|
|
|
|
Published online before print
May 10, 2006, 10.1101/gr.5045006 Genome Res. 16:730-737, 2006 ©2006 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; ISSN 1088-9051/06 $5.00
Letter Genomic islands of differentiation between house mouse subspeciesInstitute for Genetics, Department of Evolutionary Genetics, 50674 Köln, Germany
Understanding the genes that contribute to reproductive isolation is essential to understanding speciation, but isolating such genes has proven very difficult. In this study I apply a multilocus test statistic to >10,000 SNP markers assayed in wild-derived inbred strains of house mice to identify genomic regions of elevated differentiation between two subspecies of house mice, Mus musculus musculus and M. m. domesticus. Differentiation was high through 90% of the X chromosome. In addition, eight regions of high differentiation were identified on the autosomes, totaling 7.5% of the autosomal genome. Regions of high differentiation were confirmed by direct sequencing of samples collected from the wild. Some regions of elevated differentiation have an overrepresentation of genes with hostpathogen interactions and olfaction. The most strongly differentiated region on the X has previously been shown to fail to introgress across a hybrid zone between the two subspecies. This survey indicates autosomal regions that should also be examined for differential introgression across the hybrid zone, as containing potential genes causing hybrid unfitness.
Speciation in sexual organisms occurs as barriers to gene flow evolve between previously interbreeding populations. Part of a research program to elucidate the origin of species therefore requires an understanding of how and why new traits arise that reproductively isolate populations and to identify the genes controlling these traits (Coyne 1992
A prerequisite to study the process of speciation and eventually identify the genes involved in it is a close relationship among the taxa. Close relationships among taxa imply that the identified genetic differences are more likely to be involved in the speciation process rather than accumulating after speciation is completed. The house mouse provides an ideal study system. At least three different subspecies are distinguished, which diverged from each other between 0.8 and 1 million years ago (Mya) (Boursot et al. 1993
One general approach toward the identification of genes involved in speciation relies on identifying regions of the genome that are strongly differentiated between populations or species (Cavalli-Sforza 1966
Previously, this approach has been applied in the hybrid zone between the two subspecies of house mice along a transect in eastern Germany (Tucker et al. 1992
In this report I used genomic resources publicly available as thousands of SNP markers typed by The Wellcome Trust Center for Human Genetics in wild-derived inbred strains of the house mouse to systematically identify genomic regions that are highly differentiated between subspecies. I confirm that the X chromosome is strongly differentiated, as expected from previous hybrid zone work (Tucker et al. 1992
Taxa The genetic makeup of laboratory strains of the house mouse, from which the SNPs available from The Wellcome Trust Center for Human Genetics are derived, is a mixture with the largest contribution from Mus musculus domesticus ( 60%), an intermediate contribution from Mus musculus musculus ( 30%), and a small contribution from Mus musculus castaneus ( 10%) (Wade et al. 2002
As expected from the ascertainment bias during the selection process of SNP markers, the branch lengths for members of subspecies domesticus were longer than branches for other subspecies. However, within musculus strains there was still a substantial amount of variation evident, which was roughly proportional to the contribution of this subspecies to the genetic makeup of laboratory strains.
Only strains clustering within musculus and within domesticus were used for further analysis (seven domesticus and eight musculus). Among the 13,000 SNPs, 10,265 were polymorphic in either domesticus (6281 SNPs) or musculus (1146 SNPs) or both subspecies (1650 SNPs) or showed a fixed difference between the subspecies (1188 SNPs). These 10,265 "variable" SNPs were used for further analysis. The number of SNPs per chromosome was correlated with chromosome size (Pearson r = 0.767, N = 20 chromosomes, P < 0.0001). The largest chromosome (chromosome 1) contained 804 SNPs, and the smallest (chromosome 19) contained 235 SNPs. The total number of variable SNPs was used to generate the expected values for the
Differentiation based on SNP analysis from lab strains
Figure 2 shows heterogeneity in differentiation along those chromosomes where both the
Eight regions of elevated differentiation are present on the autosomes (Fig. 2). Their exact genomic position based on the most recent assembly of the mouse genome (build 34) is given in Table 2. Two chromosomes contained more than one region where sliding windows of high differentiation (P > 0.015) did not overlap (chromosome 2 and 8). Most chromosomes showed no region of elevated differentiation (chromosomes 37, 9, 1113, 1619). Regions of significant differentiation covered 7.5% of the autosomes in total, with an average length of 20 Mb (from 11 Mb [chromosome 15] to 31 Mb [chromosome 10]). In contrast to the autosomes, elevated differentiation spanned almost across the entire X chromosome (88%, Fig. 2), with two large regions of elevated differentiation separated by a region of lower differentiation. However, the sliding windows of both high differentiation regions overlap on the X chromosome. Thus, a contiguous region of elevated differentiation on the X chromosome is given in Table 2.
Natural populations The results from direct sequencing of natural populations of musculus (from the Czech Republic, 14 chromosomes sequenced) and domesticus (from Germany, 16 chromosomes sequenced) are shown in Figure 3 and Table 3. The average Gst value within the sequenced fragments, which is based on based on polymorphic sites only, was significantly higher for fragments located in the candidate regions of high differentiation (as identified from the SNP survey of wild-derived inbred strains) than for fragments that are located outside of these regions (P = 0.0003, t-test, df = 12). Thus, regions identified by the SNP analysis were confirmed in an independent sample. Neis statistic (Nei 1987
I found no measurable differences in divergence to M. famulus between regions of high and low differentiation (P = 0.551, t-test, df = 11: Of the 14 genomic fragments sequenced, I was unable to amplify one fragment in famulus, hence the number of degrees of freedom is 11).
Functional annotation of candidate regions
Recombination rates
Genetic changes that lead to the split of one species into two are of major interest in evolutionary biology. The house mouse is an ideal model system because it consists of three "incipient" species, i.e., subspecies. Initial differentiation of these subspecies probably took place on the Indian subcontinent 0.51 Mya (Boursot et al. 1993 10,000 yr ago, in association with the origin of human commensalism. Each subspecies followed its own colonization route, and the resulting distribution is nearly non-overlapping. Where the subspecies come into contact they form hybrid zones (Boursot et al. 1993
My survey of
While I found several regions of high differentiation on the autosomes, the overall proportion of the autosomal genome that showed strong differentiation was relatively small (
Under neutral expectations, divergence should be proportional to the mutation rate in a region. Since the mutation rate of the X chromosome is lower than the mutation rate on the autosomes (it is thought that the mutation rate of the X chromosome is
Divergent selection between the subspecies is the most likely cause of regional differentiation. Genes located in the regions of elevated differentiation are candidate targets for selection. Although there are many genes in these regions, the most overrepresented category is genes related to immune response and proteolysis (proteolysis occurs during immune response [Liu 2004
Evidence for high regional differentiation within and among chromosomes does not directly address the question of whether these regions are involved in reproductive isolation. In mice, olfaction is known to be important for pre-mating isolation (Talley et al. 2001
The proximal part of chromosome 17 has been associated with hybrid male sterility in crosses between laboratory strains of house mice and certain Mus musculus strains (Forejt and Ivanyi 1974
A second method to identify regions involved in post-mating isolation is to study introgression across a natural hybrid zone; portions of the genome that do not introgress may carry genes causing post-mating incompatibilities. Dod et al. (1993) The autosomal regions of high differentiation identified in SNP scan should now be examined for differential introgression across the hybrid zone. Those regions showing limited introgression are particularly likely to contain genes involved in reproductive isolation.
SNP database The Wellcome Trust Center for Human Genetics provides information on 13,370 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) from 480 Mus musculus inbred strains that have been maintained by sibling matings for 20 or more consecutive generations. Most of the SNPs were identified by direct sequence comparisons between five strains (DBA/2J, A/J, C57BL/6J, 129S1/SvImJ, 129X1/SvJ), and some SNPs were included from other studies (see Web site: http://www.well.ox.ac.uk/mouse/INBREDS/). The SNPs are more or less equally distributed over all chromosomes, but no SNPs are available that map close to the centromeres and telomeres of each chromosome. The strains from which the SNPs were identified are all laboratory inbred strains, which are mixtures between different subspecies of the house mouse but with a predominant influence of Mus musculus domesticus (Wade et al. 2002
Phylogenetic clustering of the strains based on SNP data
SNP polymorphism analysis
I also used a second test to detect regional elevated differentiation based on permutation. For this test I set up a null hypothesis based on the distribution of SNPs along each chromosome, rather than the whole genome as was the case for the
Sequencing I sequenced eight genomic fragments located in five of the regions that were identified by the SNP analysis to be highly differentiated and an additional six fragments located outside of highly differentiated regions. Each fragment consisted of 700800 bp of non-coding sequence (either 5' or 3' flanking regions or from an intron). Information about the sequenced fragments can be found in Supplemental Table 4. I used a 50-µL PCR containing 100 ng of genomic DNA, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 200 µM dNTPs, 1 µM of each primer, and 0.5 U Taq polymerase (Eppendorf Master Taq). A typical cycling profile consisted of 30 cycles with 50 sec at 94°C, 50 sec at 60°C, and 2 min at 72°C. PCR products were purified using 96-well plates (Millipore Montagé) according to the manufacturers protocol. All PCR products were directly sequenced in both directions using the BigDye sequencing chemistry on an ABI3700 automated sequencer. In the case of individuals being heterozygous for an insertion/deletion, I cloned both alleles (TA cloning kit, Invitrogen) and sequenced eight clones per individual. Sequencing reactions were purified using Sephadex columns (Millipore). All sequence data is downloadable in aligned Nexus format from the authors Web site (http://www.genetik.uni-koeln.de/groups/Tautz/meg/).
DNA sequence data analysis
Identification of functional categories
Recombination rates
I am especially thankful to B. Schmitz for expert technical assistance and to T. Price for helpful discussion. I thank J. Baines for contributing some unpublished data. T. Price and D. Tautz helped to improve the manuscript. T. Bayer helped with some programming issues, and L. Bunger first pointed me to the Wellcome Trust SNP database resource. I am thankful to S. Ihle and S. Kipp for providing wild mouse samples. I also thank three anonymous reviewers who provided insightful comments on the manuscript. This work has been funded by an Emmy-Noether fellowship by the DFG to B. Harr.
E-mail harrb@uni-koeln.de; fax: +49-221-470-5975. [Supplemental material is available online at www.genome.org.] Article published online before print. Article and publication date are at http://www.genome.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gr.5045006
Akey J.M., Zhang G., Zhang K., Jin L., Shriver M.D. 2002. Interrogating a high-density SNP map for signatures of natural selection. Genome Res. 12: 18051814. Barbash D.A., Siino D.F., Tarone A.M., Roote J. 2003. A rapidly evolving MYB-related protein causes species isolation in Drosophila.. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100: 53025307. Hybrid zones and speciation. In (eds. W.R. Atchley and D.S. Woodruff), pp. 109145.Barton N.H. and Hewitt G.M. In Evolution and speciation: Essays in honor of M.J.D. White . 1981. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Boursot P., Auffray J.C., Brittondavidian J., Bonhomme F. 1993. The evolution of house mice. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24: 119152.[CrossRef] Bustamante C.D., Fledel-Alon A., Williamson S., Nielsen R., Hubisz M.T., Glanowski S., Tanenbaum D.M., White T.J., Sninsky J.J., Hernandez R.D.et al. 2005. Natural selection on protein-coding genes in the human genome. Nature 437: 11531157.[CrossRef][Medline] Cavalli-Sforza L.L. 1966. Population structure and human evolution. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 164: 362379.[Medline] Chevret P., Jenkins P., Catzeflis F. 2003. Evolutionary systematics of the Indian mouse Mus famulus Bonhote, 1898: Molecular (DNA/DNA hybridization and 12S rRNA sequences) and morphological evidence. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 137: 385401.[CrossRef] Cho R.J. and Campbell M.J. 2000. Transcription, genomes, function. Trends Genet. 16: 409415.[CrossRef][Medline] Coyne J.A. 1992. Genetics and speciation. Nature 355: 511515.[CrossRef] Dietrich W.F., Miller J., Steen R., Merchant M.A., Damron-Boles D., Husain Z., Dredge R., Daly M.J., Ingalls K.A., OConnor T.J. 1996. A comprehensive genetic map of the mouse genome. Nature 380: 149152.[CrossRef][Medline] Dod B., Jermiin L.S., Boursot P., Chapman V.H., Nielsen J.T., Bonhomme F. 1993. Counterselection on sex-chromosomes in the Mus musculus European hybrid zone. J. Evol. Biol. 6: 529546.[CrossRef] Edgar R.C. 2004. MUSCLE: Multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 32: 17921797. Forejt J. 1996. Hybrid sterility in the mouse. Trends Genet. 12: 412417.[CrossRef][Medline] Forejt J. and Ivanyi P. 1974. Genetic studies on male sterility of hybrids between laboratory and wild mice (Mus musculus L). Genet. Res. 24: 189.[Medline] Fossella J., Samant S.A., Silver L.M., King S.M., Vaughan K.T., Olds-Clarke P., Johnson K.A., Mikami A., Vallee R.B., Pilder S.H. 2000. An axonemal dynein at the Hybrid Sterility 6 locus: Implications for t haplotype-specific male sterility and the evolution of species barriers. Mamm. Genome 11: 815.[CrossRef][Medline] Greenberg A.J., Moran J.R., Fang S., Wu C.I. 2006. Adaptive loss of an old duplicated gene during incipient speciation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23: 401410. Gregorova S. and Forejt J. 2000. PWD/Ph and PWK/Ph inbred mouse strains of Mus m. musculus subspeciesA valuable resource of phenotypic variations and genomic polymorphisms. Folia Biol. (Praha) 46: 3141.[Medline] Guenet J.L. and Bonhomme F. 2003. Wild mice: An ever-increasing contribution to a popular mammalian model. Trends Genet. 19: 2431.[CrossRef][Medline] Hunt W.G. and Selander R.K. 1973. Biochemical genetics of hybridization in European house mice. Heredity 31: 1133.[Medline] Ideraabdullah F.Y., de la Casa-Esperon E., Bell T.A., Detwiler D.A., Magnuson T., Sapienza C., de Villena F.P. 2004. Genetic and haplotype diversity among wild-derived mouse inbred strains. Genome Res. 14: 18801887. Ihle S., Ravaoarimanana I., Thomas M., Tautz D. 2006. An analysis of signatures of selective sweeps in natural populations of the house mouse. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23: 790797. Jensen-Seaman M.I., Furey T.S., Payseur B.A., Lu Y., Roskin K.M., Chen C.F., Thomas M.A., Haussler D., Jacob H.J. 2004. Comparative recombination rates in the rat, mouse, and human genomes. Genome Res. 14: 528538. Kayser M., Brauer S., Stoneking M. 2003. A genome scan to detect candidate regions influenced by local natural selection in human populations. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20: 893900. Liu Y.C. 2004. Ubiquitin ligases and the immune response. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 22: 81127.[CrossRef][Medline] McVean G.T. and Hurst L.D. 1997. Evidence for a selectively favourable reduction in the mutation rate of the X chromosome. Nature 386: 388392.[CrossRef][Medline] Mi H., Lazareva-Ulitsky B., Loo R., Kejariwal A., Vandergriff J., Rabkin S., Guo N., Muruganujan A., Doremieux O., Campbell M.J.et al. 2005. The PANTHER database of protein families, subfamilies, functions and pathways. Nucleic Acids Res. 33: D284D288. Nachman M.W. and Searle J.B. 1995. Why is the house mouse karyotype so variable? Trends Ecol. Evol. 10: 397402. Nei M. 1973. Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 70: 33213323. . ,Nei M. In Molecular evolutionary genetics. . 1987. Columbia University Press, New York. Nielsen R., Bustamante C., Clark A.G., Glanowski S., Sackton T.B., Hubisz M.J., Fledel-Alon A., Tanenbaum D.M., Civello D., White T.J.et al. 2005. A scan for positively selected genes in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees. PLoS Biol 3: e170.[CrossRef][Medline] Orr H.A., Masly J.P., Presgraves D.C. 2004. Speciation genes. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 14: 675679.[CrossRef][Medline] Page R.D. 1996. TREEVIEW: An application to display phylogenetic trees on personal computers. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 12: 357358. Payseur B.A. and Hoekstra H.E. 2005. Signatures of reproductive isolation in patterns of single nucleotide diversity across inbred strains of mice. Genetics 171: 19051916. Payseur B.A. and Nachman M.W. 2005. The genomics of speciation: Investigating the molecular correlates of X chromosome introgression across the hybrid zone between Mus domesticus and Mus musculus. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 84: 523534.[CrossRef] Payseur B.A., Cutter A.D., Nachman M.W. 2002. Searching for evidence of positive selection in the human genome using patterns of microsatellite variability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19: 11431153. Payseur B.A., Krenz J.G., Nachman M.W. 2004. Differential patterns of introgression across the X chromosome in a hybrid zone between two species of house mice. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 58: 20642078.[CrossRef][Medline] Presgraves D.C., Balagopalan L., Abmayr S.M., Orr H.A. 2003. Adaptive evolution drives divergence of a hybrid inviability gene between two species of Drosophila. Nature 423: 715719.[CrossRef][Medline] Rozas J., Sanchez-DelBarrio J.C., Messeguer X., Rozas R. 2003. DnaSP, DNA polymorphism analyses by the coalescent and other methods. Bioinformatics 19: 24962497. Schlenke T.A. and Begun D.J. 2003. Natural selection drives Drosophila immune system evolution. Genetics 164: 14711480. Schmidt H.A., Strimmer K., Vingron M., von Haeseler A. 2002. TREE-PUZZLE: Maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis using quartets and parallel computing. Bioinformatics 18: 502504. Storchova R., Gregorova S., Buckiova D., Kyselova V., Divina P., Forejt J. 2004. Genetic analysis of X-linked hybrid sterility in the house mouse. Mamm. Genome 15: 515524.[Medline] Storz J.F. 2005. Using genome scans of DNA polymorphism to infer adaptive population divergence. Mol. Ecol. 14: 671688.[CrossRef][Medline] Storz J.F., Payseur B.A., Nachman M.W. 2004. Genome scans of DNA variability in humans reveal evidence for selective sweeps outside of Africa. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21: 18001811. Sun S., Ting C.T., Wu C.I. 2004. The normal function of a speciation gene, Odysseus, and its hybrid sterility effect. Science 305: 8183. Talley H.M., Laukaitis C.M., Karn R.C. 2001. Female preference for male saliva: Implications for sexual isolation of Mus musculus subspecies. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 55: 631634.[CrossRef][Medline] Tanaka T. and Nei M. 1989. Positive Darwinian selection observed at the variable-region genes of immunoglobulins. Mol. Biol. Evol. 6: 447459.[Abstract] Ting C.T., Tsaur S.C., Sun S., Browne W.E., Chen Y.C., Patel N.H., Wu C.I. 2004. Gene duplication and speciation in Drosophila: Evidence from the Odysseus locus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101: 1223212235. Trachtulec Z., Mihola O., Vlcek C., Himmelbauer H., Paces V., Forejt J. 2005. Positional cloning of the Hybrid sterility 1 gene: Fine genetic mapping and evaluation of two candidate genes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 84: 637641.[CrossRef] Tucker P.K., Sage R.D., Warner J., Wilson A.C., Eicher E.M. 1992. Abrupt cline for sex-chromosomes in a hybrid zone between 2 species of mice. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 46: 11461163.[CrossRef] Turner T.L., Hahn M.W., Nuzhdin S.V. 2005. Genomic islands of speciation in Anopheles gambiae. PLoS Biol. 3: e285.[CrossRef][Medline] Wade C.M. and Daly M.J. 2005. Genetic variation in laboratory mice. Nat. Genet. 37: 11751180.[CrossRef][Medline] Wade C.M., Kulbokas III E.J., Kirby A.W., Zody M.C., Mullikin J.C., Lander E.S., Lindblad-Toh K., Daly M.J. 2002. The mosaic structure of variation in the laboratory mouse genome. Nature 420: 574578.[CrossRef][Medline] Zhang X., Rodriguez I., Mombaerts P., Firestein S. 2004. Odorant and vomeronasal receptor genes in two mouse genome assemblies. Genomics 83: 802811.[CrossRef][Medline]
Received December 14, 2005; accepted in revised format April 4, 2006. This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||