Comparative organization of chloroplast, mitochondrial and nuclear diversity in plant populations.

By R. Petit, J. Duminil, S. Fineschi, A. Hampe, D. Salvini, G. Vendramin. Molecular Ecology, 2005

887 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Plants offer excellent models to investigate how gene flow shapes the organization of genetic diversity. Their three genomes can have different modes of transmission and will hence experience varying levels of gene flow. We have compiled studies of genetic structure based on chloroplast DNA (cpDNA), mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and nuclear markers in seed plants. Based on a data set of 183 species belonging to 103 genera and 52 families, we show that the precision of estimates of genetic differentiation (G(ST)) used to infer gene flow is mostly constrained by the sampling of populations. Mode of inheritance appears to have a major effect on G(ST). Maternally inherited genomes experience considerably more subdivision (median value of 0.67) than paternally or biparentally inherited genomes (approximately 0.10). G(ST) at cpDNA and mtDNA markers covary narrowly when both genomes are maternally inherited, whereas G(ST) at paternally and biparentally inherited markers also covary positively but more loosely and G(ST) at maternally inherited markers are largely independent of values based on nuclear markers. A model-based gross estimate suggests that, at the rangewide scale, historical levels of pollen flow are generally at least an order of magnitude larger than levels of seed flow (median of the pollen-to-seed migration ratio: 17) and that pollen and seed gene flow vary independently across species. Finally, we show that measures of subdivision that take into account the degree of similarity between haplotypes (N(ST) or R(ST)) make better use of the information inherent in haplotype data than standard measures based on allele frequencies only.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/777cb6d460aba93eda5d7bf2e6f01c5bf9666171

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

  1. A. Hampe
  2. K. Verheyen
  3. Martin Hermy
  4. R. Petit
  5. A. Kolb
  6. M. Diekmann
  7. F. Rodríguez‐Sánchez
  8. David A. Coomes

In Genetics

  1. H. Wagner
  2. Samuel A. Cushman
  3. R. Petit
  4. R. Holderegger
  5. Niko Balkenhol
  6. A. Hampe
  7. G. Vendramin
  8. Andrew Lowe

In Plant Science

  1. R. Petit
  2. Martin Hermy
  3. K. Verheyen
  4. A. Kolb
  5. M. Diekmann
  6. G. Vendramin
  7. F. Rodríguez‐Sánchez
  8. A. Hampe

Citations in the corpus