Title |
Bioinformatically predicted deleterious mutations reveal complementation in the interior spruce hybrid complex
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Genomics, December 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12864-017-4344-8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Gina L. Conte, Kathryn A. Hodgins, Sam Yeaman, Jon C. Degner, Sally N. Aitken, Loren H. Rieseberg, Michael C. Whitlock |
Abstract |
Mutation load is expected to be reduced in hybrids via complementation of deleterious alleles. While local adaptation of hybrids confounds phenotypic tests for reduced mutation load, it may be possible to assess variation in load by analyzing the distribution of putatively deleterious alleles. Here, we use this approach in the interior spruce (Picea glauca x P. engelmannii) hybrid complex, a group likely to suffer from high mutation load and in which hybrids exhibit local adaptation to intermediate conditions. We used PROVEAN to bioinformatically predict whether non-synonymous alleles are deleterious, based on conservation of the position and abnormality of the amino acid change. As expected, we found that predicted deleterious alleles were at lower average allele frequencies than alleles not predicted to be deleterious. We were unable to detect a phenotypic effect on juvenile growth rate of the many rare alleles predicted to be deleterious. Both the proportion of alleles predicted to be deleterious and the proportion of loci homozygous for predicted deleterious alleles were higher in P. engelmannii (Engelmann spruce) than in P. glauca (white spruce), due to higher diversity and frequencies of rare alleles in Engelmann. Relative to parental species, the proportion of alleles predicted to be deleterious was intermediate in hybrids, and the proportion of loci homozygous for predicted deleterious alleles was lowest. Given that most deleterious alleles are recessive, this suggests that mutation load is reduced in hybrids due to complementation of deleterious alleles. This effect may enhance the fitness of hybrids. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 36% |
Australia | 1 | 9% |
Sweden | 1 | 9% |
Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 6 | 55% |
Members of the public | 5 | 45% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 24% |
Researcher | 7 | 18% |
Professor | 4 | 11% |
Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
Other | 6 | 16% |
Unknown | 7 | 18% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 47% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 29% |
Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 6 | 16% |