Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Research Article

Evolutionary genomics of inversions in Drosophila pseudoobscura: Evidence for epistasis

Stephen W. Schaeffer, M. Paula Goetting-Minesky, Miro Kovacevic, John R. Peoples, Jennifer L. Graybill, Jonathan M. Miller, Kyungsun Kim, Julie G. Nelson, and Wyatt W. Anderson
PNAS July 8, 2003 100 (14) 8319-8324; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1432900100
Stephen W. Schaeffer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Paula Goetting-Minesky
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Miro Kovacevic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John R. Peoples
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer L. Graybill
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jonathan M. Miller
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kyungsun Kim
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julie G. Nelson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wyatt W. Anderson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Contributed by Wyatt W. Anderson, May 14, 2003

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Drosophila pseudoobscura harbors a rich polymorphism for paracentric inversions on the third chromosome, and the clines in the inversion frequencies across the southwestern United States indicate that strong natural selection operates on them. Isogenic inversion strains were made from isofemale lines collected from four localities, and eight molecular markers were mapped on the third chromosome. Nucleotide diversity was measured for these loci and formed the basis of an evolutionary genomic analysis. The loci were differentiated among inversions. The inversions did not show significant differences among populations, however, likely the result of extensive gene flow among populations. Some loci had significant reductions in nucleotide diversity within inversions compared with interspecies divergence, suggesting that these loci are near inversion breakpoints or are near targets of directional selection. Linkage disequilibrium (LD) levels tended to decrease with distance between loci, indicating that some genetic exchange occurs among gene arrangements despite the presence of inversions. In some cases, however, adjacent genes had low levels of interlocus LD and loosely linked genes had high levels of interlocus LD, suggesting strong epistatic selection. Our results support the hypothesis that the inversions of D. pseudoobscura have emerged as suppressors of recombination to maintain positive epistatic relationships among loci within gene arrangements that developed as the species adapted to a heterogeneous environment.

The third chromosome of Drosophila pseudoobscura is polymorphic for >30 gene arrangements that resulted from of a series of overlapping inversions. Ten of the gene arrangements are abundant and widely distributed within North American D. pseudoobscura populations (1). The other gene arrangements are rare endemics. Frequencies of the common gene arrangements vary among populations forming stable clines across variable environments (2, 3). The gene arrangement frequencies also show seasonal cycling in some populations (4). Population cage experiments show that multiple inversions can be maintained at stable intermediate frequencies (5). Adaptive selection appears to maintain the inversion polymorphism, but the exact gene targets of selection are unknown.

Adaptive selection can leave one of two signatures on a gene region through genetic hitchhiking. Directional selection can reduce levels of polymorphism through the rapid fixation of a new adaptive mutation. Balancing selection can increase levels of polymorphism when two or more alleles are maintained longer than expected under a neutral model (6). The size of the region affected by genetic hitchhiking depends on the strength of selection, the magnitude of recombination, and the effective population size. Strong selection or low recombination rates will increase the size of the region affected by hitchhiking, whereas weak selection and high recombination rates will decrease the size of the region affected by hitchhiking (7).

Mapping the genetic targets of selection on the third chromosome may be difficult because paracentric inversions suppress recombination (8) and most D. pseudoobscura populations are extremely heterozygous for gene arrangements. Over 50% of the individuals within most D. pseudoobscura populations are expected to be heterozygous given chromosome frequency estimates over the last half century (9). Given this level of heterozygosity, adaptive selection acting on one or more genes within the inversions are likely to leave footprints on large segments of third chromosome through genetic hitchhiking.

Dobzhansky (10) proposed that the gene arrangements were coadapted based on the fitness of gene arrangement karyotypes in population cages (11, 12). Futuyma (13) summarized Dobzhansky's concept of coadaptation as a “... system of genes that act harmoniously within a local population, but act disharmoniously when combined with genes from other populations.” There are two components of this model. First, the gene arrangements of a local population would maintain allelic combinations at sets of mutually interacting loci whose epistatic interactions increase fitness. Second, genetic exchange among chromosomes from different populations would disrupt locally adapted gene complexes and generate fewer fit genotypes. The presence of paracentric inversions would suppress recombination and help to maintain positive epistatic interactions (8).

Allozyme variation on the third chromosome supported the predictions of the coadaptation model (14–16) in that particular inversions did have unique combinations of alleles in different populations. Most inversions had a diagnostic protein allele, although other low-frequency alleles were observed to be segregating within an inversion background. The allozyme data, however, did not provide conclusive support for coadaptation because only two loci had samples taken from multiple populations and major allele frequency differences were observed only for populations with small sample sizes. The origin of new alleles tended to be concordant with the cytogenetic phylogeny (Fig. 1; refs. 2, 17, and 18), but some alleles were shared between more distantly related inversions rather than with the most recent common ancestor.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Cytogenetic phylogeny of the paracentric inversions of D. pseudoobscura (2). The numbered cytogenetic subdivisions and the position of the eight gene regions are shown for the standard chromosome. The seven gene arrangements shown on the phylogeny are related to adjacent ones by single paracentric inversion events. The rearranged segment is shown in the ancestral (brackets) and derived (boxes) gene arrangement. The Tree Line (TL) chromosome is assumed to be the ancestral gene arrangement (18), and the arrows on the phylogeny point from the ancestral to the derived chromosome.

Nucleotide sequence analysis of the amylase locus, a gene that maps within most inverted regions, showed that the inversions were monophyletic, that the polymorphism is >2 million years old, and that the cytogenetic and molecular phylogenies were concordant (19). High levels of linkage disequilibrium (LD) were observed between restriction sites in the amylase region (19), although earlier theoretical analysis of the allozyme studies had shown that these associations should have decayed given the age of the polymorphism (20). Inversions sampled from different populations were quite similar at amylase, which was contrary to the coadaptation model, but the sample sizes were too small to rigorously test for differentiation among populations.

We present here an evolutionary genomic analysis of eight genes on the third chromosome of D. pseudoobscura. Strains of D. pseudoobscura were collected from four populations that span an east–west inversion cline in the southwestern United States (21). The two components of the coadaptation model were tested by asking whether genes are differentiated among gene arrangements and whether genes within an inversion type are differentiated among populations. We tested for epistatic interactions with an analysis of LD within and between loci. Finally, nucleotide diversity within the eight loci was tested for departures from selective neutrality.

Materials and Methods

Fly Strains and DNA Extraction. Isofemale lines of D. pseudoobscura were collected from four locations that span an east–west cline in inversion frequency during July of 1998: Mount Saint Helena, CA; James Reserve, CA; Kaibab National Forest, AZ; and Davis Mountains, TX. The third chromosome of each strain was made isogenic with the balanced lethal method (22). The inversion carried by each strain was diagnosed through inspection of polytene chromosomes in salivary squashes. Genomic DNA was extracted from single flies (23). The Drosophila miranda strain, SP295, was kindly provided by Soojin Yi (University of Chicago, Chicago) for use as an outgroup in the studies of D. pseudoobscura polymorphisms.

Nucleotide Sequencing. The eight gene regions were sequenced in 89–109 isochromosomal strains of D. pseudoobscura. PCR primers were designed to amplify 339- to 517-bp regions that were sequenced originally in D. melanogaster or D. pseudoobscura: engrailed (en) (24), exuperantia 1 (exu 1) (25), vestigial (vg) (26), amylase 1 (Amy 1) (27), even skipped (eve) (28), myocyte enhancing factor 2 (mef 2) (29), F6 (30), and Ecdysone receptor (EcR) (31). The gene regions sequenced included coding and noncoding sequences (see PCR Primers and Regions Sequenced in Supporting Text, and Table 3 and Fig. 3, which are published as supporting information on the PNAS web site, www.pnas.org), except for the F6 region, which was all noncoding sequence. The F6 region was isolated with a D. melanogaster Amy probe and has been shown to be homologous to the Amy region of D. melanogaster, while the D. pseudoobscura Amy gene has transposed to a new location that corresponds to 41E on the D. melanogaster cytological map (unpublished data). Each gene was amplified with PCR and sequenced (32) either on an Applied Biosystems 373 automated sequencer with PRISM dye terminator chemistry or a Beckman Coulter CEQ 2000 with the DTCS kit. Each DNA fragment was sequenced on both strands, and the conflicts between strands were resolved with the SEQMANII program (DNASTAR, Madison, WI).

Physical Mapping. The eight gene regions were localized to sections on polytene chromosomes with in situ hybridization (33). In situ hybridization of each marker was performed on multiple inversions to verify the subsection localization on the D. pseudoobscura cytogenetic map.

Nucleotide Sequence Alignment and Analysis. The MEGALIGN program (DNASTAR, Madison, WI) was used to manually align the nucleotide sequences of each gene. Any nucleotide site containing two or more base pairs in the population was considered as a segregating site. Indel polymorphisms were excluded from all analyses. One strain, DM1012PP, had a large deletion within the vg locus that removed >50% of the aligned sequence and was excluded from all vg analyses. Molecular evolutionary genetic analyses were conducted by using MEGA 2.1 (34) or DNASP 3.50 (35). The expected values and confidence intervals for nucleotide heterozygosity across inversions, as well as levels of LD, were determined by using a coalescence approach (see Coalescent Simulations in Supporting Text, and ref. 36).

LD Analysis. Fisher's exact test (37) was used to test pairs of variable sites within and between third chromosomal loci for significant LD. We concatenated the aligned sequences from the eight gene regions of 62 strains to test for intra- and interlocus LD. Only comparisons of sites capable of generating a significant result with Fisher's exact test were performed (38). A sequential Bonferroni correction was used to overcome the problem of making multiple pairwise comparisons (39).

Results

Nucleotide Heterozygosity and Divergence. Nucleotide heterozygosity can be estimated either from the number of pairwise differences π (40–42), or from the number of segregating sites Θ (43). The heterozygosity estimate based on pairwise differences is sensitive to different selective and demographic processes. The estimates of silent site heterozygosity within each gene arrangement, among all gene arrangements, and the average divergence between D. pseudoobscura and D. miranda are shown in Table 1. Heterozygosity estimates across all gene arrangements were consistent with the maximum estimate of Θ within inversions based on coalescent simulations.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1. Silent site heterozygosity and divergence in eight genes located on the third chromosome of D. pseudoobscura

Heterozygosity was estimated within inversions to determine whether nucleotide diversity is reduced, indicating recent adaptive selection on single inversions or, if genetic variation is elevated, indicating genetic exchange and/or balancing selection. Some loci individually showed a significant excess or deficiency of heterozygosity (Θ) relative to the estimate of Θ from the total sample (Table 1). None of the loci showed an excess or deficiency of polymorphism within the AR arrangement. PP had an excess of heterozygosity based on segregating sites in the F6 locus. The en locus had an excess of polymorphism within the ST arrangement. The en, vg, eve, F6, and EcR loci had an excess of diversity in the CH gene arrangement. The TL arrangement had a deficiency of variation in eve and EcR, whereas the en, vg, Amy 1, and mef 2 loci had an excess of nucleotide diversity.

Estimates of divergence between D. miranda and any of the five D. pseudoobscura gene arrangements were not significantly different for any of the genes except vg. At vg, the divergence of D. miranda to D. pseudoobscura PP alleles was significantly less than the divergence of D. miranda to the four other D. pseudoobscura inversion types.

Tests of Selective Neutrality. We used two approaches to test variation at the eight loci for departures from an equilibrium neutral model. The Tajima (44) D test statistic is the difference of two heterozygosity estimates, one based on pairwise differences (π) and the other on segregating sites (Θ). If D is negative, there is a significant excess of rare variants, suggesting purifying selection or population expansion. Alternatively, if D is positive, there is an excess of intermediate frequency variants, indicating balancing selection or recent population contraction or bottle-neck. Most loci (73.7%) within gene arrangements had a negative Tajima's D, indicating an excess of rare variants, but only two cases had a significant negative D (vg with CH and mef 2 within ST; see Estimates of Tajima's D Within Gene Arrangements in Supporting Text, and Table 4, which are published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). Estimates of Tajima's D across all gene arrangements also tended to show an excess of rare variants in all gene regions, but only exu 1 and EcR had a significant excess of rare variants (Table 1).

We used the Hudson, Kreitman, and Aguadé (6) test to determine whether the polymorphism to divergence ratio is similar between a test locus and a neutrally evolving locus. If the ratio is greater in the test locus, then balancing selection is implicated. On the other hand, if the ratio is lower for the test locus, then directional selection is suggested. Silent polymorphism within D. pseudoobscura and divergence between D. pseudoobscura and D. miranda across all gene arrangements were used for the test. Silent variation at the alcohol dehydrogenase locus on the fourth chromosome of D. pseudoobscura (45) was used as the neutral locus for comparisons with each of the eight third chromosomal loci. The eight loci failed to reject a neutral model in HKA tests when variation was estimated for the pooled chromosome types. We also performed the HKA test on the eight loci within each inversion. The vg and mef 2 loci within AR, the exu 1 and Amy 1 locus within PP, the exu 1 and eve locus within ST, and the eve and EcR loci within TL each showed a significant deficiency of polymorphism relative to divergence (see Tables 5–10, which are published as supporting information on the PNAS web site, for all HKA results).

Genetic Differentiation Within and Among Inversions. Coadaptation predicts that genes will be different between inversions and within inversions sampled from different populations. We used a random permutation method to test the eight third chromosomal genes for significant differentiation among gene arrangements (46). Genes within inverted regions showed significant differentiation among gene arrangements, whereas nearly all genes outside inverted regions failed to reject genetic similarity (Table 2). There were two exceptions. exu 1 is outside the region inverted between ST and AR, but it is significantly differentiated. F6 is within the inverted segments between CH and TL, but it failed to show significant genetic differentiation. Only genes within inverted regions had fixed differences among gene arrangements, whereas no fixed differences were found in genes outside inverted segments. Thus, the first prediction of coadaptation is met.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2. Tests for genetic differentiation (Z*) at eight gene regions on the third chromosome

The AR and ST arrangements were tested for significant genetic differentiation among populations. We failed to find evidence for significant differentiation among the four populations sampled within the AR gene arrangement or between the two populations within the ST arrangement with the random permutation test (46). The neutral migration parameter Nm was estimated from Fst in the AR and ST arrangements, where N is the effective population size and m is the migration rate (47). When Nm is ≥1, gene flow is sufficient to prevent genetic differentiation at all loci in the genome (48). The Nm value estimated for the eight concatenated genes in the ST and AR gene arrangements was 4.5 and 9.5 migrants per generation, respectively. Thus, the second prediction of coadaptation is not met.

LD Among Loci. Strong epistatic selection will maintain nonrandom associations or LD among genetic variants. Pairs of segregating sites across all gene arrangements were tested for significant LD. A total of 7,140 of the possible 31,347 pairwise comparisons of the 238 segregating sites were capable of rejecting the null hypothesis of no association with Fisher's exact test (49). Over one-fourth or 65 segregating sites showed a significant association with at least one other polymorphic site within or between loci. A total of 302 of 7,140 valid comparisons, or 4.2%, were in significant LD (Fig. 2) when the sequential Bonferroni correction was applied to account for multiple tests. This fraction of sites in significant LD is greater than that in alcohol dehydrogenase on the fourth chromosome (0.2%, P < 0.0001; ref. 50) or among five genes across the X chromosome (0.5%, P < 0.0001; ref. 51), but is less than expected assuming no recombination among the inversions in coalescent simulations (95% confidence interval, 20.3–79.8%).

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Significant LD among pairs of segregating sites in eight gene regions from the third chromosome of D. pseudoobscura with a sequential Bonferroni correction (39). The heavy lines delineate intra- and interlocus comparisons. Comparisons of each site with the five gene arrangements are shown at the bottom.

We partitioned the tests for significant LD into intra- and interlocus site comparisons. A total of 12.9% of intralocus site comparisons were significantly associated, while 2.8% of interlocus site comparisons were in significant LD (intralocus, 131 significant of 1,016 valid comparisons; interlocus, 171 significant of 6,124 valid comparisons; Fig. 2). We measured the strength of LD with r2, the square of the correlation of gene frequencies (52). The average value of r2 for intralocus comparisons was 0.670, whereas r2 for interlocus comparisons was 0.515. Interlocus percentages of significant LD were greatest when nucleotide sites were within inverted regions. exu 1 locus did not exhibit any significant interlocus LD, although exu 1 is within the inverted regions of most gene arrangements.

Interlocus LD did not always decrease with distance. Amy 1 and eve are separated by an average of four subsections on the cytological map, yet 1.6% of the site comparisons between these loci are in significant LD, which is less than the mean percentage of significant LD among loci. In contrast, 15.8 subsections on the cytological map separate vg and mef 2, yet 8.6% of the site comparisons are in significant LD, the maximum observed among loci (Fig. 2; and see Analysis of Interlocus LD in Supporting Text, and Fig. 4, which are published as supporting information on the PNAS web site).

Segregating sites within gene arrangements were tested for significant LD. A total of 16 of 1,932 valid comparisons (0.8%) within the AR arrangement were in significant LD, a proportion that is much less than what was seen across all gene arrangements. The four other gene arrangements failed to show any significant associations, but these results should be viewed with caution because the power to detect significant associations is low given the small sample sizes of PP, ST, CH, and TL (6–18).

We tested the 238 segregating sites for significant LD with the AR, PP, ST, CH, and TL arrangements (Fig. 2). A total of 375 of the possible 1,260 comparisons could reject the null hypothesis of no association with Fisher's exact test (37). Of the 375 comparisons, 58 sites, or 15.5%, showed a significant association with at least one of the gene arrangements (Fig. 2). Associations of nucleotide sites with gene arrangements were greatest for genes that had the highest probability of being within inverted segments. The en locus is only within one inverted segment (PP), and 4.4% of the en sites showed significant LD with the PP arrangement. Alternatively, Amy 1 is within the inverted region of all arrangements, and 21.2% of the Amy 1 sites showed nonrandom associations with at least one of five gene arrangements (Fig. 2).

The D. miranda sequences were used to infer the ancestral or derived states of segregating sites that were in significant LD. Our naïve expectation was that all significant linkage disequilibria would result from an excess of repulsion versus coupling phase gametes, i.e., the frequency of ancestral–derived and derived–ancestral gametes would be greater than ancestral–ancestral and derived–derived gametes because new mutations would not tend to co-occur on the same chromosome. The ancestral and derived states could be inferred for both sites in 278 of 302 significant LD comparisons. Pairs of sites in significant LD tended to be in coupling rather than repulsion phase (180 coupling phase gametes of 302 total tests, or 59.6%). The coalescent simulations, however, showed that the observed fraction of coupling phase gametes was close to the mean (63.8%) and well within the 95% confidence interval (50.1–95.2%). This result is likely to be due to the co-occurrence of derived mutations on the genealogical branches near the origin of common inversion types. The frequency of coupling gametes was significantly greater for intralocus comparisons (76.3%) than for interlocus comparisons (46.8%) (Fisher's exact test, P < 0.0001). Coalescent simulations show that these fractions would be expected to be equal, indicating that recombination has reduced coupling-phase gametes in interlocus comparisons.

Discussion

The Nature of Coadaptation in the D. pseudoobscura Gene Arrangements. The coadaptation model (10) makes two predictions about genetic variation within and between the D. pseudoobscura gene arrangements. The first prediction, that genetic loci will be differentiated among gene arrangements, was supported by our data (Table 2). Genes near breakpoints or within inverted regions are differentiated most likely because reduced genetic exchange leads to an accumulation of nucleotide differences among inversions (53). The only exception is the F6 region, which lies within the inverted segments of CH and TL, yet is not differentiated. Genetic exchange in regions outside of inverted regions in the en and EcR loci has probably prevented genetic differentiation.

The second prediction, that genetic loci within individual gene arrangements would be differentiated among populations, was not supported by the eight loci examined in this study (Table 2). Two pieces of evidence suggest that gene flow promotes the free exchange of gene arrangements among populations and limits genetic differentiation within populations. First, there was no evidence of differentiation of AR chromosomes among the four populations, and second, LD levels were low within the AR chromosome. If each population had unique AR haplotypes that were adapted to each microhabitat, then one would expect significant genetic differentiation and high LD levels. Migration parameter estimates from third chromosomal loci within the AR arrangement are consistent with previous gene flow estimates for genes on the X, second, and fourth chromosome that suggest extensive gene flow in this species (51, 54, 55).

It is possible that gene arrangements are differentiated among geographic populations, but we could not detect these differences for biological or statistical reasons. The possible reasons are that the fitness effects associated with coadaptation are due to many loci, each with small effect, the regions examined in this study are not at or near a target of epistatic selection, or the statistical tests of differentiation and LD had low power. We increased the power of the differentiation test by concatenating loci within inverted regions, which increases the number of segregating sites, but still failed to find significant genetic differences among the population. Studies of nucleotide diversity in more gene regions within inversions will be necessary to find targets of coadaptation.

Evidence for Selection in Heterogeneous Environments. The inversions may have arisen in D. pseudoobscura as the species expanded its range and adapted to the diverse environments of western North America (56). Recombination modifiers that raise the level of genetic exchange will increase in a species that is adapting to a heterogeneous environment and when beneficial mutations are in repulsion phase. On the other hand, modifiers that lower recombination rates will increase in populations if beneficial mutations are in coupling phase (57).

D. pseudoobscura appears to have recently expanded its range and rapidly increased its population size (45, 51, 58). Allelic genealogies in an expanding population are expected to be more star-like, with many new mutations occurring on terminal branches resulting in negative Tajima's D values. Tajima's D is negative for all regions sampled on the third chromosome of D. pseudoobscura, providing further support for a range expansion and rapid population growth in D. pseudoobscura.

The nucleotide data from this study lead us to propose that D. pseudoobscura has acclimated to microhabitats in its current geographic range and that suppressors of recombination have emerged to maintain the positive epistatic gene combinations within the boundaries of the inversion breakpoints. The strongest evidence for epistatic selection in our data set is based on the low frequency of nonrandom associations among sites of closely linked loci (Amy 1 and eve) and the high fraction of nonrandom associations among sites in loosely linked loci (vg and mef 2). Studies of more gene regions are needed to determine the LD landscape of the third chromosome and the regions that show potential epistatic interactions.

Selection in heterogeneous environments does not require that gene arrangement diversity be maintained through over-dominance, but that karyotypic heterogeneity is maintained through an average heterosis over diverse microhabitats (59). The population structure of D. pseudoobscura is consistent with a selection in heterogeneous environments model because gene flow is sufficient to homogenize gene frequencies among populations (51, 54, 55). Thus, the selection that alters the frequencies of the third chromosome gene arrangements must be quite strong to counteract the homogenizing effects of migration. The basis for the selection may be related to the climatic shifts among western North American habitats because the gene arrangement frequencies shift with transitions among the major physiographic provinces that comprise D. pseudoobscura's geographic range (2). In this case, the average heterosis predicted by the Levene model has not elevated polymorphism at any of the D. pseudoobscura third chromosomal loci, indicating that the inversion polymorphism may be relatively young.

The study of eight gene regions on the third chromosome of D. pseudoobscura should be viewed as a preliminary glimpse into the pattern and organization of nucleotide diversity of these gene arrangements. The observation of low levels of genetic exchange among the gene arrangements refutes the hypothesis that each inversion type is effectively one superallele where all variation is in absolute LD, and demonstrates that we should be able to identify local gene regions subject to selection. The molecular basis of selection is unknown, but selection could operate either on gene expression or allelic differences among chromosomes. Gene expression differences can be assayed rapidly with microarray experiments, but choosing the loci in which to study allelic differences may be more problematic because individual inversions in D. pseudoobscura may have between 399 and 1,543 genes.

The data presented in this study support a model of coadaptation where genes along particular gene arrangements are maintained by epistatic selection. We have not discovered any genes within gene arrangements that support the local adaptation component of this model. Our study suggests that polymorphism and recombination levels within inversion are sufficient to detect local adaptation if it exists. It will be important to repeat Dobzhansky's population cage experiments with known strains, which can be characterized with mapping and functional studies if classical coadaptation is detected. The availability of the complete D. pseudoobscura genome sequence will greatly facilitate future experiments on the third chromosomal gene arrangements because it will be possible to define which genes are within inversion breakpoints and to characterize mapped selective targets with polymorphism or functional analyses.

Acknowledgments

We thank R. K. Selander for use of his ABI 373 automated sequencer; D. Sosnoski, J. Wood, and S. Primak for technical assistance; and H. Akashi, C. F. Aquadro, A. G. Clark, A. Dean, W. F. Eanes, R. R. Hudson, R. C. Lewontin, and S. P. Otto for helpful discussions. This material is based on work supported by National Science Foundation Grants 9726285 (to S.W.S.) and 9729144 (to W.W.A.).

Footnotes

    • ↵† To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University, 208 Erwin W. Mueller Laboratory, University Park, PA 16802-5301. E-mail: sws4{at}psu.edu.

    • Abbreviations: LD, linkage disequilibrium; AR, Arrowhead; CH, Chiricahua; PP, Pikes Peak; ST, Standard; TL, Tree Line.

    • Data deposition: The sequences reported in this paper have been deposited in the GenBank database (accession nos. AF476112–AF476921).

    • Copyright © 2003, The National Academy of Sciences

    References

    1. ↵
      Powell, J. R. (1992) in Drosophila Inversion Polymorphism, eds. Krimbas, C. B. & Powell, J. R. (CRC, Boca Raton, FL), pp. 73-126.
    2. ↵
      Dobzhansky, T. (1944) Carnegie Inst. Washington Publ. 554, 47-144.
      OpenUrl
    3. ↵
      Anderson, W. W. (1989) Genome 31, 239-245.pmid:2687095
      OpenUrlPubMed
    4. ↵
      Dobzhansky, T. (1943) Genetics 28, 162-186.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      Wright, S. & Dobzhansky, T. (1946) Genetics 31, 125-156.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    6. ↵
      Hudson, R. R., Kreitman, M. & Aguadé, M. (1987) Genetics 116, 153-159.pmid:3110004
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      Stephan, W., Wiehe, T. H. E. & Lenz, M. W. (1992) Theor. Popul. Biol. 41, 237-254.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    8. ↵
      Sturtevant, A. H. & Beadle, G. W. (1936) Genetics 21, 544-604.
      OpenUrl
    9. ↵
      Anderson, W. W., Arnold, J., Baldwin, D. G., Beckenbach, A. T., Brown, C. J., Bryant, S. H., Coyne, J. A., Harshman, L. G., Heed, W. B., Jeffrey, D. E., et al. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88, 10367-10371.pmid:1946458
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      Dobzhansky, T. (1949) Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Genetics, pp. 210-224.
    11. ↵
      Dobzhansky, T. (1948) Genetics 33, 588-602.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    12. ↵
      Dobzhansky, T. (1950) Genetics 35, 288-302.pmid:15414931
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      Futuyma, D. J. (1986) Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer, Sunderland, MA).
    14. ↵
      Prakash, S. & Lewontin, R. C. (1971) Genetics 69, 405-408.pmid:5136541
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    15. Prakash, S. & Lewontin, R. C. (1968) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 59, 398-405.pmid:5238972
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      Prakash, S. (1976) Genetics 84, 787-790.pmid:1010314
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    17. ↵
      Sturtevant, A. H. & Dobzhansky, T. (1936) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 22, 448-450.pmid:16577723
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    18. ↵
      Popadic, A. & Anderson, W. W. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91, 6819-6823.pmid:7518922
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      Aquadro, C. F., Weaver, A. L., Schaeffer, S. W. & Anderson, W. W. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88, 305-309.pmid:1702542
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      Ishii, K. & Charlesworth, B. (1977) Genet. Res. 30, 93-106.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    21. ↵
      Dobzhansky, T. & Epling, C. (1944) in Contributions to the Genetics, Taxonomy, and Ecology of Drosophila pseudoobscura and Its Relatives, eds. Dobzhansky, T. & Epling, C. (The Lord Baltimore Press, Baltimore), pp. 1-46.
    22. ↵
      Dobzhansky, T. & Queal, M. L. (1938) Genetics 23, 463-484.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    23. ↵
      Gloor, G. & Engels, W. (1992) Drosophila Inf. Serv. 71, 148-149.
      OpenUrl
    24. ↵
      Poole, S. J., Kauvar, L. M., Drees, B. & Kornberg, T. (1985) Cell 40, 37-43.pmid:3917855
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    25. ↵
      Luk, S. K.-S., Kilpatrick, M., Kerr, K. & Macdonald, P. M. (1994) Genetics 137, 521-530.pmid:8070663
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      Williams, J. A., Bell, J. B. & Carroll, S. B. (1991) Genes Dev. 5, 2481-2495.pmid:1752439
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    27. ↵
      Popadic, A. & Anderson, W. W. (1995) Mol. Biol. Evol. 12, 564-572.pmid:7659012
      OpenUrlAbstract
    28. ↵
      MacDonald, P. M., Ingham, P. & Struhl, G. (1986) Cell 47, 721-734.pmid:2877745
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. ↵
      Lilly, B., Zhao, B., Ranganayakulu, G., Paterson, B. M., Schulz, R. A. & Olson, E. N. (1995) Science 267, 688-693.pmid:7839146
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    30. ↵
      Bernhardt, M. J. (1997) in Genetics (Univ. of Georgia, Athens), pp. 69.pmid:9136001
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    31. ↵
      Koelle, M. R., Talbot, W. S., Segraves, W. A., Bender, M. T., Cherbas, P. & Hogness, D. S. (1991) Cell 67, 59-77.pmid:1913820
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    32. ↵
      Saiki, R. K., Gelfand, D. H., Stoffel, S., Scharf, S. J., Higuchi, R., Horn, G. T., Mullis, K. B. & Ehrlich, H. A. (1988) Science 239, 487-491.pmid:2448875
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. ↵
      Langer, P. R., Waldrop, A. A. & Ward, D. C. (1981) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78, 6633-6637.pmid:6273878
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      Kumar, S., Tamura, K., Jakobsen, I. B. & Nei, M. (2001) Bioinformatics 17, 1244-1245.pmid:11751241
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    35. ↵
      Rozas, J. & Rozas, R. (1999) Bioinformatics 15, 174-175.pmid:10089204
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    36. ↵
      Hudson, R. R. (1990) Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol. 7, 1-44.
      OpenUrl
    37. ↵
      Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. (1981) Biometry (Freeman, New York).
    38. ↵
      Lewontin, R. C. (1995) Genetics 140, 377-388.pmid:7635301
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    39. ↵
      Rice, W. R. (1989) Evolution (Lawrence, Kans.) 43, 223-225.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    40. ↵
      Nei, M. (1987) Molecular Evolutionary Genetics (Columbia Univ. Press, New York).
    41. ↵
      Tajima, F. (1983) Genetics 105, 437-460.pmid:6628982
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    42. ↵
      Tajima, F. (1993) in Mechanisms of Molecular Evolution, eds. Takahata, N. & Clark, A. G. (Sinauer, Sunderland, MA), pp. 37-59.
    43. ↵
      Watterson, G. A. (1975) Theor. Popul. Biol. 7, 256-276.pmid:1145509
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    44. ↵
      Tajima, F. (1989) Genetics 123, 585-595.pmid:2513255
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    45. ↵
      Schaeffer, S. W., Walthour, C. S., Toleno, D. M., Olek, A. T. & Miller, E. L. (2001) Genetics 159, 673-687.pmid:11606543
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    46. ↵
      Hudson, R. R., Boos, D. D. & Kaplan, N. L. (1992) Mol. Biol. Evol. 9, 138-151.pmid:1552836
      OpenUrlAbstract
    47. ↵
      Nei, M. (1982) in Human Genetics Part A: The Unfolding Genome, eds. Bonne-Tamir, B., Cohen, T. & Goodman, R. M. (Liss, New York), pp. 167-181.
    48. ↵
      Wright, S. (1931) Genetics 16, 97-159.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    49. ↵
      Sokal, R. R., Oden, N. L., Legendre, P., Fortin, M.-J., Kim, J., Thomson, B. A., Vaudor, A., Harding, R. M. & Barbujani, G. (1990) Am. Nat. 135, 157-175.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    50. ↵
      Schaeffer, S. W. & Miller, E. L. (1993) Genetics 135, 541-552.pmid:8244013
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    51. ↵
      Kovacevic, M. & Schaeffer, S. W. (2000) Genetics 156, 155-172.pmid:10978282
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    52. ↵
      Hill, W. G. & Robertson, A. (1968) Theor. Appl. Genet. 38, 226-231.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    53. ↵
      Navarro, A., Barbadilla, A. & Ruiz, A. (2000) Genetics 155, 685-698.pmid:10835391
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    54. ↵
      Riley, M. A., Hallas, M. E. & Lewontin, R. C. (1989) Genetics 123, 359-369.pmid:2583480
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    55. ↵
      Schaeffer, S. W. & Miller, E. L. (1992) Genetics 132, 471-480.pmid:1427038
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    56. ↵
      Epling, C. (1944) in Contributions to the Genetics, Taxonomy, and Ecology of Drosophila pseudoobscura and Its Relatives, eds. Dobzhansky, T. & Epling, C. (The Lord Baltimore Press, Baltimore), pp. 145-183.
    57. ↵
      Otto, S. P. & Barton, N. H. (2001) Evolution (Lawrence, Kans.) 55, 1921-1931.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    58. ↵
      Hamblin, M. T. & Aquadro, C. F. (1999) Genetics 153, 859-869.pmid:10511563
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    59. ↵
      Levene, H. (1953) Am. Nat. 87, 311-313.
      OpenUrl
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    Article Alerts
    Email Article

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Evolutionary genomics of inversions in Drosophila pseudoobscura: Evidence for epistasis
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Citation Tools
    Evolutionary genomics of inversions in Drosophila pseudoobscura: Evidence for epistasis
    Stephen W. Schaeffer, M. Paula Goetting-Minesky, Miro Kovacevic, John R. Peoples, Jennifer L. Graybill, Jonathan M. Miller, Kyungsun Kim, Julie G. Nelson, Wyatt W. Anderson
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2003, 100 (14) 8319-8324; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1432900100

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Request Permissions
    Share
    Evolutionary genomics of inversions in Drosophila pseudoobscura: Evidence for epistasis
    Stephen W. Schaeffer, M. Paula Goetting-Minesky, Miro Kovacevic, John R. Peoples, Jennifer L. Graybill, Jonathan M. Miller, Kyungsun Kim, Julie G. Nelson, Wyatt W. Anderson
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2003, 100 (14) 8319-8324; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1432900100
    Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Mendeley logo Mendeley
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 100 (14)
    Table of Contents

    Submit

    Sign up for Article Alerts

    Jump to section

    • Article
      • Abstract
      • Materials and Methods
      • Results
      • Discussion
      • Acknowledgments
      • Footnotes
      • References
    • Figures & SI
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF

    You May Also be Interested in

    Surgeons hands during surgery
    Inner Workings: Advances in infectious disease treatment promise to expand the pool of donor organs
    Despite myriad challenges, clinicians see room for progress.
    Image credit: Shutterstock/David Tadevosian.
    Setting sun over a sun-baked dirt landscape
    Core Concept: Popular integrated assessment climate policy models have key caveats
    Better explicating the strengths and shortcomings of these models will help refine projections and improve transparency in the years ahead.
    Image credit: Witsawat.S.
    Double helix
    Journal Club: Noncoding DNA shown to underlie function, cause limb malformations
    Using CRISPR, researchers showed that a region some used to label “junk DNA” has a major role in a rare genetic disorder.
    Image credit: Nathan Devery.
    Steamboat Geyser eruption.
    Eruption of Steamboat Geyser
    Mara Reed and Michael Manga explore why Yellowstone's Steamboat Geyser resumed erupting in 2018.
    Listen
    Past PodcastsSubscribe
    Birds nestling on tree branches
    Parent–offspring conflict in songbird fledging
    Some songbird parents might improve their own fitness by manipulating their offspring into leaving the nest early, at the cost of fledgling survival, a study finds.
    Image credit: Gil Eckrich (photographer).

    Similar Articles

    Site Logo
    Powered by HighWire
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS Feeds
    • Email Alerts

    Articles

    • Current Issue
    • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
    • List of Issues

    PNAS Portals

    • Anthropology
    • Chemistry
    • Classics
    • Front Matter
    • Physics
    • Sustainability Science
    • Teaching Resources

    Information

    • Authors
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewers
    • Librarians
    • Press
    • Site Map
    • PNAS Updates

    Feedback    Privacy/Legal

    Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490