4.5 Article

Hybrid incompatibilities in the parasitic wasp genus Nasonia: negative effects of hemizygosity and the identification of transmission ratio distortion loci

期刊

HEREDITY
卷 108, 期 3, 页码 302-311

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2011.75

关键词

hybrid incompatibilities; Haldane's rule; haplodiploidy; speciation; cytonuclear interaction; transmission ratio distorting loci

资金

  1. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research [ALW 816.01.004, ALW 833.02.003]
  2. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The occurrence of hybrid incompatibilities forms an important stage during the evolution of reproductive isolation. In early stages of speciation, males and females often respond differently to hybridization. Haldane's rule states that the heterogametic sex suffers more from hybridization than the homogametic sex. Although haplodiploid reproduction (haploid males, diploid females) does not involve sex chromosomes, sex-specific incompatibilities are predicted to be prevalent in haplodiploid species. Here, we evaluate the effect of sex/ploidy level on hybrid incompatibilities and locate genomic regions that cause increased mortality rates in hybrid males of the haplodiploid wasps Nasonia vitripennis and Nasonia longicornis. Our data show that diploid F-1 hybrid females suffer less from hybridization than haploid F-2 hybrid males. The latter not only suffer from an increased mortality rate, but also from behavioural and spermatogenic sterility. Genetic mapping in recombinant F2 male hybrids revealed that the observed hybrid mortality is most likely due to a disruption of cytonuclear interactions. As these sex-specific hybrid incompatibilities follow predictions based on Haldane's rule, our data accentuate the need to broaden the view of Haldane's rule to include species with haplodiploid sex determination, consistent with Haldane's original definition. Heredity (2012) 108, 302-311; doi:10.1038/hdy.2011.75; published online 31 August 2011

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据