Article

Rapid evolution of male-biased gene expression in Drosophila.

Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Impact Factor: 9.81). 09/2003; 100(17):9894-9. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1630690100
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A number of genes associated with sexual traits and reproduction evolve at the sequence level faster than the majority of genes coding for non-sex-related traits. Whole genome analyses allow this observation to be extended beyond the limited set of genes that have been studied thus far. We use cDNA microarrays to demonstrate that this pattern holds in Drosophila for the phenotype of gene expression as well, but in one sex only. Genes that are male-biased in their expression show more variation in relative expression levels between conspecific populations and two closely related species than do female-biased genes or genes with sexually monomorphic expression patterns. Additionally, elevated ratios of interspecific expression divergence to intraspecific expression variation among male-biased genes suggest that differences in rates of evolution may be due in part to natural selection. This finding has implications for our understanding of the importance of sexual dimorphism for speciation and rates of phenotypic evolution.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
90 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Population genetics theory predicts that X (or Z) chromosomes could play disproportionate roles in speciation and evolutionary divergence, and recent genome-wide analyses have identified situations in which X or Z-linked divergence exceeds that on the autosomes (the so-called 'faster-X effect'). Here, we summarize the current state of both the theory and data surrounding the study of faster-X evolution. Our survey indicates that the faster-X effect is pervasive across a taxonomically diverse array of evolutionary lineages. These patterns could be informative of the dominance or recessivity of beneficial mutations and the nature of genetic variation acted upon by natural selection. We also identify several aspects of disagreement between these empirical results and the population genetic models used to interpret them. However, there are clearly delineated aspects of the problem for which additional modeling and collection of genomic data will address these discrepancies and provide novel insights into the population genetics of adaptation.
    Trends in Genetics 06/2013; · 9.77 Impact Factor
  • Science 05/2011; 332(6031):798-9. · 31.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As species colonize new habitats they must adapt to the local environment. Much of this adaptation is thought to occur at the regulatory level; however, the relationships among genetic polymorphism, expression variation and adaptation are poorly understood. Drosophila melanogaster, which expanded from an ancestral range in sub-Saharan Africa around 15 000 years ago, represents an excellent model system for studying regulatory evolution. Here, we focus on the gene CG9509, which differs in expression between an African and a European population of D. melanogaster. The expression difference is caused by variation within a transcriptional enhancer adjacent to the CG9509 coding sequence. Patterns of sequence variation indicate that this enhancer was the target of recent positive selection, suggesting that the expression difference is adaptive. Analysis of the CG9509 enhancer in new population samples from Europe, Asia, northern Africa and sub-Saharan Africa revealed that sequence polymorphism is greatly reduced outside the ancestral range. A derived haplotype absent in sub-Saharan Africa is at high frequency in all other populations. These observations are consistent with a selective sweep accompanying the range expansion of the species. The new data help identify the sequence changes responsible for the difference in enhancer activity.
    Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B Biological Sciences 01/2013; 368(1632):20130024. · 6.23 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
5 Downloads
Available from
Aug 1, 2014

Similar Publications