Abstract

Mutation rates vary between species, between strains within species and between regions within a genome. What are the determinants of these forms of variation? Here, via parent–offspring sequencing of the peach we ask whether (i) woody perennials tend to have lower per unit time mutation rates compared to annuals, and (ii) hybrid strains have high mutation rates. Between a leaf from a low heterozygosity individual, derived from an intraspecific cross, to a leaf of its selfed progeny, the mutation rate is 7.77 × 10−9 point mutations per bp per generation, similar to Arabidopsis thaliana (7.0–7.4 × 10−9 point mutations per bp per generation). This suggests a low per unit time mutation rate as the generation time is much longer in peach. This is supported by our estimate of 9.48 × 10−9 point mutations per bp per generation from a 200-year-old low heterozygosity peach to its progeny. From a more highly heterozygous individual derived from an interspecific cross to its selfed progeny, the mutation rate is 1.38 × 10−8 mutations per site per generation, consistent with raised rates in hybrids. Our data thus suggest that (i) peach has an approximately order of magnitude lower mutation rate per unit time than Arabidopsis, consistent with reports of low evolutionary rates in woody perennials, and (ii) hybridization may, indeed, be associated with increased mutation rates as considered over a century ago.

Highlights

  • Mutation rates vary between species, between strains within species [1,2,3] and between regions within a genome [4,5]

  • We focus on the possibilities that (i) woody perennials might have low mutation rates [6,7,8] compared with fast growing annuals, and (ii) hybrid strains have higher mutation rates [9]

  • We ask whether recombination might be mutagenic [10,11] and whether the recombination rate is raised in this domesticated species [12,13,14]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Mutation rates vary between species, between strains within species [1,2,3] and between regions within a genome [4,5]. Mapping errors owing to highly similar paralogous sequences could result in pseudo-heterozygosity To minimize these errors, we remove those markers residing in large structural variant (SV) regions of F1 samples compared with the reference genome in each group (see the electronic supplementary material, methods). Candidate mutations were detected by requiring: (i) at least five reads with both forward and reverse strands in the focal sample (e.g. the sample carries a different allele from all other samples), (ii) the parental samples should contain informative calls as a background, and no more than five ‘missing’ data calls in other F2 samples (a high ‘missing’ rate in each group is a sign of low variant quality), and (iii) no evidence that the same mutationally derived allele is present in either parental samples or other F2 progeny. We apply the Poisson test function in R to estimate 95% confidence intervals

Results
Discussion
47. Koboldt DC et al 2012 VarScan 2
49. Larkin MA et al 2007 Clustal W and Clustal X
Findings
53. Giannino D et al 2003 Isolation and characterization
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call