Karyotype Evolution

Abstract

Comparative studies provide a blueprint of the pathways leading to the genome organization of modern mammals. Several evolutionary forces explain the direction and rate of karyotypic change during evolution.

Keywords: karyotype; evolution; chromosome rearrangements; natural selection; meiotic drive; underdominance; Robertsonian translocations

Figure 1.

Changes in allele frequency in underdominant mutations. q: allele frequency of the variant chromosome; p: allele frequency of the ancestral chromosome; Δq: changes in allele frequency; s: coefficient of selection against heterozygotes; m: segregation ratio of the variant chromosome at meiosis. Δq={pq[s(4q−2m−1)+2m−1]}/2(1−2spq) (Graphs are based in the formulas from Hedrick .)

Figure 2.

Effect of genetic drift on the probability of fixation of underdominant mutations. The graph shows a comparison between the probabilities of fixation for a neutral mutation with Mendelian segregation (s=0; m=0.5) and underdominant mutations with (s=0.1; m=0.6) and without (s=0.1; m=0.5) drive favoring the new variant. s: coefficient of selection against heterozygotes; m, segregation ratio of the variant chromosome at meiosis. (Graphs are based in the formulas from Hedrick .)

Figure 3.

Effect of natural selection on the unstable equilibrium frequency. (a) Adaptive selection in favor of the new homokaryote. (b) Meiotic drive. m: segregation ratio of the variant chromosome at meiosis; qe: unstable equilibrium frequency; s: coefficient of selection against heterozygotes; s′: coefficient of selection in favor of the new homokaryote.

Figure 4.

Change in allele frequency for underdominant (s=0.1) mutations in the presence of drive in favor (m=0.6) and against (m=0.4) the new chromosome variant. The curve in the absence of meiotic drive is also shown. m: segregation ratio of the variant chromosome at meiosis; q: allele frequency of the variant chromosome; p: allele frequency of the ancestral chromosome; Δq: changes in allele frequency. Δq={pq[s(4q−2m−1)+2m−1]}/2(1−2spq).

Figure 5.

Meiotic drive in Robertsonian translocations. (Top) Alternative products of balanced segregation at MI, first meiotic division. (Bottom) Insets depict the different orientation of the centromeres that lead to each type of segregation product. Arrows represent the alternative types of segregation favored by human and mouse.

close

References

Britton‐Davidian J, Catalan J, Ramalhinho MG, et al. (2000) Rapid evolution in island mice. Nature 403: 158.

Burt DW, Bruley C, Dunn IC, et al. (1999) The dynamics of chromosome evolution in birds and mammals. Nature 402: 411–413.

Hedrick PW (1981) The establishment of chromosomal variants. Evolution 35: 322–332.

Jacobs PA (1981) Mutation rates of structural chromosome rearrangements in man. American Journal of Human Genetics 33: 44–54.

Lande R (1979) Effective deme sizes during long‐term evolution estimated from rates of chromosomal rearrangements. Evolution 33: 234–251.

Muller S and Weinberg J (2001) ‘Bar‐coding’ primate chromosomes: molecular cytogenetic screening for the ancestral hominoid karyotype. Human Genetics 109: 85–94.

Muller S, Stanyon R, Finelli P, Archidiacono N and Weinberg J (2000) Molecular cytogenetic dissection of human chromosomes 3 and 21 evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97: 206–211.

Nachman MW and Searle JB (1995) Why is the house mouse so variable? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 397–402.

O'Brien SJ, Menotti‐Raymond M, Murphy WJ, et al. (1999) The promise of comparative genomics in mammals. Science 286: 458–481.

O'Neill RJ, O'Neill MJ and Marshall Graves JA (1998) Undermethylation associated with retroelement activation and chromosome remodelling in an interspecific mammalian hybrid. Nature 393: 68–72.

Pardo‐Manuel de Villena F and Sapienza C (2001a) Female meiosis drives karyotypic evolution in mammals. Genetics 159: 1179–1189.

Pardo‐Manuel de Villena F and Sapienza C (2001b) Transmission ratio distortion in offspring of heterozygous female carriers of Robertsonian translocations. Human Genetics 108: 31–36.

Prak E and Kazazian Jr HH (2000) Mobile elements and the human genome. Nature Reviews Genetics 1: 134–144.

Qumsiyeh MB (1994) Evolution of number and morphology of mammalian chromosomes. Journal of Heredity 85: 455–465.

Vergnaud G and Denoeud F (2000) Minisatellites: mutability and genome architecture. Genome Research 10: 889–907.

White MJD (1978) Modes of Speciation. San Francisco, CA: WH Freeman.

Further Reading

Boue A, Boue J and Gropp A (1985) Cytogenetics of pregnancy wastage. Advances in Human Genetics 14: 1–57.

Henikoff S and Malik HS (2002) Selfish drivers. Nature 417: 227.

King M (1993) Species Evolution: The Role of Chromosome Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kolnicki RL (2000) Kinetochore reproduction in animal evolution: cell biological explanation of karyotypic fission theory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97: 9493–9497.

O'Brien SJ and Stanyon R (1999) Ancestral primate viewed. Nature 402: 365–366.

Pardo‐Manuel de Villena F and Sapienza C (2001) Nonrandom segregation during meiosis: the unfairness of females. Mammalian Genome 12: 331–339.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Pardo‐Manuel de Villena, Fernando(Sep 2006) Karyotype Evolution. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0006123]