Abstract
The ``dominance theory'' of HALDANE's rule postulates that hybrids of the heterogametic sex are more likely to be inviable or sterile than the homogametic sex because some of the epistatic incompatibilities contributing to postzygotic isolation behave as X-linked partial recessives. When this is true, pairs of taxa with relatively large X chromosomes should require less divergence time, on average, to produce HALDANE's rule than pairs with smaller Xs. Similarly, if the dominance theory is correct and if the X chromosome evolves at a similar rate to the autosomes, the size of the X should not influence the rate at which homogametic hybrids become inviable or sterile. We use Drosophila data to examine both of these predictions. As expected under the dominance theory, pairs of taxa with large X chromosomes (~40% of the nuclear genome) show HALDANE's rule for sterility at significantly smaller genetic distances than pairs with smaller X chromosomes (~20% of the genome). As also predicted, the genetic distances between taxa that exhibit female inviability/sterility show no differences between ``large X'' vs. ``small X'' pairs. We present some simple mathematical models to relate these data to the dominance theory and alternative hypotheses involving faster evolution of the X vs. the autosomes and/or faster evolution of incompatibilities that produce male-specific vs. female-specific sterility. Although the data agree qualitatively with the predictions of the dominance theory, they depart significantly from the quantitative predictions of simple models of the dominance theory and the other hypotheses considered. These departures probably stem from the many simplifying assumptions needed to tractably model epistatic incompatibilities and to analyze heterogeneous data from many taxa.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.9 MB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Ayala F. J., Tracey M. L. Enzyme variability in the Drosophila willistoni group. 8. Genetic differentiation and reproduction isolation between tow subspecies. J Hered. 1973 May-Jun;64(3):120–124. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a108367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bone J. R., Kuroda M. I. Dosage compensation regulatory proteins and the evolution of sex chromosomes in Drosophila. Genetics. 1996 Oct;144(2):705–713. doi: 10.1093/genetics/144.2.705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Choudhary M., Coulthart M. B., Singh R. S. A comprehensive study of genic variation in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. VI. Patterns and processes of genic divergence between D. melanogaster and its sibling species, Drosophila simulans. Genetics. 1992 Apr;130(4):843–853. doi: 10.1093/genetics/130.4.843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Choudhary M., Singh R. S. A Comprehensive Study of Genic Variation in Natural Populations of Drosophila melanogaster. III. Variations in Genetic Structure and Their Causes between Drosophila melanogaster and Its Sibling Species Drosophila simulans. Genetics. 1987 Dec;117(4):697–710. doi: 10.1093/genetics/117.4.697. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coyne J. A. Genetics and speciation. Nature. 1992 Feb 6;355(6360):511–515. doi: 10.1038/355511a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coyne J. A. Genetics of sexual isolation between two sibling species, Drosophila simulans and Drosophila mauritiana. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 Jul;86(14):5464–5468. doi: 10.1073/pnas.86.14.5464. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Davis A. W., Wu C. I. The broom of the sorcerer's apprentice: the fine structure of a chromosomal region causing reproductive isolation between two sibling species of Drosophila. Genetics. 1996 Jul;143(3):1287–1298. doi: 10.1093/genetics/143.3.1287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dobzhansky T., Ehrman L., Kastritsis P. A. Ethological isolation between sympatric and allopatric species of the Obscura group of Drosophila. Anim Behav. 1968 Feb;16(1):79–87. doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(68)90114-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Heikkinen E., Lumme J. Sterility of male and female hybrids of Drosophila virilis and Drosophila lummei. Heredity (Edinb) 1991 Aug;67(Pt 1):1–11. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1991.58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Khadem M., Krimbas C. B. Studies of the species barrier between Drosophila subobscura and D. madeirensis. I. The genetics of male hybrid sterility. Heredity (Edinb) 1991 Oct;67(Pt 2):157–165. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1991.75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kim B. K., Watanabe T. K., Kitagawa O. Evolutionary genetics of the Drosophila montium subgroup. I. Reproductive isolations and the phylogeny. Jpn J Genet. 1989 Jun;64(3):177–190. doi: 10.1266/jjg.64.177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moriyama E. N., Powell J. R. Intraspecific nuclear DNA variation in Drosophila. Mol Biol Evol. 1996 Jan;13(1):261–277. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025563. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Orr H. A. Genetics of male and female sterility in hybrids of Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. persimilis. Genetics. 1987 Aug;116(4):555–563. doi: 10.1093/genetics/116.4.555. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Orr H. A., Madden L. D., Coyne J. A., Goodwin R., Hawley R. S. The developmental genetics of hybrid inviability: a mitotic defect in Drosophila hybrids. Genetics. 1997 Apr;145(4):1031–1040. doi: 10.1093/genetics/145.4.1031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Orr H. A. Mapping and characterization of a 'speciation gene' in Drosophila. Genet Res. 1992 Apr;59(2):73–80. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300030275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Orr H. A. The population genetics of speciation: the evolution of hybrid incompatibilities. Genetics. 1995 Apr;139(4):1805–1813. doi: 10.1093/genetics/139.4.1805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Orr H. A., Turelli M. Dominance and Haldane's rule. Genetics. 1996 May;143(1):613–616. doi: 10.1093/genetics/143.1.613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sawamura K. Maternal effect as a cause of exceptions for Haldane's rule. Genetics. 1996 May;143(1):609–611. doi: 10.1093/genetics/143.1.609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Simmons M. J., Crow J. F. Mutations affecting fitness in Drosophila populations. Annu Rev Genet. 1977;11:49–78. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.11.120177.000405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sturtevant A H, Novitski E. The Homologies of the Chromosome Elements in the Genus Drosophila. Genetics. 1941 Sep;26(5):517–541. doi: 10.1093/genetics/26.5.517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Turelli M., Orr H. A. The dominance theory of Haldane's rule. Genetics. 1995 May;140(1):389–402. doi: 10.1093/genetics/140.1.389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
