Ecological and evolutionary implications of genomic structural variations

Frontiers in Genetics

Volumn 5, Issue SEP, 2014, Pages

  Chain, Frédéric J J ^a,b   Feulner, Philine G D ^a,c  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY   (Germany)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF AQUATIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

CNV; Copy number variation; Ecological genetics; Evolutionary genomics; Genome evolution; Inversions; Structural variation; SV

Indexed keywords

ANOPHELES; CICHLID; COPY NUMBER VARIATION; EDITORIAL; EVOLUTION; EVOLUTIONARY HOMOLOGY; GENE DELETION; GENE DUPLICATION; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE FREQUENCY; GENE INSERTION; GENE TRANSLOCATION; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENETIC DISORDER; GENETIC POLYMORPHISM; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HUMAN; MONOZYGOTIC TWINS; NONHUMAN; PHENOTYPE; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 84917695871     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16648021     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00326     Document Type: Editorial

References (15)

1. Ayala, D., Ullastres, A., and González, J. (2014). Adaptation through chromosomal inversions in Anopheles. Front. Genet. 5:129. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00129
2. Bickhart, D. M., and Liu, G. E. (2014). The challenges and importance of structural variation detection in livestock. Front. Genet. 5:37. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00037
3. Bruder, C. E. G., Piotrowski, A., Gijsbers, A. A. C. J., Andersson, R., Erickson, S., Diaz de Ståhl, T., et al. (2008). Phenotypically concordant and discordant monozygotic twins display different DNA copy-number-variation profiles. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 82, 763-771. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2007.12.011
4. Bryk, J., and Tautz, D. (2014). Copy number variants and selective sweeps in natural populations of the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus). Front. Genet. 5:153. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00153
5. Butlin, R. K. (2005). Recombination and speciation. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2621-2635. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02617.x
6. Fan, S., and Meyer, A. (2014). Evolution of genomic structural variation and genomic architecture in the adaptive radiations of African cichlid fishes. Front. Genet. 5:163. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00163
7. Faria, R., and Navarro, A. (2010). Chromosomal speciation revisited: rearranging theory with pieces of evidence. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 660-669. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.07.008
8. Feder, J. L., Nosil, P., and Flaxman, S. M. (2014). Assessing when chromosomal rearrangements affect the dynamics of speciation: implications from computer simulations. Front. Genet. 5:295. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00295
9. Iskow, R. C., Gokcumen, O., and Lee, C. (2012). Exploring the role of copy number variants in human adaptation. Trends Genet. 28, 245-257. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2012.03.002
10. Katju, V., and Bergthorsson, U. (2013). Copy-number changes in evolution: rates, fitness effects and adaptive significance. Front. Genet. 4:273. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2013.00273
11. Keane, T. M., Wong, K., Adams, D. J., Flint, J., Reymond, A., and Yalcin, B. (2014). Identification of structural variation in mouse genomes. Front. Genet. 5:192. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00192
12. López-Pérez, M., Martin-Cuadrado, A.-B., and Rodriguez-Valera, F. (2014). Homologous recombination is involved in the diversity of replacement flexible genomic islands in aquatic prokaryotes. Front. Genet. 5:147. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00147
13. Noor, M. A., Grams, K. L., Bertucci, L. A., and Reiland, J. (2001). Chromosomal inversions and the reproductive isolation of species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98, 12084-12088. doi: 10.1073/pnas.221274498
14. Rieseberg, L. H. (2001). Chromosomal rearrangements and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 351-358. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02187-5
15. Weischenfeldt, J., Symmons, O., Spitz, F., and Korbel, J. O. (2013). Phenotypic impact of genomic structural variation: insights from and for human disease. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 125-138. doi: 10.1038/nrg3373