The evolution of genomic imprinting: theories, predictions and empirical tests

被引:0
|
作者
M M Patten
L Ross
J P Curley
D C Queller
R Bonduriansky
J B Wolf
机构
[1] Georgetown University,Department of Biology
[2] School of Biological Sciences,Psychology Department
[3] Institute of Evolutionary Biology,Department of Biology
[4] University of Edinburgh,Department of Biology and Biochemistry
[5] Columbia University,undefined
[6] Washington University,undefined
[7] Evolution & Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological,undefined
[8] Earth and Environmental Sciences,undefined
[9] University of New South Wales,undefined
[10] University of Bath,undefined
来源
Heredity | 2014年 / 113卷
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The epigenetic phenomenon of genomic imprinting has motivated the development of numerous theories for its evolutionary origins and genomic distribution. In this review, we examine the three theories that have best withstood theoretical and empirical scrutiny. These are: Haig and colleagues’ kinship theory; Day and Bonduriansky’s sexual antagonism theory; and Wolf and Hager’s maternal–offspring coadaptation theory. These theories have fundamentally different perspectives on the adaptive significance of imprinting. The kinship theory views imprinting as a mechanism to change gene dosage, with imprinting evolving because of the differential effect that gene dosage has on the fitness of matrilineal and patrilineal relatives. The sexual antagonism and maternal–offspring coadaptation theories view genomic imprinting as a mechanism to modify the resemblance of an individual to its two parents, with imprinting evolving to increase the probability of expressing the fitter of the two alleles at a locus. In an effort to stimulate further empirical work on the topic, we carefully detail the logic and assumptions of all three theories, clarify the specific predictions of each and suggest tests to discriminate between these alternative theories for why particular genes are imprinted.
引用
收藏
页码:119 / 128
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The evolution of genomic imprinting: Abortion and overshoot explain aberrations
    Iwasa, Y
    Mochizuki, A
    Takeda, Y
    EVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGY RESEARCH, 1999, 1 (02) : 129 - 150
  • [42] Host defenses to transposable elements and the evolution of genomic imprinting
    McDonald, JF
    Matzke, MA
    Matzke, AJ
    CYTOGENETIC AND GENOME RESEARCH, 2005, 110 (1-4) : 242 - 249
  • [43] Rapid Evolution of Genomic Imprinting in Two Species of the Brassicaceae
    Hatorangan, Marcelinus R.
    Laenen, Benjamin
    Steige, Kim A.
    Slotte, Tanja
    Kohler, Claudia
    PLANT CELL, 2016, 28 (08): : 1815 - 1827
  • [44] Coadaptation and conflict, misconception and muddle, in the evolution of genomic imprinting
    Haig, D.
    HEREDITY, 2014, 113 (02) : 96 - 103
  • [45] CYTONUCLEAR INTERACTIONS CAN FAVOR THE EVOLUTION OF GENOMIC IMPRINTING
    Wolf, Jason B.
    EVOLUTION, 2009, 63 (05) : 1364 - 1371
  • [46] Genomic predictions using more markers and gene tests
    Wiggans, G. R.
    VanRaden, P. M.
    Null, D. J.
    Cole, J. B.
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2019, 102 : 397 - 397
  • [47] Genomic imprinting and imprinting defects
    Horsthemke, B.
    MEDIZINISCHE GENETIK, 2010, 22 (04) : 385 - 391
  • [48] Intralocus sexual conflict can drive the evolution of genomic imprinting
    Day, T
    Bonduriansky, R
    GENETICS, 2004, 167 (04) : 1537 - 1546
  • [49] GENOMIC IMPRINTING
    MONK, M
    GENES & DEVELOPMENT, 1988, 2 (08) : 921 - 925
  • [50] Genomic imprinting
    Hall, Judith G.
    CURRENT OPINION IN GENETICS & DEVELOPMENT, 1991, 1 (01) : 34 - 39