Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25193308›Full record

ArticleGenome biology and evolution2014

Genome diversity and divergence in Drosophila mauritiana: multiple signatures of faster X evolution.

Daniel Garrigan, Sarah B Kingan, Anthony J Geneva, Jeffrey P Vedanayagam, Daven C Presgraves

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Reconciling theories of dominance with the relative rates of adaptive substitution on sex chromosomes and autosomes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Nonadaptive molecular evolution of seminal fluid proteins in Drosophila.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Evidence for Faster X Chromosome Evolution in Spiders.Molecular biology and evolution · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel GarriganDepartment of Biology, University of Rochester dgarriga@ur.rochester.edu.
Sarah B KinganDepartment of Biology, University of Rochester.
Anthony J GenevaDepartment of Biology, University of Rochester.
Jeffrey P VedanayagamDepartment of Biology, University of Rochester.
Daven C PresgravesDepartment of Biology, University of Rochester.
University of Rochester · US

Funding

Genomics of complex speciation between Drosophila simulans and D. mauritianaR01OD010548 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI GARRIGAN, DANIEL WILLIAM, PRESGRAVES, DAVEN C · 2012 to 2015
$1.5M
Population genetics of gene duplications and copy-number variants in the DrosophiR01GM085183 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI THORNTON, KEVIN R. · 2009 to 2013
$1.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01-GM085183NIH HHS R01 OD010548PHS HHS R01-ODO1054801
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drosophila mauritiana is an Indian Ocean island endemic species that diverged from its two sister species, Drosophila simulans and Drosophila sechellia, approximately 240,000 years ago. Multiple forms of incomplete reproductive isolation have evolved among these species, including sexual, gametic, ecological, and intrinsic postzygotic barriers, with crosses among all three species conforming to Haldane's rule: F(1) hybrid males are sterile and F(1) hybrid females are fertile. Extensive genetic resources and the fertility of hybrid females have made D. mauritiana, in particular, an important model for speciation genetics. Analyses between D. mauritiana and both of its siblings have shown that the X chromosome makes a disproportionate contribution to hybrid male sterility. But why the X plays a special role in the evolution of hybrid sterility in these, and other, species remains an unsolved problem. To complement functional genetic analyses, we have investigated the population genomics of D. mauritiana, giving special attention to differences between the X and the autosomes. We present a de novo genome assembly of D. mauritiana annotated with RNAseq data and a whole-genome analysis of polymorphism and divergence from ten individuals. Our analyses show that, relative to the autosomes, the X chromosome has reduced nucleotide diversity but elevated nucleotide divergence; an excess of recurrent adaptive evolution at its protein-coding genes; an excess of recent, strong selective sweeps; and a large excess of satellite DNA. Interestingly, one of two centimorgan-scale selective sweeps on the D. mauritiana X chromosome spans a region containing two sex-ratio meiotic drive elements and a high concentration of satellite DNA. Furthermore, genes with roles in reproduction and chromosome biology are enriched among genes that have histories of recurrent adaptive protein evolution. Together, these genome-wide analyses suggest that genetic conflict and frequent positive natural selection on the X chromosome have shaped the molecular evolutionary history of D. mauritiana, refining our understanding of the possible causes of the large X-effect in speciation.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenetic VariationGenome, InsectAnimalsChromosomes, InsectDrosophilaFemaleGenetic SpeciationGenomeMaleModels, GeneticReproductionadaptationDrosophilagenomesatellite DNAselective sweepX chromosome

Identifiers

PMID25193308
PMCPMC4202334
OpenAlexW2157441401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.