2021
DOI: 10.1038/s41437-021-00449-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seasonal changes in recombination characteristics in a natural population of Drosophila melanogaster

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 92 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Recombination rates in Drosophila also not only depend on genetic background, with up to a two-fold difference between North American genotypes (Hunter, et al 2016), but also depend on female age, number of matings, nutrition, temperature, and pathogen exposure (Redfield 1966; Hunter and Singh 2014; Stapley, et al 2017; Aggarwal, et al 2021). However, as all of the female flies used in this experiment were first-generation laboratory flies and were thus similar in age and environmental exposure, the difference in recombination rates more likely resulted from genetic differences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Recombination rates in Drosophila also not only depend on genetic background, with up to a two-fold difference between North American genotypes (Hunter, et al 2016), but also depend on female age, number of matings, nutrition, temperature, and pathogen exposure (Redfield 1966; Hunter and Singh 2014; Stapley, et al 2017; Aggarwal, et al 2021). However, as all of the female flies used in this experiment were first-generation laboratory flies and were thus similar in age and environmental exposure, the difference in recombination rates more likely resulted from genetic differences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1.4 cM/Mb (Stocker, et al 2012), D. pseudoobscura of 3.3 - 4.6 cM/Mb, D. miranda of 4.9 – 6.1 cM/Mb (Heil, et al 2015), D. persimilis of 4.1 cM/Mb for autosomes and 5.0 cM/Mb for X chromosome (Stevison and Noor 2010), D. virilis of 4.6 cM/Mb (Hemmer, et al 2020) and D. melanogaster of 2.5 cM/Mb (Comeron, et al 2012). However, experimental studies of Drosophila have rarely looked at variation in genome-wide recombination rates in natural populations of outbred individuals, and wild populations may differ systematically from populations that have been strongly selected by adaptation to the laboratory (Aggarwal, et al 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Genome-wide estimates of recombination rate are available for several Drosophila species, (Stocker et al 2012), D. pseudoobscura of 3.3 -4.6 cM/Mb, D. miranda of 4.9 -6.1 cM/Mb (Heil et al 2015), D. persimilis of 4.1 cM/Mb for autosomes and 5.0 cM/Mb for X Chromosome (Stevison and Noor 2010), D. virilis of 4.6 cM/Mb (Hemmer et al 2020) and D. melanogaster of 2.5 cM/Mb (Comeron et al 2012). However, experimental studies of Drosophila have rarely looked at variation in genome-wide recombination rates in natural populations of outbred individuals, and wild populations may differ systematically from populations that have been strongly selected by adaptation to the laboratory (Aggarwal et al 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the resulting "gamma-sprinkled" (GS) model assumes a mixture of gamma distributions with v>1 and v=1 (cases of positive COI and no COI) with proportions 1-p and p, respectively, and appeared to be more consistent with empirical data [32]. Yet, cases of possible negative COI were also reported on different organisms (Neurospora, yeast, Drosophila, Arabidopsis, maize, barley, wheat), and the possible presence of CO clustering effect (negative COI) was reported [1,2,33,35,38,3,4,7,8,11,[14][15][16] When applied to such cases, the GS-model gives biased estimates of both parameters, p, and v, due to the presence of three components (with v>1, v=1, and v<1). Therefore, to take account of possible negative interference, we extend the GS model by fitting a mixture of the corresponding three distributions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 75%