henhaobio
Sign in

Genome Biology and EvolutionMolecular BiologyPeer-reviewed journal article

Secondary evolve and re-sequencing: an experimental confirmation of putative selection targets without phenotyping

Claire BurnyiD, Viola NolteiD, Pierre NouhaudiD, Marlies Dolezal, Christian SchlöttereriD

PDFDOIPreprint

Abstract

Evolve and re-sequencing (E&R) studies investigate the genomic responses of adaptation during experimental evolution. Because replicate populations evolve in the same controlled environment, consistent responses to selection across replicates are frequently used to identify reliable candidate regions that underlie adaptation to a new environment. However, recent work demonstrated that selection signatures can be restricted to one or a few replicate(s) only. These selection signatures frequently have a weak statistical support, and given the difficulties of functional validation, additional evidence is needed before considering them as candidates for functional analysis. Here, we introduce an experimental procedure to validate candidate loci with weak or replicate-specific selection signature(s). Crossing an evolved population from a primary E&R experiment to the ancestral founder population reduces the frequency of candidate alleles that have reached a high frequency. We hypothesize that genuine selection targets will experience a repeatable frequency increase after the mixing with the ancestral founders if they are exposed to the same environment (secondary E&R experiment). Using this approach, we successfully validate two overlapping selection targets, which showed a mutually exclusive selection signature in a primary E&R experiment of Drosophila simulans adapting to a novel temperature regime. We conclude that secondary E&R experiments provide a reliable confirmation of selection signatures that are either not replicated or show only a low statistical significance in a primary E&R experiment. Such experiments are particularly helpful to prioritize candidate loci for time-consuming functional follow-up investigations.

Citations
11
FWCI
1.32
Field percentile
top 22%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.