Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 2002 Oct;162(2):813–822. doi: 10.1093/genetics/162.2.813

Reconstruction of microsatellite mutation history reveals a strong and consistent deletion bias in invasive clonal snails, Potamopyrgus antipodarum.

David Weetman 1, Lorenz Hauser 1, Gary R Carvalho 1
PMCID: PMC1462296  PMID: 12399391

Abstract

Direct observations of mutations and comparative analyses suggest that nuclear microsatellites show a tendency to expand, with reports of deletion biases limited to very long alleles or a few loci in multilocus studies. Here we investigate microsatellite evolution in clonal snails, Potamopyrgus antipodarum, since their introduction to Britain in the 19th century, using an analysis based on minimum spanning networks of multilocus microsatellite genotypes. British populations consist of a small number of highly distinct genotype groups with very few outlying genotypes, suggesting clonal lineages containing minor variation generated by mutation. Network patterns suggest that a single introduced genotype was the ancestor of all extant variation and also provide support for wholly apomictic reproduction within the most common clonal lineage (group A). Microsatellites within group A showed a strong tendency to delete repeats, with an overall bias exceeding 88%, irrespective of the exact method used to infer mutations. This highly unusual pattern of deletion bias is consistent across populations and loci and is unrelated to allele size. We suggest that for persistence of microsatellites in this clone, some change in the mutation mechanism must have occurred in relatively recent evolutionary time. Possible causes of such a change in mechanism are discussed.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (157.8 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Amos W., Sawcer S. J., Feakes R. W., Rubinsztein D. C. Microsatellites show mutational bias and heterozygote instability. Nat Genet. 1996 Aug;13(4):390–391. doi: 10.1038/ng0896-390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arjan J. A., Visser M., Zeyl C. W., Gerrish P. J., Blanchard J. L., Lenski R. E. Diminishing returns from mutation supply rate in asexual populations. Science. 1999 Jan 15;283(5400):404–406. doi: 10.1126/science.283.5400.404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Charlesworth B., Sniegowski P., Stephan W. The evolutionary dynamics of repetitive DNA in eukaryotes. Nature. 1994 Sep 15;371(6494):215–220. doi: 10.1038/371215a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chenuil A., Desmarais E., Pouyaud L., Berrebi P. Does polyploidy lead to fewer and shorter microsatellites in Barbus (Teleostei:Cyprinidae)? Mol Ecol. 1997 Feb;6(2):169–178. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1997.00170.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cooper G., Burroughs N. J., Rand D. A., Rubinsztein D. C., Amos W. Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis of human Y-chromosome microsatellites provides evidence of biased mutation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Oct 12;96(21):11916–11921. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.21.11916. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Crandall K. A. Multiple interspecies transmissions of human and simian T-cell leukemia/lymphoma virus type I sequences. Mol Biol Evol. 1996 Jan;13(1):115–131. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Crandall K. A., Templeton A. R. Empirical tests of some predictions from coalescent theory with applications to intraspecific phylogeny reconstruction. Genetics. 1993 Jul;134(3):959–969. doi: 10.1093/genetics/134.3.959. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dermitzakis E. T., Clark A. G., Batargias C., Magoulas A., Zouros E. Negative covariance suggests mutation bias in a two-locus microsatellite system in the fish Sparus aurata. Genetics. 1998 Dec;150(4):1567–1575. doi: 10.1093/genetics/150.4.1567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Di Rienzo A., Donnelly P., Toomajian C., Sisk B., Hill A., Petzl-Erler M. L., Haines G. K., Barch D. H. Heterogeneity of microsatellite mutations within and between loci, and implications for human demographic histories. Genetics. 1998 Mar;148(3):1269–1284. doi: 10.1093/genetics/148.3.1269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ellegren H. Heterogeneous mutation processes in human microsatellite DNA sequences. Nat Genet. 2000 Apr;24(4):400–402. doi: 10.1038/74249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Excoffier L., Smouse P. E. Using allele frequencies and geographic subdivision to reconstruct gene trees within a species: molecular variance parsimony. Genetics. 1994 Jan;136(1):343–359. doi: 10.1093/genetics/136.1.343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hauser L., Carvalho G. R., Hughes R. N., Carter R. E. Clonal structure of the introduced freshwater snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum (Prosobranchia: Hydrobiidae), as revealed by DNA fingerprinting. Proc Biol Sci. 1992 Jul 22;249(1324):19–25. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1992.0078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Huang Qing-Yang, Xu Fu-Hua, Shen Hui, Deng Hong-Yi, Liu Yong-Jun, Liu Yao-Zhong, Li Jin-Long, Recker Robert R., Deng Hong-Wen. Mutation patterns at dinucleotide microsatellite loci in humans. Am J Hum Genet. 2002 Jan 15;70(3):625–634. doi: 10.1086/338997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Jacobsen R., Forbes V. E., Skovgaard O. Genetic population structure of the prosobranch snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum (Gray) in Denmark using PCR-RAPD fingerprints. Proc Biol Sci. 1996 Aug 22;263(1373):1065–1070. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1996.0157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kokoska R. J., Stefanovic L., DeMai J., Petes T. D. Increased rates of genomic deletions generated by mutations in the yeast gene encoding DNA polymerase delta or by decreases in the cellular levels of DNA polymerase delta. Mol Cell Biol. 2000 Oct;20(20):7490–7504. doi: 10.1128/mcb.20.20.7490-7504.2000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Neff B. D., Gross M. R. Microsatellite evolution in vertebrates: inference from AC dinucleotide repeats. Evolution. 2001 Sep;55(9):1717–1733. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2001.tb00822.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Posada D, Crandall KA. Intraspecific gene genealogies: trees grafting into networks. Trends Ecol Evol. 2001 Jan 1;16(1):37–45. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(00)02026-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Primmer C. R., Saino N., Møller A. P., Ellegren H. Directional evolution in germline microsatellite mutations. Nat Genet. 1996 Aug;13(4):391–393. doi: 10.1038/ng0896-391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Rubinsztein D. C., Amos W., Leggo J., Goodburn S., Jain S., Li S. H., Margolis R. L., Ross C. A., Ferguson-Smith M. A. Microsatellite evolution--evidence for directionality and variation in rate between species. Nat Genet. 1995 Jul;10(3):337–343. doi: 10.1038/ng0795-337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Saitou N., Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol. 1987 Jul;4(4):406–425. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Selosse M. -A., Albert B., Godelle B. Reducing the genome size of organelles favours gene transfer to the nucleus. Trends Ecol Evol. 2001 Mar 1;16(3):135–141. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(00)02084-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Sia E. A., Butler C. A., Dominska M., Greenwell P., Fox T. D., Petes T. D. Analysis of microsatellite mutations in the mitochondrial DNA of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jan 4;97(1):250–255. doi: 10.1073/pnas.97.1.250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Sia E. A., Jinks-Robertson S., Petes T. D. Genetic control of microsatellite stability. Mutat Res. 1997 Jan 31;383(1):61–70. doi: 10.1016/s0921-8777(96)00046-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Sia E. A., Kokoska R. J., Dominska M., Greenwell P., Petes T. D. Microsatellite instability in yeast: dependence on repeat unit size and DNA mismatch repair genes. Mol Cell Biol. 1997 May;17(5):2851–2858. doi: 10.1128/mcb.17.5.2851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Sunnucks P., England P. R., Taylor A. C., Hales D. F. Microsatellite and chromosome evolution of parthenogenetic sitobion aphids in Australia. Genetics. 1996 Oct;144(2):747–756. doi: 10.1093/genetics/144.2.747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Udupa S. M., Baum M. High mutation rate and mutational bias at (TAA)n microsatellite loci in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Mol Genet Genomics. 2001 Aug;265(6):1097–1103. doi: 10.1007/s004380100508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Watterson G. A., Guess H. A. Is the most frequent allele the oldest? Theor Popul Biol. 1977 Apr;11(2):141–160. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(77)90023-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Weber J. L., Wong C. Mutation of human short tandem repeats. Hum Mol Genet. 1993 Aug;2(8):1123–1128. doi: 10.1093/hmg/2.8.1123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Wierdl M., Dominska M., Petes T. D. Microsatellite instability in yeast: dependence on the length of the microsatellite. Genetics. 1997 Jul;146(3):769–779. doi: 10.1093/genetics/146.3.769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Xu X., Peng M., Fang Z. The direction of microsatellite mutations is dependent upon allele length. Nat Genet. 2000 Apr;24(4):396–399. doi: 10.1038/74238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES