4.8 Article

Parallel Evolution of Copy-Number Variation across Continents in Drosophila melanogaster

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 1308-1316

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msw014

关键词

population genetics; copy-number variation; natural selection

资金

  1. National Institute of Health under Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award [F32 GM105231]
  2. National Institute of Health [GM084056]
  3. National Science Foundation [DBI-0845494]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic differentiation across populations that is maintained in the presence of gene flow is a hallmark of spatially varying selection. In Drosophila melanogaster, the latitudinal clines across the eastern coasts of Australia and North America appear to be examples of this type of selection, with recent studies showing that a substantial portion of the D. melanogaster genome exhibits allele frequency differentiation with respect to latitude on both continents. As of yet there has been no genome-wide examination of differentiated copy-number variants (CNVs) in these geographic regions, despite their potential importance for phenotypic variation in Drosophila and other taxa. Here, we present an analysis of geographic variation in CNVs in D. melanogaster. We also present the first genomic analysis of geographic variation for copy-number variation in the sister species, D. simulans, in order to investigate patterns of parallel evolution in these close relatives. In D. melanogaster we find hundreds of CNVs, many of which show parallel patterns of geographic variation on both continents, lending support to the idea that they are influenced by spatially varying selection. These findings support the idea that polymorphic CNVs contribute to local adaptation in D. melanogaster. In contrast, we find very few CNVs in D. simulans that are geographically differentiated in parallel on both continents, consistent with earlier work suggesting that clinal patterns are weaker in this species.

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

4.8
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