@article{14556, abstract = {Inversions are structural mutations that reverse the sequence of a chromosome segment and reduce the effective rate of recombination in the heterozygous state. They play a major role in adaptation, as well as in other evolutionary processes such as speciation. Although inversions have been studied since the 1920s, they remain difficult to investigate because the reduced recombination conferred by them strengthens the effects of drift and hitchhiking, which in turn can obscure signatures of selection. Nonetheless, numerous inversions have been found to be under selection. Given recent advances in population genetic theory and empirical study, here we review how different mechanisms of selection affect the evolution of inversions. A key difference between inversions and other mutations, such as single nucleotide variants, is that the fitness of an inversion may be affected by a larger number of frequently interacting processes. This considerably complicates the analysis of the causes underlying the evolution of inversions. We discuss the extent to which these mechanisms can be disentangled, and by which approach.}, author = {Berdan, Emma L. and Barton, Nicholas H and Butlin, Roger and Charlesworth, Brian and Faria, Rui and Fragata, Inês and Gilbert, Kimberly J. and Jay, Paul and Kapun, Martin and Lotterhos, Katie E. and Mérot, Claire and Durmaz Mitchell, Esra and Pascual, Marta and Peichel, Catherine L. and Rafajlović, Marina and Westram, Anja M and Schaeffer, Stephen W. and Johannesson, Kerstin and Flatt, Thomas}, issn = {1420-9101}, journal = {Journal of Evolutionary Biology}, publisher = {Wiley}, title = {{How chromosomal inversions reorient the evolutionary process}}, doi = {10.1111/jeb.14242}, year = {2023}, } @article{12264, abstract = {Reproductive isolation (RI) is a core concept in evolutionary biology. It has been the central focus of speciation research since the modern synthesis and is the basis by which biological species are defined. Despite this, the term is used in seemingly different ways, and attempts to quantify RI have used very different approaches. After showing that the field lacks a clear definition of the term, we attempt to clarify key issues, including what RI is, how it can be quantified in principle, and how it can be measured in practice. Following other definitions with a genetic focus, we propose that RI is a quantitative measure of the effect that genetic differences between populations have on gene flow. Specifically, RI compares the flow of neutral alleles in the presence of these genetic differences to the flow without any such differences. RI is thus greater than zero when genetic differences between populations reduce the flow of neutral alleles between populations. We show how RI can be quantified in a range of scenarios. A key conclusion is that RI depends strongly on circumstances—including the spatial, temporal and genomic context—making it difficult to compare across systems. After reviewing methods for estimating RI from data, we conclude that it is difficult to measure in practice. We discuss our findings in light of the goals of speciation research and encourage the use of methods for estimating RI that integrate organismal and genetic approaches.}, author = {Westram, Anja M and Stankowski, Sean and Surendranadh, Parvathy and Barton, Nicholas H}, issn = {1420-9101}, journal = {Journal of Evolutionary Biology}, keywords = {Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics}, number = {9}, pages = {1143--1164}, publisher = {Wiley}, title = {{What is reproductive isolation?}}, doi = {10.1111/jeb.14005}, volume = {35}, year = {2022}, } @article{12265, author = {Westram, Anja M and Stankowski, Sean and Surendranadh, Parvathy and Barton, Nicholas H}, issn = {1420-9101}, journal = {Journal of Evolutionary Biology}, keywords = {Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics}, number = {9}, pages = {1200--1205}, publisher = {Wiley}, title = {{Reproductive isolation, speciation, and the value of disagreement: A reply to the commentaries on ‘What is reproductive isolation?’}}, doi = {10.1111/jeb.14082}, volume = {35}, year = {2022}, } @article{617, abstract = {Insects are exposed to a variety of potential pathogens in their environment, many of which can severely impact fitness and health. Consequently, hosts have evolved resistance and tolerance strategies to suppress or cope with infections. Hosts utilizing resistance improve fitness by clearing or reducing pathogen loads, and hosts utilizing tolerance reduce harmful fitness effects per pathogen load. To understand variation in, and selective pressures on, resistance and tolerance, we asked to what degree they are shaped by host genetic background, whether plasticity in these responses depends upon dietary environment, and whether there are interactions between these two factors. Females from ten wild-type Drosophila melanogaster genotypes were kept on high- or low-protein (yeast) diets and infected with one of two opportunistic bacterial pathogens, Lactococcus lactis or Pseudomonas entomophila. We measured host resistance as the inverse of bacterial load in the early infection phase. The relationship (slope) between fly fecundity and individual-level bacteria load provided our fecundity tolerance measure. Genotype and dietary yeast determined host fecundity and strongly affected survival after infection with pathogenic P. entomophila. There was considerable genetic variation in host resistance, a commonly found phenomenon resulting from for example varying resistance costs or frequency-dependent selection. Despite this variation and the reproductive cost of higher P. entomophila loads, fecundity tolerance did not vary across genotypes. The absence of genetic variation in tolerance may suggest that at this early infection stage, fecundity tolerance is fixed or that any evolved tolerance mechanisms are not expressed under these infection conditions.}, author = {Kutzer, Megan and Kurtz, Joachim and Armitage, Sophie}, issn = {1420-9101}, journal = {Journal of Evolutionary Biology}, number = {1}, pages = {159 -- 171}, publisher = {Wiley}, title = {{Genotype and diet affect resistance, survival, and fecundity but not fecundity tolerance}}, doi = {10.1111/jeb.13211}, volume = {31}, year = {2018}, } @article{1905, abstract = {The unprecedented polymorphism in the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes is thought to be maintained by balancing selection from parasites. However, do parasites also drive divergence at MHC loci between host populations, or do the effects of balancing selection maintain similarities among populations? We examined MHC variation in populations of the livebearing fish Poecilia mexicana and characterized their parasite communities. Poecilia mexicana populations in the Cueva del Azufre system are locally adapted to darkness and the presence of toxic hydrogen sulphide, representing highly divergent ecotypes or incipient species. Parasite communities differed significantly across populations, and populations with higher parasite loads had higher levels of diversity at class II MHC genes. However, despite different parasite communities, marked divergence in adaptive traits and in neutral genetic markers, we found MHC alleles to be remarkably similar among host populations. Our findings indicate that balancing selection from parasites maintains immunogenetic diversity of hosts, but this process does not promote MHC divergence in this system. On the contrary, we suggest that balancing selection on immunogenetic loci may outweigh divergent selection causing divergence, thereby hindering host divergence and speciation. Our findings support the hypothesis that balancing selection maintains MHC similarities among lineages during and after speciation (trans-species evolution).}, author = {Tobler, Michael and Plath, Martin and Riesch, Rüdiger and Schlupp, Ingo and Grasse, Anna V and Munimanda, Gopi and Setzer, C and Penn, Dustin and Moodley, Yoshan}, issn = {1420-9101}, journal = {Journal of Evolutionary Biology}, number = {5}, pages = {960 -- 974}, publisher = {Wiley}, title = {{Selection from parasites favours immunogenetic diversity but not divergence among locally adapted host populations}}, doi = {10.1111/jeb.12370}, volume = {27}, year = {2014}, }