Skip to main content
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 1997 Feb;145(2):339–348. doi: 10.1093/genetics/145.2.339

An Introgression Analysis of Quantitative Trait Loci That Contribute to a Morphological Difference between Drosophila Simulans and D. Mauritiana

C C Laurie 1, J R True 1, J Liu 1, J M Mercer 1
PMCID: PMC1207799  PMID: 9071588

Abstract

Drosophila simulans and D. mauritiana differ markedly in morphology of the posterior lobe, a male-specific genitalic structure. Both size and shape of the lobe can be quantified by a morphometric variable, PC1, derived from principal components and Fourier analyses. The genetic architecture of the species difference in PC1 was investigated previously by composite interval mapping, which revealed largely additive inheritance, with a minimum of eight quantitative trait loci (QTL) affecting the trait. This analysis was extended by introgression of marked segments of the mauritiana third chromosome into a simulans background by repeated backcrossing. The two types of experiment are consistent in suggesting that several QTL on the third chromosome may have effects in the range of 10-15% of the parental difference and that all or nearly all QTL have effects in the same direction. Since the parental difference is large (30.4 environmental standard deviations), effects of this magnitude can produce alternative homozygotes with little overlap in phenotype. However, these estimates may not reflect the effects of individual loci, since each interval or introgressed segment may contain multiple QTL. The consistent direction of allelic effects suggests a history of directional selection on the posterior lobe.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (3.1 MB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bier E., Vaessin H., Shepherd S., Lee K., McCall K., Barbel S., Ackerman L., Carretto R., Uemura T., Grell E. Searching for pattern and mutation in the Drosophila genome with a P-lacZ vector. Genes Dev. 1989 Sep;3(9):1273–1287. doi: 10.1101/gad.3.9.1273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Doebley J., Stec A., Gustus C. teosinte branched1 and the origin of maize: evidence for epistasis and the evolution of dominance. Genetics. 1995 Sep;141(1):333–346. doi: 10.1093/genetics/141.1.333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Iwasa Y., Pomiankowski A. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature. 1995 Oct 5;377(6548):420–422. doi: 10.1038/377420a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Lander E. S., Botstein D. Mapping mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits using RFLP linkage maps. Genetics. 1989 Jan;121(1):185–199. doi: 10.1093/genetics/121.1.185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Liu J., Mercer J. M., Stam L. F., Gibson G. C., Zeng Z. B., Laurie C. C. Genetic analysis of a morphological shape difference in the male genitalia of Drosophila simulans and D. mauritiana. Genetics. 1996 Apr;142(4):1129–1145. doi: 10.1093/genetics/142.4.1129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Mackay T. F. The nature of quantitative genetic variation revisited: lessons from Drosophila bristles. Bioessays. 1996 Feb;18(2):113–121. doi: 10.1002/bies.950180207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. True J. R., Weir B. S., Laurie C. C. A genome-wide survey of hybrid incompatibility factors by the introgression of marked segments of Drosophila mauritiana chromosomes into Drosophila simulans. Genetics. 1996 Mar;142(3):819–837. doi: 10.1093/genetics/142.3.819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. deVicente M. C., Tanksley S. D. QTL analysis of transgressive segregation in an interspecific tomato cross. Genetics. 1993 Jun;134(2):585–596. doi: 10.1093/genetics/134.2.585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES