4.7 Review

A holocentric twist to chromosomal speciation?

期刊

TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION
卷 37, 期 8, 页码 655-662

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2022.04.002

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [310030_184934]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [PGC2018-099608-B-I00]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [310030_184934] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chromosomal rearrangements trigger speciation by acting as barriers to gene flow. The existing theory is based on monocentric chromosomes, while holocentric chromosomes, which lack a centromeric region, have evolved repeatedly and contribute to a significant portion of biodiversity. Chromosomal rearrangements may be more likely retained in holocentric species, providing a different perspective on chromosomal speciation. The abundance of chromosome-scale genomes and novel analytical tools offer the opportunity to assess the impacts of chromosomal rearrangements on speciation rates and holocentric species can help test the causal roles of chromosomal rearrangements in speciation.
Chromosomal rearrangements trigger speciation by acting as barriers to gene flow. However, the underlying theory was developed with monocentric chromosomes in mind. Holocentric chromosomes, lacking a centromeric region, have repeatedly evolved and account for a significant fraction of extant biodiversity. Because chromosomal rearrangements may be more likely retained in holocentric species, holocentricity could provide a twist to chromosomal speciation. Here, we discuss how the abundance of chromosome-scale genomes, combined with novel analytical tools, offer the opportunity to assess the impacts of chromosomal rearrangements on rates of speciation by outlining a phylogenetic framework that aligns with the two major lines of chromosomal speciation theory. We further highlight how holocentric species could help to test for causal roles of chromosomal rearrangements in speciation.

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