Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 2002 Jan;160(1):333–342. doi: 10.1093/genetics/160.1.333

Genetic variation for phenotypically invariant traits detected in teosinte: implications for the evolution of novel forms.

Nick Lauter 1, John Doebley 1
PMCID: PMC1461939  PMID: 11805068

Abstract

How new discrete states of morphological traits evolve is poorly understood. One possibility is that single-gene changes underlie the evolution of new discrete character states and that evolution is dependent on the occurrence of new single-gene mutations. Another possibility is that multiple-gene changes are required to elevate an individual or population above a threshold required to produce the new character state. A prediction of the latter model is that genetic variation for the traits should exist in natural populations in the absence of phenotypic variation. To test this idea, we studied traits that are phenotypically invariant within teosinte and for which teosinte is discretely different from its near relative, maize. By employing a QTL mapping strategy to analyze the progeny of a testcross between an F(1) of two teosintes and a maize inbred line, we identified cryptic genetic variation in teosinte for traits that are invariant in teosinte. We argue that such cryptic genetic variation can contribute to the evolution of novelty when reconfigured to exceed the threshold necessary for phenotypic expression or by acting to modify or stabilize the effects of major mutations.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (121.6 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Churchill G. A., Doerge R. W. Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics. 1994 Nov;138(3):963–971. doi: 10.1093/genetics/138.3.963. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cubas P., Vincent C., Coen E. An epigenetic mutation responsible for natural variation in floral symmetry. Nature. 1999 Sep 9;401(6749):157–161. doi: 10.1038/43657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. DUN R. B., FRASER A. S. Selection for an invariant character; vibrissa number in the house mouse. Nature. 1958 Apr 5;181(4614):1018–1019. doi: 10.1038/1811018a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Davis G. L., McMullen M. D., Baysdorfer C., Musket T., Grant D., Staebell M., Xu G., Polacco M., Koster L., Melia-Hancock S. A maize map standard with sequenced core markers, grass genome reference points and 932 expressed sequence tagged sites (ESTs) in a 1736-locus map. Genetics. 1999 Jul;152(3):1137–1172. doi: 10.1093/genetics/152.3.1137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Doebley J. Mapping the genes that made maize. Trends Genet. 1992 Sep;8(9):302–307. doi: 10.1016/0168-9525(92)90261-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Doebley J., Stec A. Genetic analysis of the morphological differences between maize and teosinte. Genetics. 1991 Sep;129(1):285–295. doi: 10.1093/genetics/129.1.285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. Doebley J., Stec A. Inheritance of the morphological differences between maize and teosinte: comparison of results for two F2 populations. Genetics. 1993 Jun;134(2):559–570. doi: 10.1093/genetics/134.2.559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gibson G., Wemple M., van Helden S. Potential variance affecting homeotic Ultrabithorax and Antennapedia phenotypes in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1999 Mar;151(3):1081–1091. doi: 10.1093/genetics/151.3.1081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Huether C. A., Jr Exposure of natural genetic variability underlying the pentamerous corolla constancy in Linanthus androsaceus ssp. androsaceus. Genetics. 1968 Sep;60(1):123–146. doi: 10.1093/genetics/60.1.123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lander E. S., Green P., Abrahamson J., Barlow A., Daly M. J., Lincoln S. E., Newberg L. A., Newburg L. MAPMAKER: an interactive computer package for constructing primary genetic linkage maps of experimental and natural populations. Genomics. 1987 Oct;1(2):174–181. doi: 10.1016/0888-7543(87)90010-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Luo D., Carpenter R., Vincent C., Copsey L., Coen E. Origin of floral asymmetry in Antirrhinum. Nature. 1996 Oct 31;383(6603):794–799. doi: 10.1038/383794a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Polaczyk P. J., Gasperini R., Gibson G. Naturally occurring genetic variation affects Drosophila photoreceptor determination. Dev Genes Evol. 1998 Jan;207(7):462–470. doi: 10.1007/s004270050137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Running M. P., Meyerowitz E. M. Mutations in the PERIANTHIA gene of Arabidopsis specifically alter floral organ number and initiation pattern. Development. 1996 Apr;122(4):1261–1269. doi: 10.1242/dev.122.4.1261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Rutherford S. L., Lindquist S. Hsp90 as a capacitor for morphological evolution. Nature. 1998 Nov 26;396(6709):336–342. doi: 10.1038/24550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Wade M. J., Johnson N. A., Jones R., Siguel V., McNaughton M. Genetic variation segregating in natural populations of Tribolium castaneum affecting traits observed in hybrids with T. freemani. Genetics. 1997 Nov;147(3):1235–1247. doi: 10.1093/genetics/147.3.1235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Wang R. L., Stec A., Hey J., Lukens L., Doebley J. The limits of selection during maize domestication. Nature. 1999 Mar 18;398(6724):236–239. doi: 10.1038/18435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES