Haplotype differences for copy number variants in the 22q11.23 region among human populations: a pigmentation-based model for selective pressure.

Two gene clusters are tightly linked in a narrow region of chromosome 22q11.23: the macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) gene family and the glutathione S-transferase theta class. Within 120 kb in this region, two 30-kb deletions reach high frequencies in human populations. This gives rise to four haplotypic arrangements, which modulate the number of genes in both families. The variable patterns of linkage disequilibrium (LD) between these copy number variants (CNVs) in diverse human populations remain poorly understood. We analyzed 2469 individuals belonging to 27 human populations with different ethnic origins. Then we correlated the genetic variability of 22q11.23 CNVs with environmental variables. We confirmed an increasing strength of LD from Africa to Asia and to Europe. Further, we highlighted strongly significant correlations between the frequency of one of the haplotypes and pigmentation-related variables: skin color (R2=0.675, P<0.001), distance from the equator (R2=0.454, P<0.001), UVA radiation (R2=0.439, P<0.001), and UVB radiation (R2=0.313, P=0.002). The fact that all MIF-related genes are retained on this haplotype and the evidences gleaned from experimental systems seem to agree with the role of MIF-related genes in melanogenesis. As such, we propose a model that explains the geographic and ethnic distribution of 22q11.23 CNVs among human populations, assuming that MIF-related gene dosage could be associated with adaptation to low UV radiatio

Genomic variation in tomato, from wild ancestors to contemporary breeding accessions

[EN] Background: Domestication modifies the genomic variation of species. Quantifying this variation provides insights into the domestication process, facilitates the management of resources used by breeders and germplasm centers, and enables the design of experiments to associate traits with genes. We described and analyzed the genetic diversity of 1,008 tomato accessions including Solanum lycopersicum var. lycopersicum (SLL), S. lycopersicum var. cerasiforme (SLC), and S. pimpinellifolium (SP) that were genotyped using 7,720 SNPs. Additionally, we explored the allelic frequency of six loci affecting fruit weight and shape to infer patterns of selection. Results: Our results revealed a pattern of variation that strongly supported a two-step domestication process, occasional hybridization in the wild, and differentiation through human selection. These interpretations were consistent with the observed allele frequencies for the six loci affecting fruit weight and shape. Fruit weight was strongly selected in SLC in the Andean region of Ecuador and Northern Peru prior to the domestication of tomato in Mesoamerica. Alleles affecting fruit shape were differentially selected among SLL genetic subgroups. Our results also clarified the biological status of SLC. True SLC was phylogenetically positioned between SP and SLL and its fruit morphology was diverse. SLC and “cherry tomato” are not synonymous terms. The morphologically-based term “cherry tomato” included some SLC, contemporary varieties, as well as many admixtures between SP and SLL. Contemporary SLL showed a moderate increase in nucleotide diversity, when compared with vintage groups. Conclusions: This study presents a broad and detailed representation of the genomic variation in tomato. Tomato domestication seems to have followed a two step-process; a first domestication in South America and a second step in Mesoamerica. The distribution of fruit weight and shape alleles supports that domestication of SLC occurred in the Andean region. Our results also clarify the biological status of SLC as true phylogenetic group within tomato. We detect Ecuadorian and Peruvian accessions that may represent a pool of unexplored variation that could be of interest for crop improvement.We are grateful to the gene banks for their collections that made this study possible. We thank Syngenta Seeds for providing genotyping data for 42 accessions. We would like to thank the Supercomputing and Bioinnovation Center (Universidad de Malaga, Spain) for providing computational resources to process the SNAPP phylogenetic tree. This research was supported in part by the USDA/NIFA funded SolCAP project under contract number to DF and USDA AFRI 2013-67013-21229 to EvdK and DF.Blanca Postigo, JM.; Montero Pau, J.; Sauvage, C.; Bauchet, G.; Illa, E.; Díez Niclós, MJTDJ.; Francis, D.... (2015). Genomic variation in tomato, from wild ancestors to contemporary breeding accessions. BMC Genomics. 16(257):1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1444-1S11916257Tanksley SD, McCouch SR. Seed banks and molecular maps: unlocking genetic potential from the wild. Science (80-). 1997;277:1063–6.Doebley JF, Gaut BS, Smith BD. The molecular genetics of crop domestication. Cell. 2006;127:1309–21.Gepts P. A comparison between crop domestication, classical plant breeding, and genetic engineering. Crop Sci. 2002;42:1780.Weigel D, Nordborg M. Natural variation in Arabidopsis. How do we find the causal genes? Plant Physiol. 2005;138:567–8.Peralta IE, Spooner DM, Knapp S, Anderson C. Taxonomy of wild tomatoes and their relatives (Solanum sect. Lycopersicoides, sect. Juglandifolia, sect. Lycopersicon; Solanaceae). Syst Bot Monogr. 2008;84:1–186.Rick CM, Fobes JF. Allozyme variation in the cultivated tomato and closely related species. Bull Torrey Bot Club. 1975;102:376–84.Zuriaga E, Blanca J, Nuez F. Classification and phylogenetic relationships in Solanum section Lycopersicon based on AFLP and two nuclear gene sequences. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2008;56:663–78.Zuriaga E, Blanca J, Cordero L, Sifres A, Blas-Cerdán WG, Morales R, et al. Genetic and bioclimatic variation in Solanum pimpinellifolium. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2008;56:39–51.Blanca J, Cañizares J, Cordero L, Pascual L, Diez MJ, Nuez F. Variation revealed by SNP genotyping and morphology provides insight into the origin of the tomato. PLoS One. 2012;7:e48198.Rick CM. Natural variability in wild species of Lycopersicon and its bearing on tomato breeding. Genet Agrar. 1976;30:249–59.Rick CM, Holle M. Andean Lycopersicon esculentum var. cerasiforme: genetic variation and its evolutionary significance. Econ Bot. 1990;44:69–78.Nakazato T, Franklin RA, Kirk BC, Housworth EA. Population structure, demographic history, and evolutionary patterns of a green-fruited tomato, Solanum peruvianum (Solanaceae), revealed by spatial genetics analyses. Am J Bot. 2012;99:1207–16.Rick CM, Butler L. Cytogenetics of the Tomato. Adv Genet. 1956;8:267–382. Advances in Genetics.Jenkins JA. The origin of the cultivated tomato. Econ Bot. 1948;2:379–92.Nesbitt TC, Tanksley SD. Comparative sequencing in the genus lycopersicon: implications for the evolution of fruit size in the domestication of cultivated tomatoes. Genetics. 2002;162:365–79.Ranc N, Muños S, Santoni S, Causse M. A clarified position for Solanum lycopersicum var cerasiforme in the evolutionary history of tomatoes (solanaceae). BMC Plant Biol. 2008;8:130.De Candolle A. Origin of cultivated plants. 2nd ed. London: Trench, Paul; 1886.Miller JC, Tanksley SD. RFLP analysis of phylogenetic relationships and genetic variation in the genus Lycopersicon. Theor Appl Genet. 1990;80:437–48.Williams CE, Clair DAS. Phenetic relationships and levels of variability detected by restriction fragment length polymorphism and random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis of cultivated and wild accessions of Lycopersicon esculentum. Genome. 1993;36:619–30.Park YH, West MAL, St Clair DA. Evaluation of AFLPs for germplasm fingerprinting and assessment of genetic diversity in cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L). Genome. 2004;47:510–8.Sim S-C, Robbins MD, Van Deynze A, Michel AP, Francis DM. Population structure and genetic differentiation associated with breeding history and selection in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Heredity (Edinb). 2011;106:927–35.Sim S-C, Robbins MD, Chilcott C, Zhu T, Francis DM. Oligonucleotide array discovery of polymorphisms in cultivated tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L) reveals patterns of SNP variation associated with breeding. BMC Genomics. 2009;10:466.Sim S-C, Durstewitz G, Plieske J, Wieseke R, Ganal MW, Van Deynze A, et al. Development of a large SNP genotyping array and generation of high-density genetic maps in tomato. PLoS One. 2012;7:e40563.Frary A, Nesbitt TC, Grandillo S, Knaap E, Cong B, Liu J, et al. fw2.2: a quantitative trait locus key to the evolution of tomato fruit size. Science. 2000;289:85–8.Liu J, Van Eck J, Cong B, Tanksley SD. A new class of regulatory genes underlying the cause of pear-shaped tomato fruit. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99:13302–6.Xiao H, Jiang N, Schaffner E, Stockinger EJ, van der Knaap E. A retrotransposon-mediated gene duplication underlies morphological variation of tomato fruit. Science. 2008;319:1527–30.Cong B, Barrero LS, Tanksley SD. Regulatory change in YABBY-like transcription factor led to evolution of extreme fruit size during tomato domestication. Nat Genet. 2008;40:800–4.Muños S, Ranc N, Botton E, Bérard A, Rolland S, Duffé P, et al. Increase in tomato locule number is controlled by two single-nucleotide polymorphisms located near WUSCHEL. Plant Physiol. 2011;156:2244–54.Chakrabarti M, Zhang N, Sauvage C, Muños S, Blanca J, Cañizares J, et al. A cytochrome P450 regulates a domestication trait in cultivated tomato. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110:17125–30.Rodríguez GR, Muños S, Anderson C, Sim S-C, Michel A, Causse M, et al. Distribution of SUN, OVATE, LC, and FAS in the tomato germplasm and the relationship to fruit shape diversity. Plant Physiol. 2011;156:275–85.Sim S-C, Van Deynze A, Stoffel K, Douches DS, Zarka D, Ganal MW, et al. High-density SNP genotyping of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L) reveals patterns of genetic variation due to breeding. PLoS One. 2012;7:e45520.Sauvage C, Segura V, Bauchet G, Stevens R, Thi Do P, Nikoloski Z, et al. Genome Wide Association in tomato reveals 44 candidate loci for fruit metabolic traits. Plant Physiol. 2014;165:1120–32.Hamilton JP, Sim S-C, Stoffel K, Van Deynze A, Buell CR, Francis DM. Single nucleotide polymorphism discovery in cultivated tomato via sequencing by synthesis. Plant Genome J. 2012;5:17.Patterson NJ, Price AL, Reich D. Population structure and eigenanalysis. PLoS Genet. 2006;2:e190.Price AL, Patterson NJ, Plenge RM, Weinblatt ME, Shadick NA, Reich D. Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet. 2006;38:904–9.Kosman E, Leonard KJ. Similarity coefficients for molecular markers in studies of genetic relationships between individuals for haploid, diploid, and polyploid species. Mol Ecol. 2005;14:415–24.Adler D. vioplot: Violin plot. 2005.Jost L. Gst and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol Ecol. 2008;17:4015–26.Excoffier L, Lischer H. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: A new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol Ecol Resour. 2010;10:564–7.Huson DH, Bryant D. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol Ecol Evol. 2006;23:254–67.Knight R, Maxwell P, Birmingham A, Carnes J, Caporaso JG, Easton BC, et al. PyCogent: a toolkit for making sense from sequence. Genome Biol. 2007;8:R171.Szpiech ZA, Jakobsson M, Rosenberg NA. ADZE: a rarefaction approach for counting alleles private to combinations of populations. Bioinformatics. 2008;24:2498–504.Bradbury PJ, Zhang Z, Kroon DE, Casstevens TM, Ramdoss Y, Buckler ES. TASSEL: software for association mapping of complex traits in diverse samples. Bioinformatics. 2007;23:2633–5.Cleveland WS. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. J Am Stat Assoc. 1979;74:829.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2013.Sinnot RS. Virtues of the haversine. Sky Telesc. 1984;68:159.Hijmans RJ, Etten JV. raster: Geographic data analysis and Modeling. 2013.Bryant D, Bouckaert R, Felsenstein J, Rosenberg NA, RoyChoudhury A. Inferring species trees directly from biallelic genetic markers: bypassing gene trees in a full coalescent analysis. Mol Biol Evol. 2012;29:1917–32.Drummond AJ, Rambaut A. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evol Biol. 2007;7:214.Rambaut A. Tracer v.1.5. 2009.Huang Z, van der Knaap E. Tomato fruit weight 11.3 maps close to fasciated on the bottom of chromosome 11. Theor Appl Genet. 2011;123:465–74.Guo M, Rupe MA, Dieter JA, Zou J, Spielbauer D, Duncan KE, et al. Cell Number Regulator1 affects plant and organ size in maize: implications for crop yield enhancement and heterosis. Plant Cell. 2010;22:1057–73.Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T. Molecular cloning. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1989.Lin T, Zhu G, Zhang J, Xu X, Yu Q, Zheng Z, et al. Genomic analyses provide insights into the history of tomato breeding. Nat Genet. 2014;46:1220–6.Platt A, Horton M, Huang YS, Li Y, Anastasio AE, Mulyati NW, et al. The scale of population structure in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Genet. 2010;6:e1000843.Pressoir G, Berthaud J. Patterns of population structure in maize landraces from the Central Valleys of Oaxaca in Mexico. Heredity (Edinb). 2004;92:88–94.Koenig D, Jiménez-Gómez JM, Kimura S, Fulop D, Chitwood DH, Headland LR, et al. Comparative transcriptomics reveals patterns of selection in domesticated and wild tomato. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110:e2655–62.Nakazato T, Housworth EA. Spatial genetics of wild tomato species reveals roles of the Andean geography on demographic history. Am J Bot. 2011;98:88–98.United States. Office of Experimental Stations. Experimental Station Recod, Volumen 39. Volume 39. Washington, DC, USA: United States. Office of Experimental Stations; 1918.Merk HL, Yames SC, Van Deynze A, Tong N, Menda N, Mueller LA, et al. Trait diversity and potential for selection indeces based on variation among regionally adapted processing tomato germplasm. J Am Soc Hortic Sci. 2012;137:427–37

Electroweak parameters of the z0 resonance and the standard model

Contains fulltext : 124399.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access