title: Non-homogeneous combination of two porous genomes induces complex body shape trajectories in cyprinid hybrids.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Hybridization is a common phenomenon in fish and is considered to be a major source of diversification. Deciphering the remoulding of genomic regions and phenotypes in zones where hybrid specimens occur is of particular interest to elucidate the emergence of evolutionary novelties. This approach is particularly challenging because the first step of hybridization seems to be the most important stage in the emergence of hybrid lineages. However, the signal can be significantly altered after only a few generations.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We studied 41 microsatellites and partial cytochrome b gene sequences in 970 specimens belonging to two fish species (Chondrostoma nasus and Parachondrostoma toxostoma) in allopatric/parapatric zones, hybrids between them in a natural sympatric zone: the Ardèche basin. We showed that the genomic architecture in hybrids presented pattern heterogeneity of selection for the different loci. Indeed, the upstream part of the river (Rosières and Labeaume) presented an overdominant fitness of heterozygotes (12.20%) corresponding to a genomic compatibility, and underselection was observed for 4.88%-7.32% of the loci tested indicating a genomic incompatibility. Moreover the upstream station (Rosières) presented a positive selection of invasive C. nasus homozygotes (17.07% to 21.95%) indicating that hybridization may increase the fitness of admixed individuals.We showed that hybrid morphology (body shape based on 21 landmarks) correlated with genomic dilution indicating a species fingerprint. However, we demonstrated that the hybrid morphology was not a linear modification between the two parental species but a trade-off between several correlated traits.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Hybrid specimens present a mosaic of genomic combination, showing regions with genomic compatibility and others with genomic incompatibility between the two species. Positive selection (invasive advantage ranging from 9.76% to 21.95% of the loci) was evidenced in the upstream part of the Ardèche indicating that environmental selection makes a substantial contribution. Although the presence of a dam is known to impose heterogeneous hybrid zones between these two species, we demonstrated in this study that a natural environment can also generate a hybrid zone with a large number (and diversity) of hybrids. The combination of the two genomes in the hybrids results in complex ontogenetic trajectories (with different morphological traits evolving at different rates) that correspond to novel developmental pathways.
authors: Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, IRD, IMBE - UMR 7263, Equipe Evolution Génome Environnement, Centre Saint-Charles, Case 36, 3 place Victor Hugo, Marseille Cedex 3 13331, France. melthide.sinama@imbe.fr.
authors: Melthide
authors: M
authors: Sinama
authors: André
authors: A
authors: Gilles
authors: Caroline
authors: C
authors: Costedoat
authors: Emmanuel
authors: E
authors: Corse
authors: Jean-Michel
authors: JM
authors: Olivier
authors: Rémi
authors: R
authors: Chappaz
authors: Nicolas
authors: N
authors: Pech
references: J Theor Biol. 2002 Aug 21;217(4):499-507
references: 12234756
references: Mol Ecol. 2005 Jul;14(8):2611-20
references: 15969739
references: Mol Ecol Resour. 2008 Jan;8(1):103-6
references: 21585727
references: Genetics. 2006 Apr;172(4):2481-9
references: 16415358
references: Mol Ecol. 2009 Jun;18(12):2615-27
references: 19457191
references: Genome Biol. 2006;7(4):R29
references: 16600017
references: Mol Ecol. 2012 Oct;21(19):4797-810
references: 22650446
references: Genetics. 2000 Jun;155(2):945-59
references: 10835412
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2004 Apr;19(4):198-207
references: 16701254
references: J Evol Biol. 2013 Feb;26(2):229-46
references: 23323997
references: Am Nat. 2006 Jun;167(6):794-807
references: 16649157
references: Genetics. 2005 Jun;170(2):767-77
references: 15834142
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Jul;20(7):358-61
references: 16701394
references: Mol Ecol Resour. 2010 Sep;10(5):806-20
references: 21565092
references: Front Zool. 2011 Apr 14;8(1):7
references: 21489312
references: Heredity (Edinb). 2007 Feb;98(2):74-84
references: 16985509
references: Mol Ecol Resour. 2010 Mar;10(2):378-84
references: 21565033
references: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1998 Aug;10(1):132-43
references: 9751923
references: Bioessays. 2008 May;30(5):432-47
references: 18404691
references: Evol Bioinform Online. 2007 Feb 23;1:47-50
references: 19325852
references: Front Zool. 2009 Oct 27;6:26
references: 19860907
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Dec;23(12):686-94
references: 18845358
references: PLoS One. 2007 Apr 04;2(4):e357
references: 17406681
references: BMC Res Notes. 2010 May 17;3:135
references: 20478030
references: Evolution. 2008 Jan;62(1):76-85
references: 18005154
references: Mol Ecol. 2012 Oct;21(20):5042-58
references: 22989336
references: Mol Ecol. 2011 Apr;20(7):1475-91
references: 21251111
references: Mol Ecol. 2001 Mar;10(3):551-68
references: 11298968
references: Front Zool. 2005 Jun 29;2:11
references: 15987531
references: Nat Rev Genet. 2005 Feb;6(2):119-27
references: 15716908
references: Front Zool. 2011 Jun 15;8:16
references: 21672266
references: Mol Ecol. 2007 Apr;16(8):1579-91
references: 17402975
references: Mol Ecol. 2009 Mar;18(6):1207-24
references: 19243513
references: Trends Genet. 2010 Feb;26(2):54-8
references: 20044166
references: Heredity (Edinb). 1999 Oct;83 ( Pt 4):363-72
references: 10583537
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008 Sep 12;363(1505):2841-50
references: 18508754