Nonadditive indirect effects of group genetic diversity on larval viability in Drosophila melanogaster imply key role of maternal decision-making.
Nonadditive indirect effects of group genetic diversity on larval viability in Drosophila melanogaster imply key role of maternal decision-making.
复制标题
群体遗传多样性对果蝇幼虫活力的非加性间接影响意味着母体决策的关键作用。
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-294x.2012.05518.x
复制
发表时间：
2012
影响因子：
4.9
通讯作者：
Nuzhdin,SergeyV
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Saltz,JuliaB;Alicuben,EvanT;Grubman,Jessica;Harkenrider,Matthew;Megowan,Nichelle;Nuzhdin,SergeyV
遗传变异可能对种群产生重要影响：高种群遗传多样性通常与生态成功相关。一些解释这些好处的机制假设，具有高遗传多样性的当地社会群体比低多样性群体更成功。与此同时，个体的积极决策可以影响群体的遗传多样性。在这里，我们研究如何决定群体遗传多样性的母亲的决定影响的生存能力ofDrosophila melanogasterlarvae。我们的组包含野生型幼虫，我们操纵了它们的遗传多样性，以及遗传标记的“测试”幼虫，它们的基因型和频率在所有试验中都是相同的。我们测量了每组的野生型和测试者活力。令人惊讶的是，当群体遗传多样性改变时，野生型幼虫的生存能力既没有增加也没有减少。然而，在大的、高多样性的组中，测试基因型的生存能力被大大抑制。此外，并非所有高多样性组都产生这种效应：野生型基因型的某些组合对测试者的生存力有害，而其他具有相同多样性但含有不同野生型基因型的组则无害。通过观察低多样性组中相同试验动物和野生型基因型的表现，无法预测野生型基因型的这些有害组合。总之，这些结果表明，基因型之间的非加性相互作用，而不是遗传多样性本身，解释了黑腹果蝇生存力的组间差异，并且预测种群水平遗传多样性的后果可能并不简单。
Genetic variation can have important consequences for populations: high population genetic diversity is typically associated with ecological success. Some mechanisms that account for these benefits assume that local social groups with high genetic diversity are more successful than low‐diversity groups. At the same time, active decision‐making by individuals can influence group genetic diversity. Here, we examine how maternal decisions that determine group genetic diversity influence the viability ofDrosophila melanogasterlarvae. Our groups contained wild‐type larvae, whose genetic diversity we manipulated, and genetically marked ‘tester’ larvae, whose genotype and frequency were identical in all trials. We measured wild‐type and tester viability for each group. Surprisingly, the viability of wild‐type larvae was neither augmented nor reduced when group genetic diversity was altered. However, the viability of the tester genotype was substantially depressed in large, high‐diversity groups. Further, not all high‐diversity groups produced this effect: certain combinations of wild‐type genotypes were deleterious to tester viability, while other groups of the same diversity—but containing different wild‐type genotypes—were not deleterious. These deleterious combinations of wild‐type genotypes could not be predicted by observing the performance of the same tester and wild‐type genotypes in low‐diversity groups. Taken together, these results suggest that nonadditive interactions among genotypes, rather than genetic diversity per se, account for between‐group differences in viability inD. melanogasterand that predicting the consequences of genetic diversity at the population level may not be straightforward.