly divergent loci reside in genomic regions affecting reproductive isolation? A test using next-generation sequence data in Timema stick insects

BMC Evolutionary Biology

Zach Gompert³  Jeffrey L Feder²  Thomas L Parchman³  Patrik Nosil¹ 

[1] Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, 80303, USA;Department of Biology, Notre Dame University, South Bend, IN, 11111, USA;Department of Botany, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, 82071, USA

关键词: Reproductive isolation;    Next-generation sequencing;    Genomic islands of speciation;    Genomic cline;    Gene flow;    Ecological speciation;   

Others  :  1140364
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2148-12-164

 received in 2012-02-27, accepted in 2012-08-22,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Genetic divergence during speciation with gene flow is heterogeneous across the genome, with some regions exhibiting stronger differentiation than others. Exceptionally differentiated regions are often assumed to experience reduced introgression, i.e., reduced flow of alleles from one population into another because such regions are affected by divergent selection or cause reproductive isolation. In contrast, the remainder of the genome can be homogenized by high introgression. Although many studies have documented variation across the genome in genetic differentiation, there are few tests of this hypothesis that explicitly quantify introgression. Here, we provide such a test using 38,304 SNPs in populations of Timema cristinae stick insects. We quantify whether loci that are highly divergent between geographically separated (‘allopatric’) populations exhibit unusual patterns of introgression in admixed populations. To the extent this is true, highly divergent loci between allopatric populations contribute to reproductive isolation in admixed populations.

Results

As predicted, we find a substantial association between locus-specific divergence between allopatric populations and locus-specific introgression in admixed populations. However, many loci depart from this relationship, sometimes strongly so. We also report evidence for selection against foreign alleles due to local adaptation.

Conclusions

Loci that are strongly differentiated between allopatric populations sometimes contribute to reproductive isolation in admixed populations. However, geographic variation in selection and local adaptation, in aspects of genetic architecture (such as organization of genes, recombination rate variation, number and effect size of variants contributing to adaptation, etc.), and in stochastic evolutionary processes such as drift can cause strong differentiation of loci that do not always contribute to reproductive isolation. The results have implications for the theory of ‘genomic islands of speciation’.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Nosil et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Nosil P, Funk DJ, Ortíz-Barrientos D: Divergent selection and heterogeneous genomic divergence. Mol Ecol 2009, 18(3):375-402.
• [2]Butlin RK: Population genomics and speciation. Genetica 2010, 138(4):409-418.
• [3]Luikart G, England PR, Tallmon D, Jordan S, Taberlet P: The power and promise of population genomics: from genotyping to genome typing. Nat Rev Genet 2003, 4(12):981-994.
• [4]Stinchcombe JR, Hoekstra HE: Combining population genomics and quantitative genetics: finding the genes underlying ecologically important traits. Heredity 2008, 100(2):158-170.
• [5]Wu C: The genic view of the process of speciation. J Evol Biol 2001, 14:851-865.
• [6]Mallet J, Barton NH: Strong natural selection in a warning color hybrid zone. Evolution 1989, 43:421-431.
• [7]Wu CI, Ting CT: Genes and speciation. Nat Rev Genet 2004, 5(2):114-122.
• [8]Via S: Sympatric speciation in animals: the ugly duckling grows up. Trends Ecol Evol 2001, 16(7):381-390.
• [9]Avise JC: Phylogeography: the history and formation of species. Harvard University Press, Cambridge; 2000.
• [10]Nosil P, Vines TH, Funk DJ: Perspective: reproductive isolation caused by natural selection against immigrants from divergent habitats. Evolution 2005, 59(4):705-719.
• [11]Gavrilets S: Fitness landscapes and the origin of species. Princeton University Press, Princeton; 2004.
• [12]Orr HA: The population-genetics of speciation - the evolution of hybrid incompatibilities. Genetics 1995, 139(4):1805-1813.
• [13]Orr HA: The genetic basis of reproductive isolation: insights from Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005, 102:6522-6526.
• [14]Orr HA, Turelli M: The evolution of postzygotic isolation: accumulating dobzhansky-muller incompatibilities. Evolution 2001, 55(6):1085-1094.
• [15]Coyne JA, Orr HA: Speciation. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland; 2004.
• [16]Barton N, Bengtsson BO: The barrier to genetic exchange between hybridizing populations. Heredity 1986, 57:357-376.
• [17]Barton NH: Dynamics of hybrid zones. Heredity 1979, 43:341-359.
• [18]Buerkle CA, Lexer C: Admixture as the basis for genetic mapping. Trends Ecol Evol 2008, 23(12):686-694.
• [19]Gompert Z, Forister ML, Fordyce JA, Nice CC, Williamson RJ, Buerkle CA: Bayesian analysis of molecular variance in pyrosequences quantifies population genetic structure across the genome of Lycaeides butterflies. Mol Ecol 2010, 19(12):2455-2473.
• [20]Gompert Z, Parchman TL, Buerkle CA: Genomics of isolation in hybrids. Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci 2012, 367:439-450.
• [21]Scascitelli M, Whitney KD, Randell RA, King M, Buerkle CA, Rieseberg LH: Genome scan of hybridizing sunflowers from Texas (Helianthus annuus and H. debilis) reveals asymmetric patterns of introgression and small islands of genomic differentiation. Mol Ecol 2010, 3:521-541.
• [22]Teeter KC, Thibodeau LM, Gompert Z, Buerkle CA, Nachman MW, Tucker PK: The variable genomic architecture of isolation between hybridizing species of house mice. Evolution 2010, 64(2):472-485.
• [23]Turner TL, Bourne EC, Von Wettberg EJ, Hu TT, Nuzhdin SV: Population resequencing reveals local adaptation of arabidopsis lyrata to serpentine soils. Nat Genet 2010, 42(3):260-U242.
• [24]Turner TL, Hahn MW: Locus- and population-specific selection and differentiation between incipient species of anopheles gambiae. Mol Biol Evol 2007, 24(9):2132-2138.
• [25]Turner TL, Hahn MW, Nuzhdin SV: Genomic islands of speciation in anopheles gambiae. PLoS Biol 2005, 3(9):1572-1578.
• [26]Turner TL, Levine MT, Eckert ML, Begun DJ: Genomic analysis of adaptive differentiation in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 2008, 179(1):455-473.
• [27]Hohenlohe PA, Bassham S, Currey M, Cresko WA: Extensive linkage disequilibrium and parallel adaptive divergence across threespine stickleback genomes. Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci 2012, 367:395-408.
• [28]Hohenlohe PA, Bassham S, Etter PD, Stiffler N, Johnson EA, Cresko WA: Population genomics of parallel adaptation in threespine stickleback using sequenced RAD tags. Plos Genetics 2010., 6(2)
• [29]Noor MAF, Feder JL: Speciation genetics: evolving approaches. Nat Rev Genet 2006, 7(11):851-861.
• [30]Noor MAF, Bennett SM: Islands of speciation or mirages in the desert? Examining the role of restricted recombination in maintaining species (vol 103, pg 434, 2009). Heredity 2010, 104(4):418-418.
• [31]White BJ, Cheng CD, Simard F, Costantini C, Besansky NJ: Genetic association of physically unlinked islands of genomic divergence in incipient species of anopheles gambiae. Mol Ecol 2010, 19(5):925-939.
• [32]Noor MAF, Bennett SM: Islands of speciation or mirages in the desert? Examining the role of restricted recombination in maintaining species. Heredity 2009, 103(6):439-444.
• [33]Turner TL, Hahn MW: Genomic islands of speciation or genomic islands and speciation? Mol Ecol 2010, 19(5):848-850.
• [34]Noor MAF, Grams KL, Bertucci LA, Reiland J: Chromosomal inversions and the reproductive isolation of species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001, 98(21):12084-12088.
• [35]Rieseberg LH: Chromosomal rearrangements and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 2001, 16(7):351-358.
• [36]Feder JL, Nosil P: Chromosomal inversions and species differences: when are genes affecting adaptive divergence and reproductive isolation expected to reside within inversions? Evolution 2009, 63(12):3061-3075.
• [37]Guerrero RF, Rousset F, Kirkpatrick M: Coalescence patterns for chromosomal inversions in divergent populations. Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci 2011, 367:430-438.
• [38]Rogers SM, Bernatchez L: The genetic architecture of ecological speciation and the association with signatures of selection in natural lake whitefish (Coregonas sp Salmonidae) species pairs. Mol Biol Evol 2007, 24(6):1423-1438.
• [39]McGaugh SE, Noor MAF: Genomic impacts of chromosomal inversions in parapatric drosophila species. Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci 2012, 367:422-429.
• [40]Araya CL, Payen C, Dunham MJ, Fields S: Whole-genome sequencing of a laboratory-evolved yeast strain. BMC Genomics 2010., 11
• [41]Barrick JE, Yu DS, Yoon SH, Jeong H, Oh TK, Schneider D, Lenski RE, Kim JF: Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with escherichia coli. Nature 2009, 461(7268):1243-U1274.
• [42]Burke MK, Dunham JP, Shahrestani P, Thornton KR, Rose MR, Long AD: Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with drosophila. Nature 2010, 467:587-590.
• [43]Gompert Z, Lucas LK, Nice CC, Fordyce JA, Forister ML, Buerkle CA: Genomic regions with a history of divergent selection affect fitness of hybrids between two butterfly species. EvolutionIn press
• [44]Nosil P, Gompert Z, Farkas TE, Comeault AA, Feder JL, Buerkle CA, Parchman TL: Genomic consequences of multiple speciation processes in a stick insect. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 2012. in press
• [45]Crespi BJ, Sandoval CP: Phylogenetic evidence for the evolution of ecological specialization in timema walking-sticks. J Evol Biol 2000, 13(2):249-262.
• [46]Nosil P: Divergent host plant adaptation and reproductive isolation between ecotypes of timema cristinae walking sticks. Am Nat 2007, 169(2):151-162.
• [47]Bolnick DI, Nosil P: Natural selection in populations subject to a migration load. Evolution 2007, 61(9):2229-2243.
• [48]Nosil P: Adaptive population divergence in cryptic color-pattern following a reduction in gene flow. Evolution 2009, 63(7):1902-1912.
• [49]Nosil P, Crespi BJ: Does gene flow constrain adaptive divergence or vice versa? A test using ecomorphology and sexual isolation in timema cristinae walking-sticks. Evolution 2004, 58(1):102-112.
• [50]Sandoval CP: The effects of relative geographical scales of gene flow and selection on morph frequencies in the walking-stick timema cristinae. Evolution 1994, 48:1866-1879.
• [51]Weir BS: Inferences about linkage disequilibrium. Biometrics 1979, 35(1):235-254.
• [52]Gompert Z, Buerkle CA: Bayesian estimation of genomic clines. Mol Ecol 2011, 20(10):2111-2127.
• [53]Rieseberg LH, Whitton J, Gardner K: Hybrid zones and the genetic architecture of a barrier to gene flow between two sunflower species. Genetics 1999, 152(2):713-727.
• [54]Gompert Z, Buerkle CA: A powerful regression-based method for admixture mapping of isolation across the genome of hybrids. Mol Ecol 2009, 18(6):1207-1224.
• [55]Nielsen R: Molecular signatures of natural selection. Annu Rev Genet 2005, 39:197-218.
• [56]Strasburg JL, Sherman NA, Wright KM, Moyle LC, Willis JH, Rieseberg LH: What can patterns of differentiation across plant genomes tell us about adaptation and speciation? Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci 2012, 367:364-373.
• [57]Via S: Natural selection in action during speciation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009, 106:9939-9946.
• [58]Via S, West J: The genetic mosaic suggests a new role for hitchhiking in ecological speciation. Mol Ecol 2008, 17(19):4334-4345.
• [59]Nosil P, Crespi BJ, Sandoval CP: Host-plant adaptation drives the parallel evolution of reproductive isolation. Nature 2002, 417(6887):440-443.
• [60]Nosil P, Egan SP, Funk DJ: Heterogeneous genomic differentiation between walking-stick ecotypes: "Isolation by adaptation" and multiple roles for divergent selection. Evolution 2008, 62(2):316-336.