4.7 Article

Allelic diversity for neutral markers retains a higher adaptive potential for quantitative traits than expected heterozygosity

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 24, 期 17, 页码 4419-4432

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mec.13334

关键词

gene diversity; heterozygosity; number of alleles; response to selection; synthetic populations

资金

  1. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [CGL2012-39861-C02-01]
  2. Instituto Nacional de Investigacion y Tecnologia Agraria y Alimentaria (RZ) [2012-00011-C02-01]
  3. Xunta de Galicia [GPC2013-011]
  4. Fondos Feder: 'Unha maneira de facer Europa'

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The adaptive potential of a population depends on the amount of additive genetic variance for quantitative traits of evolutionary importance. This variance is a direct function of the expected frequency of heterozygotes for the loci which affect the trait (QTL). It has been argued, but not demonstrated experimentally, that long-term response to selection is more dependent on QTL allelic diversity than on QTL heterozygosity. Conservation programmes, aimed at preserving this variation, usually rely on neutral markers rather than on quantitative traits for making decisions on management. Here, we address, both through simulation analyses and experimental studies with Drosophila melanogaster, the question of whether allelic diversity for neutral markers is a better indicator of a high adaptive potential than expected heterozygosity. In both experimental and simulation studies, we established synthetic populations for which either heterozygosity or allelic diversity was maximized using information from QTL (simulations) or unlinked neutral markers (simulations and experiment). The synthetic populations were selected for the quantitative trait to evaluate the evolutionary potential provided by the two optimization methods. Our results show that maximizing the number of alleles of a low number of markers implies higher responses to selection than maximizing their heterozygosity.

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

4.7
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