Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Divergence at neutral and non-neutral loci in Drosophila buzzatii populations and their hybrids

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Evolutionary Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The impact of intraspecific hybridisation on fitness and morphological traits depends on the history of natural selection and genetic drift, which may have led to differently coadapted gene-complexes in the parental populations. The divergence at neutral and non-neutral loci between populations can be evaluated by estimating FST and QST respectively, and hence give an estimate of drift and selection in the populations. Here we investigate (1) whether divergence between populations in quantitative traits (wing size and shape) can be attributed to selection or drift alone, (2) The impact of intraspecific hybridisation on estimators for divergence at neutral (FST) and non-neutral loci (QST) in hybrids, (3) If measurement of shape is more informative than size in order to detect divergence in quantitative traits between populations. The aims were addressed by performing two hybridisations between three populations of Drosophila buzzatii, one between populations from Argentina and the Canary Islands (separated for 200 years), and the other between populations from Argentina and Australia (separated for 80 years). We observed the highest divergence at neutral loci between the Argentinean and Canary Island populations, but highest morphological divergence between the Argentinean and Australian populations, indicating that natural selection is acting on the wings. Divergence based on QST measures in the hybrids was sensitive towards increased phenotypic variance (σ2p) within groups and should be used with care when σ2p of populations differ. Our results indicate that measures of shape give a better estimate of divergence at the underlying quantitative traits loci than measures of size.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amos W, Balmford A (2001) When does conservation matter? Heredity 87:257–265

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen DH, Pertoldi C, Scali V, Loeschcke V (2002) Intraspecific hybridization, developmental stability and fitness in Drosophila mercatorum. Evol Ecol Res 4:603–621

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmantier A, Garant D (2005) Environmental quality and evolutionary potential: lessons from wild populations Proc R Soc London, Ser. B 272:1415–1425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgaard J, Hasson E, Loeschcke V (2001) Behavioural differentiation in oviposition activity in Drosophila buzzatii from highland and lowland populations in Argentina: plasticity or thermal adaptation? Evolution 55:738– 747

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle JJ, Doyle JL (1987) A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small amounts of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochem Bull 19:11–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1958) The genetical theory of natural selection. 2nd edn. Dover Press, N.Y

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontdevila A (1991) Colonizing species of Drosophila. In: Hewitt GH, Johnston AWB, Young JPW (eds) Molecular techniques in taxonomy. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg pp 249–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Frydenberg J, Pertoldi C, Dahlgaard J, Loeschcke V (2002) Genetic variation in original and colonizing Drosophila buzzatii populations analysed by microsatellites loci isolated with a new PCR screening method. Mol Ecol 11:181–190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goudet J, Martin G (2007) Under neutrality, QST< = FST when there is dominance in an island model. Genetics: online early

  • Goudet J, Büchi L (2006) The Effects of Dominance, Regular inbreeding and sampling design on QST, an estimator of population differentiation for quantitative traits. Genetics 172:1337–1347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goudet J (2002) FSTAT. A program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices (version 2.9.3.2). URL http://www.unil.ch/izea/softwares/fstat.html

  • Haldane JBS (1955) The measurement of variation. Evolution 9:484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer Ø, Harper DAT Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis Palaeontologia Electronica 4:9

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen TF, Houle D (2004) Evolvability, stabilizing selection, and the problem of stasis. In: Pigliucci M, Preston K (eds) Phenotypic integration: studying the ecology and evolution of complex phenotypes. Oxford University Press, Oxford pp 130–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann A, Merila F (1999) Heritable variation and evolution under favourable and unfavourable conditions. Trends Ecol Evol 14:96–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klingenberg CP, McIntyre GS (1998) Geometric morphometrics of developmental instability: analyzing patterns of fluctuating asymmetry with Procrustes methods. Evolution 52:1363–1375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klingenberg CP, Leamy LJ (2001) Quantitative genetics of geometric shape in the mouse mandible. Evolution 55:2342–2352

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leamy L, Routman EJ, Cheverud JM (2002) An epistatic genetic basis for fluctuating asymmetry of mandible size in mice. Evolution 56:642–653

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lens L, Van Dongen S, Galbusera P, Schenck T, Matthysen E, Van De Casteele T (2000) Developmental instability and inbreeding in natural bird populations exposed to different levels of habitat disturbance. J Evol Biol 13:889–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch M, Pfrender M, Spitze K, Lehman N, Hicks J, Allen D, Latta L, Ottene M, Bogue F, Colbourne J (1999) The quantitative and molecular genetic architecture of a subdivided species. Evolution 53:2016–2016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch M (1996) A quantitative genetic perspective on conservation issues. In: Avise JC, Hamrik JL (eds) Conservation genetics: case histories from nature. Chapmann and Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay JK, Latta RG (2002) Adaptive population divergence: markers, QTL and traits. Trends Ecol Evol 17:285–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahalanobis PC (1936) On the generalised distance in statistics. Proc Nat Inst Sci India 12:49–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Merila J (1997) Quantitative trait and allozyme divergence in the greenfinch Carduelis chloris, Aves: Fringillidae. Biol J Linn Soc 61:243–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller RG (1981) Simultaneous statistical inference. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitton JB (1995) Enzyme heterozygosity and developmental stability. Acta Theriol Suppl 3:33–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Oosterhout C, Hutchinson B, Wills D, Shipley P (2003) MicroChecker version 2.2.3. URL www. Microchecker.hull.ac.uk/

  • Palo JU, O´Hara RB, Laugen AT, Laurila A, Primmer CR, Merilä J (2003) Latitudinal divergence of common frog Rana temporaria life history traits by natural selection: evidence from a comparison of molecular and quantitative genetic data. Mol Ecol 12:1963–1978

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peripato AC, De Brito RA, Matioli SR, Pletscher LS, Vaughn TT, Cheverud JM (2004) Epistasis affecting litter size in mice. J Evol Biol 17:593–602

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pertoldi C, García-Perea R, Godoy A, Delibes M, Loeschcke V (2006) Morphological consequences of range fragmentation and population decline on the endangered Iberian lynx Lynx pardinus.. J Zool 268:73–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasband W (2001) ImageJ. A program for image processing and analysis in Java. URL http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/

  • Reed DH, Frankham R (2003) Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv Biol 17:230–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice WR (1989) Analysing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers AR, Harpending HC (1983) Population structure and quantitative characters. Genetics 105:985–1002

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rohlf FJ, Slice D (1990) Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Sys Zool 39:40–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sgró CM, Partridge L (2000) Evolutionary responses of the life history of wild-caught Drosophila melanogaster to two standard methods of laboratory culture. Am Nat 156:341–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spitze K (1993) Population structure in Daphnia obtusa: quantitative genetic and allozymic variation. Genetics 135:367–374

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods RE, Sgró CM, Hercus MJ, Hoffmann AA (1999) The association between fluctuating asymmetry, trait variability, trait heritability and stress: a multiply replicated experiment on combined stresses in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 53:493–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (1951) The genetical structure of populations. Ann Eugenic 15:323–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical Analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jørgen Bundgaard for providing the Masca flies and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments. The work was supported by grants from the Villum Kann Rasmussen Foundation (VKR-05-024) and Oticon Foundation (03-1397) to Ditte Holm Andersen and by grants from the Danish Research Agency (21-01-0526, 21-03-0125 and 272-06-0053) and the Marie Curie Fellowship of the European Community Host Development program under contract number HPMD-CT-2000–00009 to Cino Pertoldi, and support to Valerio Scali by the Canziani Bequest and MIUR. (Ministero Industria Universitá Ricerca).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Biologia Evoluzionistica Sperimentale, Via Selmi 3, Bologna, 40126, Italy

    Ditte Holm Andersen, Sandro Cavicchi & Valerio Scali

  2. Department of Ecology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade, Building 1540, Aarhus C, 8000, Denmark

    Ditte Holm Andersen, Cino Pertoldi & Volker Loeschcke

  3. Department of Wildlife Ecology and Biodiversity, National Environmental Research Institute, Kalø Grenåvej 14, Ronde, 8410, Denmark

    Cino Pertoldi

Authors
  1. Ditte Holm Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cino Pertoldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Volker Loeschcke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sandro Cavicchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Valerio Scali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ditte Holm Andersen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andersen, D.H., Pertoldi, C., Loeschcke, V. et al. Divergence at neutral and non-neutral loci in Drosophila buzzatii populations and their hybrids. Evol Ecol 22, 593–605 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-007-9184-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-007-9184-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation