Genetica最新文献

Epimutations and mutations are two dissimilar mechanisms that have contributed to the phenotypic diversities in organisms. Though dissimilar, many previous studies have revealed that the consequences of epimutations and mutations are not mutually exclusive. DNA rich in epigenetic modifications can be prone to mutations and vice versa. In order to get a better insight into the molecular evolution in organisms, it is important to consider the information of both genetic and epigenetic changes in their genomes. Understanding the similarities and differences between the consequences of epimutations and mutations is required for a better interpretation of phenotypic diversities in organisms. Factors contributing to epigenetic changes such as paramutations and mutation hotspots and, the correlation of the interdependence of mutations and epigenetic changes in DNA are important aspects that need to be considered for molecular evolutionary studies. Thus, this review explains what epimutations are, their causes, how they are similar/different from mutations, and the influence of epigenetic changes and mutations on each other, further emphasizing how molecular evolution involving both mutations and epimutations can lead to speciation. Considering this approach will aid in reorganizing taxonomic classifications, importantly, solving disparities in species identification.

Even though the word "phenotype", as well as the expression "genotype-phenotype relationship", are a part of the everyday language of biologists, they remain abstract notions that are sometimes misunderstood or misused. In this article, I begin with a review of  the genesis of the concept of phenotype and of the meaning of the genotype-phenotype "relationship" from a historical perspective. I then illustrate how the development of new approaches for exploring the living world has enabled us to phenotype organisms at multiple levels, with traits that can either be measures or parameters of functions, leading to a virtually unlimited amount of phenotypic data. Thus, pleiotropy becomes a central issue in the study of the genotype-phenotype relationship. Finally, I provide a few examples showing that important genetic and evolutionary features clearly differ with the phenotypic level considered. The way genotypic variation propagates across the phenotypic levels to shape fitness variation is an essential research program in biology.

In this paper, we explain the concept of heritability and describe the different methods and the genotype-phenotype correspondences used to estimate heritability in the specific field of human genetics. Heritability studies are conducted on extremely diverse human traits: quantitative traits (physical, biological, but also cognitive and behavioral measurements) and binary traits (as is the case of most human diseases). Instead of variables such as education and socio-economic status as covariates in genetic studies, they are now the direct object of genetic analysis. We make a review of the different assumptions underlying heritability estimates and dispute the validity of most of them. Moreover, and maybe more importantly, we show that they are very often misinterpreted. These erroneous interpretations lead to a vision of a genetic determinism of human traits. This vision is currently being widely disseminated not only by the mass media and the mainstream press, but also by the scientific press. We caution against the dangerous implication it has both medically and socially. Contrarily to the field of animal and plant genetics for which the polygenic model and the concept of heritability revolutionized selection methods, we explain why it does not provide answer in human genetics.

Genotype-phenotype causal modeling has evolved significantly since Johannsen's and Wright's original designs were published. The development of genomewide assays to interrogate and detect possible causal variants associated with complex traits has expanded the scope of genotype-phenotype research considerably. Clusters of causal variants discovered by genomewide assays and associated with complex traits have been used to develop polygenic risk scores to predict clinical diagnoses of multidimensional human disorders. However, genomewide investigations have met with many challenges to their research designs and statistical complexities which have hindered the reliability and validity of their predictions. Findings linked to differences in heritability estimates between causal clusters and complex traits among unrelated individuals remain a research area of some controversy. Causal models developed from case-control studies as opposed to experiments, as well as other issues concerning the genotype-phenotype causal model and the extent to which various forms of pleiotropy and the concept of the endophenotype add to its complexity, will be reviewed.

Deciphering the genotype-phenotype map necessitates relating variation at the genetic level to variation at the phenotypic level. This endeavour is inherently limited by the availability of standing genetic variation, the rate of spontaneous mutation to novo genetic variants, and possible biases associated with induced mutagenesis. An interesting alternative is to instead rely on the environment as a source of variation. Many phenotypic traits change plastically in response to the environment, and these changes are generally underlain by changes in gene expression. Relating gene expression plasticity to the phenotypic plasticity of more integrated organismal traits thus provides useful information about which genes influence the development and expression of which traits, even in the absence of genetic variation. We here appraise the prospects and limits of such an environment-for-gene substitution for investigating the genotype-phenotype map. We review models of gene regulatory networks, and discuss the different ways in which they can incorporate the environment to mechanistically model phenotypic plasticity and its evolution. We suggest that substantial progress can be made in deciphering this genotype-environment-phenotype map, by connecting theory on gene regulatory network to empirical patterns of gene co-expression, and by more explicitly relating gene expression to the expression and development of phenotypes, both theoretically and empirically.

Phylogenetic relationships within Oxytropis DC. sect. Gloeocephala Bunge from Northeast Asia were studied using plastid intergenic spacers (psbA-trnH + trnL-trnF + trnS-trnG) and ITS nrDNA. Populations of O. anadyrensis Vass., O. borealis DC., O. middendorffii Trautv., O. trautvetteri Meinsh., and O. vasskovskyi Jurtz. were monomorphic or characterised by a low level of chloroplast genetic diversity (h varied from 0.143 to 0.692, and π from 0.0001 to 0.0005). Presumably, the low genetic diversity was a result of the severe bottlenecks during Pleistocene glaciation-interglacial cycles. Twenty chlorotypes were identified; species studied had no shared chlorotypes. Chlorotypes of O. anadyrensis, O. borealis, and O. middendorffii formed two lineages each, while the chlorotypes of O. trautvetteri and O. vasskovskyi formed one separate lineage each in the phylogenetic network. There were specific diagnostic markers of cpDNA in each lineage, excluding O. vasskovskyi. The presence of a species-specific diagnostic marker in O. trautvetteri and specific markers in two lineages of O. anadyrensis support circumscribing these taxa as independent species. Regarding ITS nrDNA polymorphism, five ribotypes were detected. The differences revealed in plastid and nuclear genomes of Oxytropis sect. Gloeocephala confirmed that the Asian sector of Megaberingia was the main centre of diversification of arctic legumes.