Submit a preprint

164

Population genomics supports clonal reproduction and multiple gains and losses of parasitic abilities in the most devastating nematode plant pestuse asterix (*) to get italics
Georgios D. Koutsovoulos, Eder Marques, Marie-Jeanne Arguel, Laurent Duret, Andressa C.Z. Machado, Regina M.D.G. Carneiro, Djampa K. Kozlowski, Marc Bailly-Bechet, Philippe Castagnone-Sereno, Erika V.S. Albuquerque, Etienne G.J. Danchin Please use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
2019
<p>The most devastating nematodes to worldwide agriculture are the root-knot nematodes with Meloidogyne incognita being the most widely distributed and damaging species. This parasitic and ecological success seem surprising given its supposed obligatory clonal reproduction. Clonal reproduction has been suspected based on cytological observations but, so far, never confirmed by population genomics data. At the species level, M. incognita is highly polyphagous with thousands of host plants. However, the host range varies among different M. incognita isolates that may present distinct and more restricted host compatibilities. Historically, four host races had been defined as a function of ranges of compatible and incompatible plants. We sequenced the genomes of 11 isolates across Brazil, covering these four distinct races to assess (i) how clonal reproduction is and (ii) how the level of genome variability associates with biological traits such as the host races, affected agronomic culture, and geographical distribution. By aligning the genomic reads of the isolates to the M. incognita reference genome assembly, we identified SNV and small-scale insertions/deletions. Analysis of linkage disequilibrium and 4-gametes test, showed no sign of recombination, confirming the clonal mode of reproduction of M. incognita. We showed that there are relatively few point variations between the different isolates, and these variations show no significant association with either the host races, the geographical origin of the samples or the host plant on which they have been collected. Due to the lack of phylogenetic signal underlying their existence, we recommend the discontinuation of the terminology race. Overall, these results suggest that multiple gains and losses of parasitic abilities and adaptations to different environmental conditions account for the broad host spectrum and wide geographic distribution of M. incognita. Hence, this nematode constitutes a model species to study adaptability without sexual recombination and overall low genomic variations in animals.</p>
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE116847You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
https://github.com/GDKO/gdk_scripts/tree/master/popgenvcfYou should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
asexual evolution, parallel adaptation, SNV, genotype-phenotype, pathotypes, recombination
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Adaptation, Bioinformatics & Computational Biology, Evolutionary Ecology, Genome Evolution, Genotype-Phenotype, Molecular Evolution, Phylogenetics / Phylogenomics, Population Genetics / Genomics, Reproduction and Sex
e.g. John Doe john@doe.com
No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEvolBiol. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe john@doe.com
2018-08-24 09:02:33
Nicolas Galtier