Cited by 249

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The genetic architecture necessary for transgressive segregation is common in both natural and domesticated populations

Rieseberg, Loren H., Widmer, Alex, Arntz, A. Michele, Burke, Burke·2003·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Segregating hybrids often exhibit phenotypes that are extreme or novel relative to the parental lines. This phenomenon is referred to as transgressive segregation, and it provides a mechanism by which hybridization might contribute to adaptive evolution. Genetic studies indicate that transgressive segregation typically results from recombination between parental taxa that possess quantitative trait loci (QTLs) with antagonistic effects (i.e. QTLs with effects that are in the opposite direction to parental differences for those traits). To assess whether this genetic architecture is common, we tabulated the direction of allelic effects for 3252 QTLs from 749 traits and 96 studies. Most traits (63.6%) had at least one antagonistic QTL, indicating that the genetic substrate for transgressive segregation is common. Plants had significantly more antagonistic QTLs than animals, which agrees with previous reports that transgressive segregation is more common in plants than in animals. Likewise, antagonistic QTLs were more frequent in intra– than in interspecific crosses and in morphological than in physiological traits. These results indicate that transgressive segregation provides a general mechanism for the production of extreme phenotypes at both above and below the species level and testify to the possible creative part of hybridization in adaptive evolution and speciation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2003.1283

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Anderson E. 1949 Introgressive hybridization. New York: Wiley. · DOI
  2. Arnold M. L. 1997 Natural hybridization and evolution. New York: Oxford University Press. · DOI
  3. 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2001.01216.x · DOI
  4. Beavis W. D., 1994, The power and deceit of QTL experiments: lessons from comparative QTL studies. In 49th A.l Corn Sorghum, Res. Conf., 250
  5. Box G. E. P., 1964, An analysis of transformations, J. R. Stat. Soc. B, 26, 211, 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1964.tb00553.x · DOI
  6. Bradshaw H. D., 1998, Quantitative trait loci affecting differences in floral morphology between two species of monkeyflower (Mimulus), Genetics, 149, 367, 10.1093/genetics/149.1.367 · DOI
  7. Coyne J. A., 1996, Genetics of a difference in male cuticular hydrocarbons between two sibling species, Drosophila simulans and D. sechellia, Genetics, 143, 1689, 10.1093/genetics/143.4.1689 · DOI
  8. de Vicente M. C., 1993, QTL analysis of transgressive segregation in an interspecific tomato cross, Genetics, 134, 585, 10.1093/genetics/134.2.585 · DOI
  9. 10.1073/pnas.93.10.5090 · DOI
  10. Grant V. 1975 Genetics of flowering plants 2nd edn. New York: Columbia University Press.
  11. Grant V. 1981 Plant speciation. New York: Columbia University Press. · DOI
  12. 10.1038/35091062 · DOI
  13. Laurie C. C., 1997, An introgression analysis of quantitative trait loci that contribute to a morphological difference between Drosophila simulans and D. mauritiana, Genetics, 145, 339, 10.1093/genetics/145.2.339 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1966.tb03369.x · DOI
  15. Lexer C. Welch M. Durphy J. L. & Rieseberg L. H. 2003a Natural selection for salt tolerance QTL in wild sunflower hybrids: implications for the origin of Helianthus paradoxus a homoploid hybrid species. Mol. Ecol. (In the press.) · DOI
  16. Lexer C. Welch M. Raymond O. & Rieseberg L. H. 2003b The origins of ecological divergence in Helianthus paradoxus (Asteraceae): selection on transgressive characters in a novel hybrid habitat. Evolution (In the press.) · DOI
  17. Liu B. H. 1998 Statistical genomics. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press.
  18. Noor M. A. F., 2001, Consequences of recombination rate variation on quantitative trait locus mapping studies: simulations based on the Drosophila melanogaster genome, Genetics, 159, 581, 10.1093/genetics/159.2.581 · DOI
  19. Orr H. A., 1998, Testing natural selection vs. genetic drift in phenotypic evolution using quantitative trait locus data, Genetics, 149, 2099, 10.1093/genetics/149.4.2099 · DOI
  20. 10.1146/annurev.genet.34.1.401 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.359 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Rieseberg L. H., 1993, What can morphological and molecular markers tell us about plant hybridization, Crit. Rev. Pl. Sci., 12, 213
  23. 10.1038/sj.hdy.6886170 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1073/pnas.192360899 · DOI
  25. 10.1086/339237 · DOI
  26. Stebbins G. L., 1959, The role of hybridization in evolution, Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., 103, 231
  27. 10.1126/science.277.5329.1063 · DOI
  28. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb03664.x · DOI
  29. 10.3732/ajb.89.3.472 · DOI
  30. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.0150041039.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rieseberg, L. H., Widmer, A., Arntz, A. M., & Burke, B.
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
2003-06-29
Volume
358
Issue
1434
Pages
1141-1147
ISSN
  • 0962-8436
  • 1471-2970
Cited by
249
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review