Antagonistic epistasis for ecophysiological trait differences between Solanum species

New Phytologist

Volumn 183, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 789-802

  Muir, Christopher D ^a   Moyle, Leonie C ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Double introgression lines; Drought; Epistasis; Near isogenic lines (NILs); Quantitative trait loci (QTLs); Solanum habrochaites; Solanum lycopersicum; Specific leaf area

Indexed keywords

ANTAGONISM; CHROMOSOME; DICOTYLEDON; DROUGHT; ECOPHYSIOLOGY; EPISTASIS; FRUIT; INTROGRESSION; LEAF AREA; SPECIATION (BIOLOGY);

ARTICLE; ECOLOGY; GENETIC EPISTASIS; GENETICS; HETEROZYGOTE; HOMOZYGOTE; INBREEDING; PHYSIOLOGY; PLANT CHROMOSOME; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS; SOLANUM; TIME;

CHROMOSOMES, PLANT; ECOLOGY; EPISTASIS, GENETIC; HETEROZYGOTE; HOMOZYGOTE; INBREEDING; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCI; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT, HERITABLE; SOLANUM; TIME FACTORS;

LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM; LYCOPERSICON HIRSUTUM; SOLANUM;

EID: 67650932036     PISSN: 0028646X     EISSN: 14698137     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02949.x     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Ackerly DD, Dudley SA, Sultan SE, Schmitt J, Coleman JS, Linder CR, Sandquist DR, Geber MA, Evans AS, Dawson TE et al. 2000. The evolution of plant ecophysiological traits: recent advances and future directions. Bioscience 50 : 979 995.
2. Ambramoff MD, Magelhaes PJ, Ram SJ. 2004. Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics International 11 : 36 42.
3. Barton NH, Keightley PD. 2002. Understanding quantitative genetic variation. Nature Reviews Genetics 3 : 11 21.
4. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological) 57 : 289 300.
5. Bloom AJ, Zwieniecki MA, Passioura JB, Randall LB, Holbrook NM, St. Clair DA. 2004. Water relations under root chilling in a sensitive and tolerant tomato species. Plant, Cell & Environment 27 : 971 979.
6. Bray EA. 2002. Abscisic acid regulation of gene expression during water-deficit stress in the era of the arabidopsis genome. Plant, Cell & Environment 25 : 153 161.
7. Caicedo AL, Stinchcombe JR, Olsen KM, Schmitt J, Purugganan MD. 2004. Epistatic interaction between arabidopsis FRI and FLC flowering time genes generates a latitudinal cline in a life history trait. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101 : 15670 15675.
8. Carlborg O, Haley CS. 2004. Epistasis: too often neglected in complex trait studies? Nature Reviews Genetics 5 : 618 625.
9. Causse M, Chaïb J, Lecomte L, Buret M, Hospital F. 2007. Both additivity and epistasis control the genetic variation for fruit quality traits in tomato. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 115 : 429 442.
10. Chetelat RT, Pertuzé RA, Faúndex L, Graham EB, Jones CM. 2009. Distribution, ecology and reproductive biology of wild tomatoes and related nightshades from the Atacama desert region of northern Chile. Euphytica 167 : 77 93.
11. Collins NC, Tardieu F, Tuberosa R. 2008. Quantitative trait loci and crop performance under abiotic stress: where do we stand? Plant Physiology 147 : 469 486.
12. Comstock JP, McCouch SR, Martin BC, Tauer CG, Vision TJ, Xu YB, Pausch RC. 2005. The effects of resource availability and environmental conditions on genetic rankings for carbon isotope discrimination during growth in tomato and rice. Functional Plant Biology 32 : 1089 1105.
13. Coyne JA, Orr HA. 2004. Speciation. Sunderland, MA, USA : Sinauer Associates.
14. D'Arcy WG. 1979. The classification of the Solanaceae. In : Lester RN, Skelding AD, eds. The biology and taxonomy of the Solanaceae. London, UK : Academic Press, 3 47.
15. Demuth JP, Wade MJ. 2006. Experimental methods for measuring gene interactions. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 37 : 289 316.
16. Dunnett CW. 1955. A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. Journal of the American Statistical Association 50 : 1096 1121.
17. Eshed Y, Zamir D. 1996. Less-than-additive epistatic interactions of quantitative trait loci in tomato. Genetics 143 : 1807 1817.
18. Fisher RA. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.
19. Fitter A, Hay R. 2002. Environmental physiology of plants. San Francisco, CA, USA : Academic Press.
20. Foolad MR, Zhang LP, Subbiah P. 2003. Genetics of drought tolerance during seed germination in tomato: inheritance and QTL mapping. Genome 46 : 536 545.
21. Gerke J, Lorenz K, Cohen B. 2009. Genetic interactions between transcription factors cause natural variation in yeast. Science 323 : 498 501.
22. Goodstal FJ, Kohler GR, Randall LB, Bloom AJ, St. Clair DA. 2005. A major QTL introgressed from wild Lycopersicon hirsutum confers chilling tolerance to cultivated tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) Theoretical and Applied Genetics 111 : 898 905.
23. Gottlieb LD. 1984. Genetics and morphological evolution in plants. American Naturalist 123 : 681 709.
24. Hausmann NJ, Juenger TE, Sen S, Stowe KA, Dawson TE, Simms EL. 2005. Quantitative trait loci affecting delta c-13 and response to differential water availability in Arabidopsis thaliana. Evolution 59 : 81 96.
25. Hill WG, Goddard ME, Visscher PM. 2008. Data and theory point to mainly additive genetic variance for complex traits. PLoS Genetics 4 : e1000008. doi
26. Holtan HEE, Hake S. 2003. Quantitative trait locus analysis of leaf dissection in tomato using Lycopersicon pennellii segmental introgression lines. Genetics 165 : 1541 1550.
27. Juenger TE, McKay JK, Hausmann N, Keurentjes JJB, Sen S, Stowe KA, Dawson TE, Simms EL, Richards JH. 2005. Identification and characterization of QTL underlying whole-plant physiology in Arabidopsis thaliana: delta c-13, stomatal conductance and transpiration efficiency. Plant, Cell & Environment 28 : 697 708.
28. Kondo K, Yamamoto M, Itahashi R, Sato T, Egashira H, Hattori T, Kowyama Y. 2002. Insights into the evolution of self-compatibility in Lycopersicon from a study of stylar factors. Plant Journal 30 : 143 153.
29. Kondrashov AS. 1994. Mullers ratchet under epistatic selection. Genetics 136 : 1469 1473.
30. Kraft NJB, Valencia R, Ackerly DD. 2008. Functional traits and niche-based tree community assembly in an Amazonian forest. Science 322 : 580 582.
31. Lexer C, Rosenthal DM, Raymond O, Donovan LA, Rieseberg LH. 2005. Genetics of species differences in the wild annual sunflowers, Helianthus annuus and H. petiolaris. Genetics 169 : 2225 2239.
32. Lippman ZB, Semel Y, Zamir D. 2007. An integrated view of quantitative trait variation using tomato interspecific introgression lines. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 17 : 545 552.
33. Lukens LN, Doebley J. 1999. Epistatic and environmental interactions for quantitative trait loci involved in maize evolution. Genetical Research 74 : 291 302.
34. Malmberg RL, Mauricio R. 2005. QTL-based evidence for the role of epistasis in evolution. Genetical Research 86 : 89 95.
35. Martin B, Nienhuis J, King G, Schaefer A. 1989. Restriction fragment length polymorphisms associated with water-use efficiency in tomato. Science 243 : 1725 1728.
36. McKay JK, Richards JH, Mitchell-Olds T. 2003. Genetics of drought adaptation in Arabidopsis thaliana: I. Pleiotropy contributes to genetic correlations among ecological traits. Molecular Ecology 12 : 1137 1151.
37. McKay JK, Richards JH, Nemali KS, Sen S, Mitchell-Olds T, Boles S, Stahl EA, Wayne T, Juenger TE. 2008. Genetics of drought adaptation in Arabidopsis thaliana II. QTL analysis of a new mapping population, kas-1 x tsu-1. Evolution 62 : 3014 3026.
38. Miller JC, Tanksley SD. 1990. RFLP analysis of phylogenetic relationships and genetic variation in the genus Lycopersicon. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 80 : 437 448.
39. Monforte AJ, Friedman E, Zamir D, Tanksley SD. 2001. Comparison of a set of allelic QTL-NILs for chromosome 4 of tomato: deductions about natural variation and implications for germplasm utilization. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 102 : 572 590.
40. Monforte AJ, Tanksley SD. 2000. Development of a set of near isogenic and backcross recombinant inbred lines containing most of the Lycopersicon hirsutum genome in a L. esculentum genetic background: a tool for gene mapping and gene discovery. Genome 43 : 803 813.
41. Moyle LC. 2008. Ecological and evolutionary genomics in the wild tomatoes (Solanum sect. Lycopersicon). Evolution 62 : 2995 3013.
42. Moyle LC, Graham EB. 2005. Genetics of hybrid incompatibility between Lycopersicon esculentum and L. hirsutum. Genetics 169 : 355 373.
43. Moyle LC, Nakazato T. 2008. Comparative genetics of hybrid incompatibility: sterility in two Solanum species crosses. Genetics 179 : 1437 1453.
44. Moyle LC, Nakazato T. 2009. Complex epistasis for Dobzhansky-Muller hybrid incompatibility in Solanum. Genetics 181 : 347 351.
45. Nakazato T, Bogonovich M, Moyle LC. 2008. Environmental factors predict adaptive phenotypic differentiation within and between two wild Andean tomatoes. Evolution 62 : 774 792.
46. Nesbitt TC, Tanksley SD. 2002. Comparative sequencing in the genus Lycopersicon: implications for the evolution of fruit size in the domestication of cultivated tomatoes. Genetics 162 : 365 379.
47. Orr HA. 2001. The genetics of species differences. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16 : 343 350.
48. Orr HA, Coyne JA. 1992. The genetics of adaptation - a reassessment. American Naturalist 140 : 725 742.
49. Peralta IE, Knapp SK, Spooner DM. 2005. New species of wild tomatoes (Solanum section Lycopersicon: Solanaceae) from northern Peru. Systematic Botany 30 : 424 434.
50. Peralta IE, Spooner DM. 2001. Granule-bound starch synthase (gbssi) gene phylogeny of wild tomatoes (Solanum l. Section Lycopersicon [Mill.] Wettst. Subsection Lycopersicon). American Journal of Botany 88 : 1888 1902.
51. Peralta IE, Spooner DM, Knapp S. 2008. Taxonomy of wild tomatoes and their relatives (Solanum sect. Lycopersicoides, sect. Juglandifolia, sect. Lycopersicon; Solanaceae) Systematic Botany Monographs 84 : 1 186.
52. Peters AD, Lively CM. 1999. The red queen and fluctuating epistasis: a population genetic analysis of antagonistic coevolution. American Naturalist 154 : 393 405.
53. Phillips PC. 2008. Epistasis - the essential role of gene interactions in the structure and evolution of genetic systems. Nature Reviews Genetics 9 : 855 867.
54. Poorter H, Niinemets U, Poorter L, Wright IJ, Villar R. 2009. Causes and consequences of variation in leaf mass per area (LMA): a meta-analysis. New Phytologist 182 : 565 588.
55. R Core Development Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria : R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
56. Rick CM. 1995. Tomato. In : Smartt J, Simmonds NW, eds. Evolution of Crop Plants. 2nd edn. London, UK : Longman Scientific & Technical, 452 457.
57. Rieseberg LH, Archer MA, Wayne RK. 1999. Transgressive segregation, adaptation and speciation. Heredity 83 : 363 372.
58. Rockman MV. 2008. Reverse engineering the genotype-phenotype map with natural genetic variation. Nature 456 : 738 744.
59. Sambandan D, Yamamoto A, Fanara JJ, Mackay TFC, Anholt RRH. 2006. Dynamic genetic interactions determine odor-guided behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 174 : 1349 1363.
60. Segre D, DeLuna A, Church GM, Kishony R. 2005. Modular epistasis in yeast metabolism. Nature Genetics 37 : 77 83.
61. Spickett SG, Thoday JM. 1966. Regular responses to selection 3. Interaction between located polygenes. Genetical Research 7 : 96 121.
62. Spooner DM, Peralta IE, Knapp S. 2005. Comparison of AFLPs with other markers for phylogenetic inference in wild tomatoes [Solanum l. Section Lycopersicon (Mill.) Wettst.]. Taxon 54 : 43 61.
63. Stephan W, Langley CH. 1998. DNA polymorphism in lycopersicon and crossing-over per physical length. Genetics 150 : 1585 1593.
64. Truco MJ, Randall LB, Bloom AJ, St. Clair DA. 2000. Detection of QTLs associated with shoot wilting and root ammonium uptake under chilling temperatures in an interspecific backcross population from Lycopersicon esculentum × L. hirsutum. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 101 : 1082 1092.
65. Tuberosa R, Salvi S. 2006. Genomics-based approaches to improve drought tolerance of crops. Trends in Plant Science 11 : 405 412.
66. de Visser J, Elena SF. 2007. The evolution of sex: empirical insights into the roles of epistasis and drift. Nature Reviews Genetics 8 : 139 149.
67. Wade MJ. 2000. Epistasis as a genetic constraint within populations and an accelerant of adaptive divergence among them. In : Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Wade MJ, eds. Epistasis and the evolutionary process. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.
68. Weinreich DM, Delaney NF, DePristo MA, Hartl DL. 2006. Darwinian evolution can follow only very few mutational paths to fitter proteins. Science 312 : 111 114.
69. Weinreich DM, Watson RA, Chao L. 2005. Perspective: sign epistasis and genetic constraint on evolutionary trajectories. Evolution 59 : 1165 1174.
70. Welch BL. 1947. The generalization of 'student's' problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika 34 : 28 35.
71. Whitlock MC, Phillips PC, Moore FBG, Tonsor SJ. 1995. Multiple fitness peaks and epistasis. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26 : 601 629.
72. Wright S. 1931. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16 : 97 159.
73. Xu X, Martin B, Comstock JP, Vision TJ, Tauer CG, Zhao B, Pausch RC, Knapp S. 2008. Fine mapping a QTL for carbon isotope composition in tomato. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 117 : 221 233.
74. Yamamoto A, Zwarts L, Callaerts P, Norga K, Mackay TFC, Anholt RRH. 2008. Neurogenetic networks for startle-induced locomotion in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 105 : 12393 12398.