Genomics and the Contrasting Dynamics of Annual and Perennial Domestication

Trends in Genetics

Volumn 31, Issue 12, 2015, Pages 709-719

  Gaut, Brandon S ^a   Díez, Concepción M ^b   Morrell, Peter L ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CÓRDOBA   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Clonal propagation; Genetic bottleneck; Genetic diversity; Genetic load; Introgression; Somatic mutations

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ANNUAL PLANT; BOTTLENECK POPULATION; CROP; CULTIVAR; DNA SEQUENCE; DOMESTICATED PLANT; DOMESTICATION; GENETIC LOAD; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOMICS; GENOTYPE; INTROGRESSION; LOCAL ADAPTATION; PERENNIAL PLANT; PLANT GENETICS; PLANT REPRODUCTION; POPULATION GENETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; WILD TYPE; ADAPTATION; GENETICS; PLANT; PLANT GENOME;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; GENOME, PLANT; PLANTS;

EID: 84951568548     PISSN: 01689525     EISSN: 13624555     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2015.10.002     Document Type: Review

References (101)

1. Doebley J.F., et al. The molecular genetics of crop domestication. Cell 2006, 127:1309-1321.
2. Purugganan M.D., Fuller D.Q. The nature of selection during plant domestication. Nature 2009, 457:843-848.
3. Miller A.J., Gross B.L. From forest to field: perennial fruit crop domestication. Am. J. Bot. 2011, 98:1389-1414.
4. Meyer R.S., et al. Patterns and processes in crop domestication: an historical review and quantitative analysis of 203 global food crops. New Phytol. 2012, 196:29-48.
5. McClure K.A., et al. Genomics: a potential panacea for the perennial problem. Am. J. Bot. 2014, 101:1780-1790.
6. Gepts P. The contribution of genetic and genomic approaches to plant domestication studies. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2014, 18:51-59.
7. Ross-Ibarra J., et al. Plant domestication, a unique opportunity to identify the genetic basis of adaptation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104(Suppl. 1):8641-8648.
8. Matsuoka Y., et al. A single domestication for maize shown by multilocus microsatellite genotyping. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2002, 99:6080-6084.
9. Fukunaga K., et al. Genetic diversity and population structure of teosinte. Genetics 2005, 169:2241-2254.
10. van Heerwaarden J., et al. Genetic signals of origin, spread, and introgression in a large sample of maize landraces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:1088-1092.
11. Hufford M.B., et al. The genomic signature of crop-wild introgression in maize. PLoS Genet. 2013, 9:e1003477.
12. Takuno S., et al. Independent molecular basis of convergent highland adaptation in maize. Genetics 2015, 200:1297-1312.
13. Pourkheirandish M., et al. Evolution of the grain dispersal system in barley. Cell 2015, 162:527-539.
14. Morrell P.L., Clegg M.T. Genetic evidence for a second domestication of barley (Hordeum vulgare) east of the Fertile Crescent. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104:3289-3294.
15. Poets A.M., et al. Barley landraces are characterized by geographically heterogeneous genomic origins. Genome Biol. 2015, 16:173.
16. Bitocchi E., et al. Mesoamerican origin of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is revealed by sequence data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109:E788-E796.
17. Lin Z., et al. Parallel domestication of the Shattering1 genes in cereals. Nat. Genet. 2012, 44:720-724.
18. Molina J., et al. Molecular evidence for a single evolutionary origin of domesticated rice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:8351-8356.
19. Huang X., et al. A map of rice genome variation reveals the origin of cultivated rice. Nature 2012, 490:497-501.
20. Wang M., et al. The genome sequence of African rice (Oryza glaberrima) and evidence for independent domestication. Nat. Genet. 2014, 46:982-988.
21. Fontanazza G., Baldoni L. Proposed programme for the genetic improvement of the olive. Olive 1990, 34:1-20.
22. McKey D., et al. The evolutionary ecology of clonally propagated domesticated plants. New Phytol. 2010, 186:318-332.
23. Arroyo-Garcia R., et al. Multiple origins of cultivated grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. ssp. sativa) based on chloroplast DNA polymorphisms. Mol. Ecol. 2006, 15:3707-3714.
24. Breton C., et al. The origins of the domestication of the olive tree. C. R. Biol. 2009, 332:1059-1064.
25. Diez C.M., et al. Olive domestication and diversification in the Mediterranean Basin. New Phytol. 2015, 206:436-447.
26. Myles S., et al. Genetic structure and domestication history of the grape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:3530-3535.
27. Besnard G., et al. The complex history of the olive tree: from Late Quaternary diversification of Mediterranean lineages to primary domestication in the northern Levant. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2013, 280:20122833.
28. Cornille A., et al. New insight into the history of domesticated apple: secondary contribution of the European wild apple to the genome of cultivated varieties. PLoS Genet. 2012, 8:e1002703.
29. Cornille A., et al. The domestication and evolutionary ecology of apples. Trends Genet. 2014, 30:57-65.
30. Eyre-Walker A., et al. Investigation of the bottleneck leading to the domestication of maize. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1998, 95:4441-4446.
31. Zhu Q., et al. Multilocus analysis of nucleotide variation of Oryza sativa and its wild relatives: severe bottleneck during domestication of rice. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007, 24:875-888.
32. Hufford M.B., et al. Comparative population genomics of maize domestication and improvement. Nat. Genet. 2012, 44:808-811.
33. He Z., et al. Two evolutionary histories in the genome of rice: the roles of domestication genes. PLoS Genet. 2011, 7:e1002100.
34. Lam H.M., et al. Resequencing of 31 wild and cultivated soybean genomes identifies patterns of genetic diversity and selection. Nat. Genet. 2010, 42:1053-1059.
35. Zhou Z., et al. Resequencing 302 wild and cultivated accessions identifies genes related to domestication and improvement in soybean. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015, 33:408-414.
36. Schmutz J., et al. A reference genome for common bean and genome-wide analysis of dual domestications. Nat. Genet. 2014, 46:707-713.
37. Qi J., et al. A genomic variation map provides insights into the genetic basis of cucumber domestication and diversity. Nat. Genet. 2013, 45:1510-1515.
38. Haudry A., et al. Grinding up wheat: a massive loss of nucleotide diversity since domestication. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007, 24:1506-1517.
39. Cavanagh C.R., et al. Genome-wide comparative diversity uncovers multiple targets of selection for improvement in hexaploid wheat landraces and cultivars. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110:8057-8062.
40. Gutenkunst R.N., et al. Inferring the joint demographic history of multiple populations from multidimensional SNP frequency data. PLoS Genet. 2009, 5:e1000695.
41. Li H., Durbin R. Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences. Nature 2011, 475:493-496.
42. Harris K., et al. Decoding coalescent hidden Markov models in linear time. Res. Comput. Mol. Biol. 2014, 8394:100-114.
43. Gross B.L., et al. Genetic diversity in Malus × domestica (Rosaceae) through time in response to domestication. Am. J. Bot. 2014, 101:1770-1779.
44. Mariette S., et al. Population structure and genetic bottleneck in sweet cherry estimated with SSRs and the gametophytic self-incompatibility locus. BMC Genet. 2010, 11:77.
45. Verde I., et al. The high-quality draft genome of peach (Prunus persica) identifies unique patterns of genetic diversity, domestication and genome evolution. Nat. Genet. 2013, 45:487-494.
46. Wu G.A., et al. Sequencing of diverse mandarin, pummelo and orange genomes reveals complex history of admixture during citrus domestication. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32:656-662.
47. Heslop-Harrison J.S., Schwarzacher T. Domestication, genomics and the future for banana. Ann. Bot. 2007, 100:1073-1084.
48. Hancock J.F., et al. Strawberries. Temperate Fruit Crop Breeding 2008, 393-437. Springer. J. Hancock (Ed.).
49. United States Apple Association (2015) . http://www.usapple.org/.
50. California Avocado Commission (2015) . http://www.californiaavocado.com/.
51. Hua L., et al. LABA1, a domestication gene associated with long, barbed awns in wild rice. Plant Cell 2015, 27:1875-1888.
52. Semon M., et al. The population structure of African cultivated rice Oryza glaberrima (Steud.): evidence for elevated levels of linkage disequilibrium caused by admixture with O. sativa and ecological adaptation. Genetics 2005, 169:1639-1647.
53. Jones H., et al. Population-based resequencing reveals that the flowering time adaptation of cultivated barley originated east of the Fertile Crescent. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2008, 25:2211-2219.
54. Chen H., et al. Tracing the geographic origins of major avocado cultivars. J. Hered. 2009, 100:56-65.
55. Fang Z., et al. Two genomic regions contribute disproportionately to geographic differentiation in wild barley. G3 (Bethesda) 2014, 4:1193-1203.
56. Durand E.Y., et al. Testing for ancient admixture between closely related populations. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2011, 28:2239-2252.
57. Sousa V., Hey J. Understanding the origin of species with genome-scale data: modelling gene flow. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2013, 14:404-414.
58. Carrion Y., et al. Olea europaea L. in the north Mediterranean Basin during the Pleniglacial and the Early-Middle Holocene. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2010, 29:952-968.
59. Baldoni L., et al. Genetic structure of wild and cultivated olives in the central Mediterranean Basin. Ann. Bot. 2006, 98:935-942.
60. Belaj A., et al. Genetic diversity and relationships of wild and cultivated olives at regional level in Spain. Sci. Hortic. (Amsterdam) 2010, 124:323-330.
61. Yoruk B., Taskin V. Genetic diversity and relationships of wild and cultivated olives in Turkey. Plant Syst. Evol. 2014, 300:1247-1258.
62. Baird N.A., et al. Rapid SNP discovery and genetic mapping using sequenced RAD markers. PLoS ONE 2008, 3:e3376.
63. Eckert A.J., et al. Patterns of population structure and environmental associations to aridity across the range of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L., Pinaceae). Genetics 2010, 185:969-982.
64. Moreno P., et al. Citrus tristeza virus: a pathogen that changed the course of the citrus industry. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2008, 9:251-268.
65. This P., et al. Historical origins and genetic diversity of wine grapes. Trends Genet. 2006, 22:511-519.
66. Diez C.M., et al. Centennial olive trees as a reservoir of genetic diversity. Ann. Bot. 2011, 108:797-807.
67. Kimura M. The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Evolution of Genes and Proteins 1983, 208-233. Sinauer. M. Nei, R.K. Koehn (Eds.).
68. Morrell P.L., et al. Crop genomics: advances and applications. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2011, 13:85-96.
69. Hill W.G., Robertson A. The effect of linkage on limits to artificial selection. Genet. Res. 1966, 8:269-294.
70. Ng P.C., Henikoff S. SIFT: predicting amino acid changes that affect protein function. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003, 31:3812-3814.
71. Adzhubei I.A., et al. A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations. Nat. Methods 2010, 7:248-249.
72. Choi Y., et al. Predicting the functional effect of amino acid substitutions and indels. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e46688.
73. Chun S., Fay J.C. Identification of deleterious mutations within three human genomes. Genome Res. 2009, 19:1553-1561.
74. Lohmueller K.E. The distribution of deleterious genetic variation in human populations. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2014, 29:139-146.
75. Lu J., et al. The accumulation of deleterious mutations in rice genomes: a hypothesis on the cost of domestication. Trends Genet. 2006, 22:126-131.
76. Mezmouk S., Ross-Ibarra J. The pattern and distribution of deleterious mutations in maize. G3 (Bethesda) 2014, 4:163-171.
77. Renaut S., Rieseberg L.H. The accumulation of deleterious mutations as a consequence of domestication and improvement in sunflowers and other Compositae crops. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2015, 32:2273-2283.
78. Schubert M., et al. Prehistoric genomes reveal the genetic foundation and cost of horse domestication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2014, 111:E5661-E5669.
79. Felsenstein J. The evolutionary advantage of recombination. Genetics 1974, 78:737-756.
80. Gaut B., et al. The patterns and causes of variation in plant nucleotide substitution rates. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2011, 42:245-266.
81. Charlesworth B., Charlesworth D. Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 1998, 102-103:3-19.
82. Badenes M.L., Byrne D.H. Fruit breeding. Handb. Plant Breed. 2012, 8:3-37.
83. Moore G.A. Oranges and lemons: clues to the taxonomy of Citrus from molecular markers. Trends Genet. 2001, 17:536-540.
84. Pelsy F., et al. An extensive study of the genetic diversity within seven French wine grape variety collections. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2010, 120:1219-1231.
85. Oliver K.R., et al. Transposable elements: powerful contributors to angiosperm evolution and diversity. Genome Biol. Evol. 2013, 5:1886-1901.
86. Breto M.P., et al. The diversification of Citrus clementina Hort. ex Tan., a vegetatively propagated crop species. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2001, 21:285-293.
87. Glemin S., Bataillon T. A comparative view of the evolution of grasses under domestication. New Phytol. 2009, 183:273-290.
88. Cortijo S., et al. Mapping the epigenetic basis of complex traits. Science 2014, 343:1145-1148.
89. Wang J.W., et al. miRNA control of vegetative phase change in trees. PLoS Genet. 2011, 7:e1002012.
90. Carrier G., et al. Transposable elements are a major cause of somatic polymorphism in Vitis vinifera L. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e32973.
91. Hollister J.D., Gaut B.S. Epigenetic silencing of transposable elements: a trade-off between reduced transposition and deleterious effects on neighboring gene expression. Genome Res. 2009, 19:1419-1428.
92. Kobayashi S., et al. Retrotransposon-induced mutations in grape skin color. Science 2004, 304:982.
93. Butelli E., et al. Retrotransposons control fruit-specific, cold-dependent accumulation of anthocyanins in blood oranges. Plant Cell 2012, 24:1242-1255.
94. Otto D., et al. The columnar mutation ("Co gene") of apple (Malus × domestica) is associated with an integration of a Gypsy-like retrotransposon. Mol. Breed. 2013, 33:863-880.
95. Fang Z., et al. Megabase-scale inversion polymorphism in the wild ancestor of maize. Genetics 2012, 191:883-894.
96. Gaut B.S. Evolution is an experiment: assessing parallelism in crop domestication and experimental evolution (Nei Lecture, SMBE 2014, Puerto Rico). Mol. Biol. Evol. 2015, 32:1661-1671.
97. Innan H., Kim Y. Detecting local adaptation using the joint sampling of polymorphism data in the parental and derived populations. Genetics 2008, 179:1713-1720.
98. Schiffels S., Durbin R. Inferring human population size and separation history from multiple genome sequences. Nat. Genet. 2014, 46:919-925.
99. Rosenberg N.A. The shapes of neutral gene genealogies in two species: probabilities of monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly in a coalescent model. Evolution 2003, 57:1465-1477.
100. Fay J.C., Wu C-I. Hitchhiking under positive Darwinian selection. Genetics 2000, 155:1405-1413.
101. Simons Y.B., et al. The deleterious mutation load is insensitive to recent population history. Nat. Genet. 2014, 46:220-224.