Back

Parental-effect gene-drive elements under partial selfing, or why do Caenorhabditis genomes have hyperdivergent regions?

Rockman, M. V.

2024-07-24 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2024.07.23.604817 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Self-fertile Caenorhabditis nematodes carry a surprising number of Medea elements, alleles that act in heterozygous mothers and cause death or developmental delay in offspring that dont inherit them. At some loci, both alleles in a cross operate as independent Medeas, affecting all the homozygous progeny of a selfing heterozygote. The genomic coincidence of Medea elements and ancient, deeply coalescing haplotypes, which pepper the otherwise homogeneous genomes of these animals, raises questions about how these apparent gene-drive elements persist for long periods of time. Here I investigate how mating system affects the evolution of Medeas, and their paternal-effect counterparts, peels. Despite an intuition that antagonistic alleles should induce balancing selection by killing homozygotes, models show that, under partial selfing, antagonistic elements experience positive frequency dependence: the common allele drives the rare one extinct, even if the rare one is more penetrant. Analytical results for the threshold frequency required for one allele to invade a population show that a very weakly penetrant allele, one whose effects would escape laboratory detection, could nevertheless prevent a much more penetrant allele from invading under high rates of selfing. Ubiquitous weak antagonistic Medeas and peels could then act as localized barriers to gene flow between populations, generating genomic islands of deep coalescence. Analysis of gene expression data, however, suggest that this cannot be the whole story. A complementary explanation is that ordinary ecological balancing selection generates ancient haplotypes on which Medeas can evolve, while high homozygosity in these selfers minimizes the role of gene drive in their evolution.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.