Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Hybrid (biology) wikipedia , lookup
Genetically modified organism containment and escape wikipedia , lookup
Quantitative trait locus wikipedia , lookup
Dominance (genetics) wikipedia , lookup
DNA paternity testing wikipedia , lookup
Genetic drift wikipedia , lookup
Koinophilia wikipedia , lookup
Population genetics wikipedia , lookup
Microevolution wikipedia , lookup
Plant mating systems • Plants have a much wider variety of mating patterns than animals • Markers in population genetics are very useful Autogamy • Self-fertilization • Pollen transfer within or among flowers of same individual • ~20% of angiosperms are habitual selfers • ~40% of angiosperms can self-fertilize Advantages of Autogamy • Reproductive assurance. • Selectively advantageous by transmitting both sets of genes to offspring. • Only single colonizing individual needed. • Cost-saving on male expenditure. Disadvantages of Autogamy • Decreases genetic variability. • Inability to adapt to changing conditions. • Increases inbreeding depression. – Reduces heterozygosity and increases homozygosity of deleterious alleles. – Loss of vigour in offspring! Loss of Heterozygosity from Selfing Aa x Aa 1/4 AA 1/2 Aa 1/4 aa A a A AA Aa a Aa aa A selfed heterozygote will yield offspring that are 50% heterozygous. Loss of Heterozygosity from Selfing Proportion of heterozygotes is 1/2 in each successive generation. S1: 50% of offspring heterozygous from original parent (Aa). S2: S3: S4: S5: S6: 25% 12.5% 6.2% 3.1% 1.5% Cleistogamy (CL) • Flowers never open and self-fertilize • Small, bud-like flowers without petals that form directly into seed capsules • Common: 488 species, in 212 genera and 49 families Cleistogamy (CL) • Mixed mating systems -can produce both CL and chasmogamous (CH) on an individual • CL fls are a “back-up” in case pollinators scarce Characteristics of predominantly self-pollinating species • 1. Reduced "male" investment – fewer pollen (lower pollen/egg ratio) – smaller/fewer attractive structures (corollas, flowers) • 2. Phenological changes – more uniform distribution of seed and pollen cones – simultanous pollen shed and stigma receptivity • 3. Loss of self-incompatibility (angiosperms) • 4. Reduced inbreeding depression – self-pollen is vigorous – adult plants derived from selfing are vigorous Monkeyflower (Mimulus) • Stigma and anther (with mature pollen) can be seen to often touch each other within the flower • If you grow them in the greenhouse without bees, they still set some seed • Do they self-fertilize in the wild? Molecular analysis of selffertilization rates • Genetic markers (isozymes, microsatellites, AFLPs) can be used to estimate rates of selffertilization • Two approaches: – Deviations from Hardy-Weinberg • Selfing creates excess homozygosity like the Wahlund effect – Patterns of segregation in progeny arrays • Given maternal genotype, selfing creates excess of homozygous progeny Molecular analysis of self-fertilization rates • Deviations from Hardy-Weinberg – Work with inbreeding coefficient F • Probability that a locus is homozygous by descent • We estimate it as F=(S-J)/(1-J), just like pairwise relatedness (S=observed homozygosity, J=expected homozygosity) – Recursion for F with total selfing • Start with F=0 • After one generation of selfing, F=1/2 (example) • Ft+1 = .5(1-Ft) + Ft = (1+Ft)/2 – Recursion for F with partial selfing • • • • • Population has a fraction of selfing (s) and outcrossing (1-s) Ft+1 = s (1+Ft)/2 +(1-s)(0) At equilibrium, Ft+1 =Ft F = s (1+F)/2 s=2F/(1+F) Mimulus guttatus species complex • Yellow monkeyflowers • Mostly annual herbs • Selfing evolved several times • Intercrossible Estimates of mating system parameters for the four Mimulus taxa. M. nasutus M. micranthus M. nudatus M. lacinatus F 0.109 (0.055) 0.724 (0.104) 0.219 (0.033) 0.787 (0.053) s 0.642 (0.040) 0.736 (0.140) 0.718 (0.025) 0.916 (0.035) Are these populations at inbreeding equilibrium? (is s=2F/(1+F)) M. nasutus s=2(0.109)/1.109 =0.196 M. micranthis s=2(0.724)/1.724=0.840 M. nudatus s=2(0.219)/1.219 = 0.359 M. lacinatus s=2(0.787)/1.787 = 0.880 Molecular analysis of self-fertilization rate – Patterns of segregation in progeny arrays • Given maternal genotype, selfing creates excess of homozygous progeny – Consider maternal parent “AA” • Population is a mixture of “A” and “a” alleles, with frequencies p and q • If the parent outcrosses, expected progeny are: – p of AA – q of Aa • If the parent selfs, all progeny are AA • For selfing rate s, the expected frequency of AA progeny from AA parents is fAA|AA = (1-s)p + s • Solve for s, estimate frequency of selfing as s=(fAA|AA-p)/(1-p) Progeny array model • Several possible parent genotypes • Probability matrix of progeny conditioned upon parents: – s=selfing rate; p,q are gene frequencies of A, a Parent genotypes AA Progeny genotypes Aa aa AA s+(1-s)p s/4+(1-s)p/2 0 Aa (1-s)q ½ (1-s)p aa 0 s/4 + (1-s)q/2 s+(1-s)q Progeny array analysis • ij = probability of progeny i, given parent j – (previous table) • Xij = observed number of progeny i of parent j – (isozyme or SSR data) • Likelihood of data is L= ijXij • Use “numerical procedures” to maximize likelihood “L” Advantages of progeny arrays • No need to assume equilibrium • Maternal parent doesn’t need to be assayed (can be inferred from progeny segregation pattern), thus tissue differences are irrelevant • Separate estimation of pollen gene frequencies (pattern of paternity) • Family structure also useful for many other population genetic inferences (next week) – Linkage disequilibrium – Haplotype structure – Association genetics A study of inbreeding depression in monkeyflowers •Measured as fitness of selfed progeny relative to outcrossed progeny •Large reduction in survival of progeny from selfing compared to outcrossing, in two different populations Selfing and inbreeding depression • Self-fertilization causes progeny to exhibit reduced fitness (inbreeding depression) • Inbreeding depression is a tradeoff with reproductive assurance • Exposure of recessive deleterious genes tends to remove inbreeding depression over the long term Genetics of inbreeding depression • Longer term evolution of inbreeding depression depends upon its genetic expression • Is it caused by overdominance, or partial dominance? (example) • Expression of inbreeding depression can depend on the stage of life cycle – early vs. late acting genes (next) Markers and inbreeding depression Would to know levels in nature, not greenhouse Fixation index Level of observed homozygosity Affected by inbreeding depression Inferring inbreeding depression using changes of the inbreeding coefficient Ritland 1990 Mimulus guttatus and M. platycalyx Co-occurring along meadows and streams of North coastal California M. platycalyx has large flower like guttatus, but is very autofertile Recently derived from M. guttatus? Has inbreeding depression been reduced in M. platycalyx? Dole and Ritland 1993 Paternity analyses methods • Exclusion • Likelihood: two methods; both use likelihood in same way – categorical: assigns the entire offspring to a particular male – fractional: splits an offspring among all compatible males Example of paternity analysis (two loci) • Mother – A1A2, B1B3 • Offspring – A1A3, B1B2 – (father alleles are A3, B2) • Potential father 1 – A2A2, B2B3 • Exclude because father doesn’t have A3 • Just one locus can exclude paternity Paternity analyses methods • Exclusion • Likelihood: two methods; both use likelihood in same way – categorical: assigns the entire offspring to a particular male – fractional: assigns paternity “in probability”, allows for all possible males Summary of likelihood • Total probability is prior probability (frequency of male parent genotype in populations, maybe other factors) times the transmission probability • Prior probability = genotype frequencies of alleged male – perhaps multiplied by female frequencies, mating distance distribution, male fitness, etc. Problems with using microsatellites for paternity analysis • New mutations – The mutation rate for microsatellites is estimated to be between 10-2 - 10-4 per generation; new mutations can frequency occur resulting in the true father being excluded. – This can be overcome operationally by requiring potential fathers to be excluded at least two loci. • Null alleles – If the offspring inherits a null allele (nonamplifying allele) at a locus from the father, then the true father may be excluded.