---
_id: '14556'
abstract:
- lang: eng
text: 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.
acknowledgement: 'We are grateful to two referees and Luke Holman for valuable comments
on a previous version of our manuscript. This paper was conceived at the ESEB Progress
Meeting ‘Disentangling neutral versus adaptive evolution in chromosomal inversions’,
organized by ELB, KJ and TF and held at Tjärnö Marine Laboratory (Sweden) between
28 February and 3 March 2022. We are indebted to ESEB for sponsoring our workshop
and to the following funding bodies for supporting our research: ERC AdG 101055327
to NHB; Swedish Research Council (VR) 2018-03695 and Leverhulme Trust RPG-2021-141
to RKB; Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) contract 2020.00275.CEECIND
and research project PTDC/BIA-1232 EVL/1614/2021 to RF; Fundação para a Ciência
e a Tecnologia (FCT) junior researcher contract CEECIND/02616/2018 to IF; Swiss
National Science Foundation (SNSF) Ambizione #PZ00P3_185952 to KJG; National Science
Foundation NSF-OCE 2043905 and NSF-DEB 1655701 to KEL; Swiss National Science Foundation
(SNSF) 310030_204681 to CLP; Swedish Research Council (VR) 2021-05243 to MR; Norwegian
Research Council grant 315287 to AMW; Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) 31003A-182262
and FZEB-0-214654 to TF. We also thank Luca Ferretti for the discussion and Eliane
Zinn (Flatt lab) for help with reference formatting.'
article_number: '14242'
article_processing_charge: No
article_type: review
author:
- first_name: Emma L.
full_name: Berdan, Emma L.
last_name: Berdan
- first_name: Nicholas H
full_name: Barton, Nicholas H
id: 4880FE40-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87
last_name: Barton
orcid: 0000-0002-8548-5240
- first_name: Roger
full_name: Butlin, Roger
last_name: Butlin
- first_name: Brian
full_name: Charlesworth, Brian
last_name: Charlesworth
- first_name: Rui
full_name: Faria, Rui
last_name: Faria
- first_name: Inês
full_name: Fragata, Inês
last_name: Fragata
- first_name: Kimberly J.
full_name: Gilbert, Kimberly J.
last_name: Gilbert
- first_name: Paul
full_name: Jay, Paul
last_name: Jay
- first_name: Martin
full_name: Kapun, Martin
last_name: Kapun
- first_name: Katie E.
full_name: Lotterhos, Katie E.
last_name: Lotterhos
- first_name: Claire
full_name: Mérot, Claire
last_name: Mérot
- first_name: Esra
full_name: Durmaz Mitchell, Esra
last_name: Durmaz Mitchell
- first_name: Marta
full_name: Pascual, Marta
last_name: Pascual
- first_name: Catherine L.
full_name: Peichel, Catherine L.
last_name: Peichel
- first_name: Marina
full_name: Rafajlović, Marina
last_name: Rafajlović
- first_name: Anja M
full_name: Westram, Anja M
id: 3C147470-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87
last_name: Westram
orcid: 0000-0003-1050-4969
- first_name: Stephen W.
full_name: Schaeffer, Stephen W.
last_name: Schaeffer
- first_name: Kerstin
full_name: Johannesson, Kerstin
last_name: Johannesson
- first_name: Thomas
full_name: Flatt, Thomas
last_name: Flatt
citation:
ama: Berdan EL, Barton NH, Butlin R, et al. How chromosomal inversions reorient
the evolutionary process. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2023. doi:10.1111/jeb.14242
apa: Berdan, E. L., Barton, N. H., Butlin, R., Charlesworth, B., Faria, R., Fragata,
I., … Flatt, T. (2023). How chromosomal inversions reorient the evolutionary process.
Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14242
chicago: Berdan, Emma L., Nicholas H Barton, Roger Butlin, Brian Charlesworth, Rui
Faria, Inês Fragata, Kimberly J. Gilbert, et al. “How Chromosomal Inversions Reorient
the Evolutionary Process.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Wiley, 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14242.
ieee: E. L. Berdan et al., “How chromosomal inversions reorient the evolutionary
process,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Wiley, 2023.
ista: Berdan EL, Barton NH, Butlin R, Charlesworth B, Faria R, Fragata I, Gilbert
KJ, Jay P, Kapun M, Lotterhos KE, Mérot C, Durmaz Mitchell E, Pascual M, Peichel
CL, Rafajlović M, Westram AM, Schaeffer SW, Johannesson K, Flatt T. 2023. How
chromosomal inversions reorient the evolutionary process. Journal of Evolutionary
Biology., 14242.
mla: Berdan, Emma L., et al. “How Chromosomal Inversions Reorient the Evolutionary
Process.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14242, Wiley, 2023, doi:10.1111/jeb.14242.
short: E.L. Berdan, N.H. Barton, R. Butlin, B. Charlesworth, R. Faria, I. Fragata,
K.J. Gilbert, P. Jay, M. Kapun, K.E. Lotterhos, C. Mérot, E. Durmaz Mitchell,
M. Pascual, C.L. Peichel, M. Rafajlović, A.M. Westram, S.W. Schaeffer, K. Johannesson,
T. Flatt, Journal of Evolutionary Biology (2023).
date_created: 2023-11-19T23:00:55Z
date_published: 2023-11-08T00:00:00Z
date_updated: 2023-11-20T08:51:09Z
day: '08'
ddc:
- '570'
department:
- _id: NiBa
doi: 10.1111/jeb.14242
has_accepted_license: '1'
language:
- iso: eng
license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
main_file_link:
- open_access: '1'
url: https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14242
month: '11'
oa: 1
oa_version: Published Version
publication: Journal of Evolutionary Biology
publication_identifier:
eissn:
- 1420-9101
issn:
- 1010-061X
publication_status: epub_ahead
publisher: Wiley
quality_controlled: '1'
scopus_import: '1'
status: public
title: How chromosomal inversions reorient the evolutionary process
tmp:
image: /images/cc_by_nc.png
legal_code_url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode
name: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
short: CC BY-NC (4.0)
type: journal_article
user_id: 2DF688A6-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87
year: '2023'
...
---
_id: '12264'
abstract:
- lang: eng
text: 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.
acknowledgement: 'We are grateful to the participants of the ESEB satellite symposium
‘Understanding reproductive isolation: bridging conceptual barriers in speciation research’ in 2021 for the interesting discussions that helped us clarify the thoughts presented in this article. We thank Roger
Butlin, Michael Turelli and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments
on this manuscript. We are also very grateful to Roger Butlin and the Barton Group
for the continued conversa-tions about RI. In addition, we thank all participants
of the speciation survey. Part of this work was funded by the Austrian Science Fund
FWF (grant P 32166)'
article_processing_charge: Yes (via OA deal)
article_type: review
author:
- first_name: Anja M
full_name: Westram, Anja M
id: 3C147470-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87
last_name: Westram
orcid: 0000-0003-1050-4969
- first_name: Sean
full_name: Stankowski, Sean
id: 43161670-5719-11EA-8025-FABC3DDC885E
last_name: Stankowski
- first_name: Parvathy
full_name: Surendranadh, Parvathy
id: 455235B8-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87
last_name: Surendranadh
- first_name: Nicholas H
full_name: Barton, Nicholas H
id: 4880FE40-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87
last_name: Barton
orcid: 0000-0002-8548-5240
citation:
ama: Westram AM, Stankowski S, Surendranadh P, Barton NH. What is reproductive isolation?
Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2022;35(9):1143-1164. doi:10.1111/jeb.14005
apa: Westram, A. M., Stankowski, S., Surendranadh, P., & Barton, N. H. (2022).
What is reproductive isolation? Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14005
chicago: Westram, Anja M, Sean Stankowski, Parvathy Surendranadh, and Nicholas H
Barton. “What Is Reproductive Isolation?” Journal of Evolutionary Biology.
Wiley, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14005.
ieee: A. M. Westram, S. Stankowski, P. Surendranadh, and N. H. Barton, “What is
reproductive isolation?,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 35, no.
9. Wiley, pp. 1143–1164, 2022.
ista: Westram AM, Stankowski S, Surendranadh P, Barton NH. 2022. What is reproductive
isolation? Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 35(9), 1143–1164.
mla: Westram, Anja M., et al. “What Is Reproductive Isolation?” Journal of Evolutionary
Biology, vol. 35, no. 9, Wiley, 2022, pp. 1143–64, doi:10.1111/jeb.14005.
short: A.M. Westram, S. Stankowski, P. Surendranadh, N.H. Barton, Journal of Evolutionary
Biology 35 (2022) 1143–1164.
date_created: 2023-01-16T09:59:24Z
date_published: 2022-09-01T00:00:00Z
date_updated: 2023-08-04T09:53:40Z
day: '01'
ddc:
- '570'
department:
- _id: NiBa
doi: 10.1111/jeb.14005
external_id:
isi:
- '000849851100002'
pmid:
- '36063156'
file:
- access_level: open_access
checksum: f08de57112330a7ee88d2e1b20576a1e
content_type: application/pdf
creator: dernst
date_created: 2023-01-30T10:05:31Z
date_updated: 2023-01-30T10:05:31Z
file_id: '12448'
file_name: 2022_JourEvoBiology_Westram.pdf
file_size: 3146793
relation: main_file
success: 1
file_date_updated: 2023-01-30T10:05:31Z
has_accepted_license: '1'
intvolume: ' 35'
isi: 1
issue: '9'
keyword:
- Ecology
- Evolution
- Behavior and Systematics
language:
- iso: eng
month: '09'
oa: 1
oa_version: Published Version
page: 1143-1164
pmid: 1
project:
- _id: 05959E1C-7A3F-11EA-A408-12923DDC885E
grant_number: P32166
name: The maintenance of alternative adaptive peaks in snapdragons
publication: Journal of Evolutionary Biology
publication_identifier:
eissn:
- 1420-9101
issn:
- 1010-061X
publication_status: published
publisher: Wiley
quality_controlled: '1'
related_material:
record:
- id: '12265'
relation: other
status: public
scopus_import: '1'
status: public
title: What is reproductive isolation?
tmp:
image: /images/cc_by.png
legal_code_url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
name: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0)
short: CC BY (4.0)
type: journal_article
user_id: 4359f0d1-fa6c-11eb-b949-802e58b17ae8
volume: 35
year: '2022'
...
---
_id: '12265'
acknowledgement: We are very grateful to the authors of the commentaries for the interesting
discussion and to Luke Holman for handling this set of manuscripts. Part of this
work was funded by the Austrian Science Fund FWF (grant P 32166).
article_processing_charge: Yes (via OA deal)
article_type: letter_note
author:
- first_name: Anja M
full_name: Westram, Anja M
id: 3C147470-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87
last_name: Westram
orcid: 0000-0003-1050-4969
- first_name: Sean
full_name: Stankowski, Sean
id: 43161670-5719-11EA-8025-FABC3DDC885E
last_name: Stankowski
- first_name: Parvathy
full_name: Surendranadh, Parvathy
id: 455235B8-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87
last_name: Surendranadh
- first_name: Nicholas H
full_name: Barton, Nicholas H
id: 4880FE40-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87
last_name: Barton
orcid: 0000-0002-8548-5240
citation:
ama: 'Westram AM, Stankowski S, Surendranadh P, Barton NH. Reproductive isolation,
speciation, and the value of disagreement: A reply to the commentaries on ‘What
is reproductive isolation?’ Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2022;35(9):1200-1205.
doi:10.1111/jeb.14082'
apa: 'Westram, A. M., Stankowski, S., Surendranadh, P., & Barton, N. H. (2022).
Reproductive isolation, speciation, and the value of disagreement: A reply to
the commentaries on ‘What is reproductive isolation?’ Journal of Evolutionary
Biology. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14082'
chicago: 'Westram, Anja M, Sean Stankowski, Parvathy Surendranadh, and Nicholas
H Barton. “Reproductive Isolation, Speciation, and the Value of Disagreement:
A Reply to the Commentaries on ‘What Is Reproductive Isolation?’” Journal of
Evolutionary Biology. Wiley, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.14082.'
ieee: 'A. M. Westram, S. Stankowski, P. Surendranadh, and N. H. Barton, “Reproductive
isolation, speciation, and the value of disagreement: A reply to the commentaries
on ‘What is reproductive isolation?,’” Journal of Evolutionary Biology,
vol. 35, no. 9. Wiley, pp. 1200–1205, 2022.'
ista: 'Westram AM, Stankowski S, Surendranadh P, Barton NH. 2022. Reproductive isolation,
speciation, and the value of disagreement: A reply to the commentaries on ‘What
is reproductive isolation?’ Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 35(9), 1200–1205.'
mla: 'Westram, Anja M., et al. “Reproductive Isolation, Speciation, and the Value
of Disagreement: A Reply to the Commentaries on ‘What Is Reproductive Isolation?’”
Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 35, no. 9, Wiley, 2022, pp. 1200–05,
doi:10.1111/jeb.14082.'
short: A.M. Westram, S. Stankowski, P. Surendranadh, N.H. Barton, Journal of Evolutionary
Biology 35 (2022) 1200–1205.
date_created: 2023-01-16T09:59:37Z
date_published: 2022-09-01T00:00:00Z
date_updated: 2023-08-04T09:53:41Z
day: '01'
ddc:
- '570'
department:
- _id: NiBa
doi: 10.1111/jeb.14082
external_id:
isi:
- '000849851100009'
file:
- access_level: open_access
checksum: 27268009e5eec030bc10667a4ac5ed4c
content_type: application/pdf
creator: dernst
date_created: 2023-01-30T10:14:09Z
date_updated: 2023-01-30T10:14:09Z
file_id: '12449'
file_name: 2022_JourEvoBiology_Westram_Response.pdf
file_size: 349603
relation: main_file
success: 1
file_date_updated: 2023-01-30T10:14:09Z
has_accepted_license: '1'
intvolume: ' 35'
isi: 1
issue: '9'
keyword:
- Ecology
- Evolution
- Behavior and Systematics
language:
- iso: eng
month: '09'
oa: 1
oa_version: Published Version
page: 1200-1205
project:
- _id: 05959E1C-7A3F-11EA-A408-12923DDC885E
grant_number: P32166
name: The maintenance of alternative adaptive peaks in snapdragons
publication: Journal of Evolutionary Biology
publication_identifier:
eissn:
- 1420-9101
issn:
- 1010-061X
publication_status: published
publisher: Wiley
quality_controlled: '1'
related_material:
record:
- id: '12264'
relation: other
status: public
scopus_import: '1'
status: public
title: 'Reproductive isolation, speciation, and the value of disagreement: A reply
to the commentaries on ‘What is reproductive isolation?’'
tmp:
image: /images/cc_by.png
legal_code_url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
name: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0)
short: CC BY (4.0)
type: journal_article
user_id: 4359f0d1-fa6c-11eb-b949-802e58b17ae8
volume: 35
year: '2022'
...
---
_id: '617'
abstract:
- lang: eng
text: 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.
acknowledgement: 'We would like to thank Susann Wicke for performing the genome-wide
SNP/indel analyses, as well as Veronica Alves, Kevin Ferro, Momir Futo, Barbara
Hasert, Dafne Maximo, Nora Schulz, Marlene Sroka, and Barth Wieczorek for technical
help. We thank Brian Lazzaro for the L. lactis strain and Bruno Lemaitre for the
Pseudomonas entomophila strain. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for
their helpful comments. We are grateful to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
priority programme 1399 ‘Host parasite coevolution’ for funding this project (AR
872/1-1). '
article_processing_charge: No
article_type: original
author:
- first_name: Megan
full_name: Kutzer, Megan
id: 29D0B332-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87
last_name: Kutzer
orcid: 0000-0002-8696-6978
- first_name: Joachim
full_name: Kurtz, Joachim
last_name: Kurtz
- first_name: Sophie
full_name: Armitage, Sophie
last_name: Armitage
citation:
ama: Kutzer M, Kurtz J, Armitage S. Genotype and diet affect resistance, survival,
and fecundity but not fecundity tolerance. Journal of Evolutionary Biology.
2018;31(1):159-171. doi:10.1111/jeb.13211
apa: Kutzer, M., Kurtz, J., & Armitage, S. (2018). Genotype and diet affect
resistance, survival, and fecundity but not fecundity tolerance. Journal of
Evolutionary Biology. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.13211
chicago: Kutzer, Megan, Joachim Kurtz, and Sophie Armitage. “Genotype and Diet Affect
Resistance, Survival, and Fecundity but Not Fecundity Tolerance.” Journal of
Evolutionary Biology. Wiley, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.13211.
ieee: M. Kutzer, J. Kurtz, and S. Armitage, “Genotype and diet affect resistance,
survival, and fecundity but not fecundity tolerance,” Journal of Evolutionary
Biology, vol. 31, no. 1. Wiley, pp. 159–171, 2018.
ista: Kutzer M, Kurtz J, Armitage S. 2018. Genotype and diet affect resistance,
survival, and fecundity but not fecundity tolerance. Journal of Evolutionary Biology.
31(1), 159–171.
mla: Kutzer, Megan, et al. “Genotype and Diet Affect Resistance, Survival, and Fecundity
but Not Fecundity Tolerance.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 31,
no. 1, Wiley, 2018, pp. 159–71, doi:10.1111/jeb.13211.
short: M. Kutzer, J. Kurtz, S. Armitage, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 31 (2018)
159–171.
date_created: 2018-12-11T11:47:31Z
date_published: 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z
date_updated: 2023-09-11T14:06:04Z
day: '01'
department:
- _id: SyCr
doi: 10.1111/jeb.13211
external_id:
isi:
- '000419307000014'
pmid:
- '29150962'
intvolume: ' 31'
isi: 1
issue: '1'
language:
- iso: eng
main_file_link:
- open_access: '1'
url: https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.13211
month: '01'
oa: 1
oa_version: Published Version
page: 159 - 171
pmid: 1
publication: Journal of Evolutionary Biology
publication_identifier:
eissn:
- 1420-9101
issn:
- 1010-061X
publication_status: published
publisher: Wiley
publist_id: '7187'
quality_controlled: '1'
scopus_import: '1'
status: public
title: Genotype and diet affect resistance, survival, and fecundity but not fecundity
tolerance
type: journal_article
user_id: c635000d-4b10-11ee-a964-aac5a93f6ac1
volume: 31
year: '2018'
...
---
_id: '1905'
abstract:
- lang: eng
text: 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).
acknowledgement: This study was funded by grants from the National Science Foundation
(NSF) to MT (IOS-1121832) and IS (DEB-0743406) and from the German Science Foundation
(DFG; PL 470/1-2) and ‘LOEWE − Landesoffensive zur Entwicklung wissenschaftlich-ökonomischer
Exzellenz’ of Hesse's Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and the Arts, to MP.
article_processing_charge: No
article_type: original
author:
- first_name: Michael
full_name: Tobler, Michael
last_name: Tobler
- first_name: Martin
full_name: Plath, Martin
last_name: Plath
- first_name: Rüdiger
full_name: Riesch, Rüdiger
last_name: Riesch
- first_name: Ingo
full_name: Schlupp, Ingo
last_name: Schlupp
- first_name: Anna V
full_name: Grasse, Anna V
id: 406F989C-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87
last_name: Grasse
- first_name: Gopi
full_name: Munimanda, Gopi
last_name: Munimanda
- first_name: C
full_name: Setzer, C
last_name: Setzer
- first_name: Dustin
full_name: Penn, Dustin
last_name: Penn
- first_name: Yoshan
full_name: Moodley, Yoshan
last_name: Moodley
citation:
ama: Tobler M, Plath M, Riesch R, et al. Selection from parasites favours immunogenetic
diversity but not divergence among locally adapted host populations. Journal
of Evolutionary Biology. 2014;27(5):960-974. doi:10.1111/jeb.12370
apa: Tobler, M., Plath, M., Riesch, R., Schlupp, I., Grasse, A. V., Munimanda, G.,
… Moodley, Y. (2014). Selection from parasites favours immunogenetic diversity
but not divergence among locally adapted host populations. Journal of Evolutionary
Biology. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12370
chicago: Tobler, Michael, Martin Plath, Rüdiger Riesch, Ingo Schlupp, Anna V Grasse,
Gopi Munimanda, C Setzer, Dustin Penn, and Yoshan Moodley. “Selection from Parasites
Favours Immunogenetic Diversity but Not Divergence among Locally Adapted Host
Populations.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Wiley, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12370.
ieee: M. Tobler et al., “Selection from parasites favours immunogenetic diversity
but not divergence among locally adapted host populations,” Journal of Evolutionary
Biology, vol. 27, no. 5. Wiley, pp. 960–974, 2014.
ista: Tobler M, Plath M, Riesch R, Schlupp I, Grasse AV, Munimanda G, Setzer C,
Penn D, Moodley Y. 2014. Selection from parasites favours immunogenetic diversity
but not divergence among locally adapted host populations. Journal of Evolutionary
Biology. 27(5), 960–974.
mla: Tobler, Michael, et al. “Selection from Parasites Favours Immunogenetic Diversity
but Not Divergence among Locally Adapted Host Populations.” Journal of Evolutionary
Biology, vol. 27, no. 5, Wiley, 2014, pp. 960–74, doi:10.1111/jeb.12370.
short: M. Tobler, M. Plath, R. Riesch, I. Schlupp, A.V. Grasse, G. Munimanda, C.
Setzer, D. Penn, Y. Moodley, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 27 (2014) 960–974.
date_created: 2018-12-11T11:54:38Z
date_published: 2014-04-12T00:00:00Z
date_updated: 2022-06-07T09:22:20Z
day: '12'
department:
- _id: SyCr
doi: 10.1111/jeb.12370
external_id:
pmid:
- '24725091'
intvolume: ' 27'
issue: '5'
language:
- iso: eng
month: '04'
oa_version: None
page: 960 - 974
pmid: 1
publication: Journal of Evolutionary Biology
publication_identifier:
eissn:
- 1420-9101
issn:
- 1010-061X
publication_status: published
publisher: Wiley
publist_id: '5190'
quality_controlled: '1'
scopus_import: '1'
status: public
title: Selection from parasites favours immunogenetic diversity but not divergence
among locally adapted host populations
type: journal_article
user_id: 2DF688A6-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87
volume: 27
year: '2014'
...