The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The genetic architecture necessary for transgressive segregation is common in both natural and domesticated populations
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Emergent phenotypic novelty in hybrids may drive new adaptations or speciation by breaking parental phenotypic constraints.
“Emergent phenotypic novelty in hybrids may in turn drive new adaptations or speciation by breaking parental phenotypic constraints.”
From Morphological Variation in Wild Marmosets (Callithrix penicillata and C. geoffroyi) and Their Hybrids (2014) · cites this paper as Rieseberg et al. 2003
Transgressive traits in hybrids are primarily due to the merger of parental genomes comprised of complementary genes with additive effects.
“Transgressive traits in hybrids are primarily due to the merger of parental genomes comprised of complementary genes with additive effects (Rieseberg et al. 1999, 2003).”
From Morphological Variation in Wild Marmosets (Callithrix penicillata and C. geoffroyi) and Their Hybrids (2014) · cites this paper as Rieseberg et al. 2003
Morphometric variation for the studied traits is consistent with Rieseberg's complementary allele model.
“suggesting that morphometric variation for the studied traits is consistent with Rieseberg's complementary allele model.”
From Morphological Variation in Wild Marmosets (Callithrix penicillata and C. geoffroyi) and Their Hybrids (2014) · cites this paper as Rieseberg et al. 2003
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
- Anderson E. 1949 Introgressive hybridization. New York: Wiley. · DOI
- Arnold M. L. 1997 Natural hybridization and evolution. New York: Oxford University Press. · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2001.01216.x · DOI
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 10.1073/pnas.93.10.5090 · DOI
- Grant V. 1975 Genetics of flowering plants 2nd edn. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Grant V. 1981 Plant speciation. New York: Columbia University Press. · DOI
- 10.1038/35091062 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1966.tb03369.x · DOI
- 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
- 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
- Liu B. H. 1998 Statistical genomics. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press.
- 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
- 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
- 10.1146/annurev.genet.34.1.401 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.359 · DOI · Paper page
- Rieseberg L. H., 1993, What can morphological and molecular markers tell us about plant hybridization, Crit. Rev. Pl. Sci., 12, 213
- 10.1038/sj.hdy.6886170 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1073/pnas.192360899 · DOI
- 10.1086/339237 · DOI
- Stebbins G. L., 1959, The role of hybridization in evolution, Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., 103, 231
- 10.1126/science.277.5329.1063 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb03664.x · DOI
- 10.3732/ajb.89.3.472 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.0150041039.x · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The landscape of genetic complexity across 5,700 gene expression traits in yeast
Brem, R. B., & Kruglyak, L. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0408709102 · Cited by 603
Fuzessy, L. F., Silva, I. D. O., Malukiewicz, J., Silva, F. F. R., Pônzio, M. D. C., Boere, V., & Ackermann, R. R. (2014) · Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1007/s11692-014-9284-5 · Cited by 51
Genomic analyses overturn two long-standing homoploid hybrid speciation hypotheses
Goulet‐Scott, B. E., Garner, A. G., & Hopkins, R. (2021) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/evo.14279 · Cited by 14
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
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- 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