- THIS ARTICLE
-
Abstract
- Full Text (PDF)
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- SERVICES
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Alert me to new issues of the journal
- Download to citation manager
- Reprints & Permissions
- CITING ARTICLES
- Citing Articles via HighWire
- Citing Articles via Google Scholar
- GOOGLE SCHOLAR
- Articles by Schierup, M. H.
- Articles by Christiansen, F. B.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Schierup, M. H.
- Articles by Christiansen, F. B.
Allelic Genealogies in Sporophytic Self-Incompatibility Systems in Plants
Mikkel H. Schierupa, Xavier Vekemansb, and Freddy B. Christiansenaa Department of Ecology and Genetics, University of Aarhus, DK-8000 Aarhus C., Denmark
b Laboratoire de Génétique et d'Ecologie Végétales, Université Libre de Bruxelles, B-1160 Brussels, Belgium
Corresponding author: Mikkel H. Schierup, Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology (ICAPB), University of Edinburgh, Ashworth Laboratory, King’s Bldgs., W. Mains Rd., Edinburgh EH9 3JT, United Kingdom., mikkel.schierup{at}biology.aau.dk (E-mail).
Communicating editor: M. K. UYENOYAMA
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
Expectations for the time scale and structure of allelic genealogies in finite populations are formed under three models of sporophytic self-incompatibility. The models differ in the dominance interactions among the alleles that determine the self-incompatibility phenotype: In the SSIcod model, alleles act codominantly in both pollen and style, in the SSIdom model, alleles form a dominance hierarchy, and in SSIdomcod, alleles are codominant in the style and show a dominance hierarchy in the pollen. Coalescence times of alleles rarely differ more than threefold from those under gametophytic self-incompatibility, and transspecific polymorphism is therefore expected to be equally common. The previously reported directional turnover process of alleles in the SSIdomcod model results in coalescence times lower and substitution rates higher than those in the other models. The SSIdom model assumes strong asymmetries in allelic action, and the most recessive extant allele is likely to be the most recent common ancestor. Despite these asymmetries, the expected shape of the allele genealogies does not deviate markedly from the shape of a neutral gene genealogy. The application of the results to sequence surveys of alleles, including interspecific comparisons, is discussed.
HOMOMORPHIC, single-locus self-incompatibility (SI) systems in plants have long been known to contain a very large number of alleles (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The MHC and GSI loci share an excess of nonsynonymous over synonymous substitutions in the putative specificity-determining regions [the antigen-binding region of MHC alleles (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Sporophytic self-incompatibility in Brassicaceae also shows transspecific polymorphism (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
|
We here extend and apply our previous results to reach a description of the genealogical structure of extant S-alleles in a finite population for the same three models of SSI. The differences in dominance, the varying degrees of asymmetry in selection coefficients, and the different turnover process of alleles are expected to affect both the coalescence times of alleles and the shape of their genealogical tree. We investigate both properties in our models by simulations. The substitution rates for mutations conferring new allelic specificities are investigated to formulate expectations for the rate of evolution in the specificity-determining region of an SSI system. We show that the random-walk approximation also predicts coalescence times accurately, and we use the approximation to predict the time since origin of extant alleles as a function of their current dominance levels. We investigate the effect of the specific mutation model in the models with dominance. In our earlier studies we assumed that the characteristics of a new mutant are independent of its origin, in genealogical terms, hence that the descendant of a given allele would have a random dominance level. Here, we also include a model of the opposite extreme, where the descendant allele is given a dominance level next to that of its ancestor. We show that the conclusions on the size and shape of the genealogy are virtually independent of the mutation model and discuss the detailed influence of the mutation model on the genealogy of alleles. This is relevant to inferences about the mutation model from the genealogy of alleles sampled from natural populations. Finally, we investigate the power of the statistics introduced by ![]()
| MODELS |
|---|
The compatibility of pollen and style is determined by alleles S1, S2, ... , Sn, at one locus in a diploid plant species. Four basic models of SI were investigated: the GSI model, where alleles act codominantly in the style and pollen expressing only its own allele, and the three different models of SSI (Table 1). In the two models involving dominance, the dominance models, the extant alleles in the population are sorted along a linear dominance hierarchy (S1 < S2 < ... < Sn) for determination of the phenotype; i.e., allele Si is recessive to Sj when i < j, allele S1 is recessive, and allele Sn is dominant to all other alleles. Each of the models were considered with and without FS, and models with FS will explicitly be referred to as GSIFS, SSIcodFS, SSIdomFS, and SSIdomcodFS.
For the dominance models, two distinct mutation schemes were investigated. Under the random mutation scheme, a new allele arising by mutation is placed at random in one of the n + 1 possible states (including boundaries) within the dominance hierarchy, and the relative dominance levels of the extant alleles are shifted accordingly. Under the one-step mutation scheme, a new allele is placed on the dominance level above or below the dominance level of its parental allele. The random mutation scheme is used below, unless stated otherwise.
| POPULATION SIMULATIONS |
|---|
We simulated reproduction in a diploid plant population of size N with nonoverlapping generations using the Wright-Fisher model. In each generation, progeny were produced by the following procedure. One of the 2N genes is chosen at random as the maternal gamete and one as the pollen gamete. Compatibility is checked according to the self-incompatibility model, using the genotypes of the maternal and paternal plants. If the pollen grain is compatible, a new zygote is formed. If it is incompatible, then the other pollen phenotype of the same paternal parent is tried in the case of the GSI model, in which pollen of a given plant has two incompatibility types. If the pollen donor is incompatible, the ovule is discarded if FS is assumed; otherwise a new pollen genotype is drawn at random from the population. The process of choosing additional random pollen to test for compatibility with a given maternal plant is repeated 500 times in models without FS, and if no compatible pollen is found, the ovule is discarded, a new female gamete is chosen, and the process starts again. The mating process is repeated until N new zygotes are produced. A number of mutations, drawn from a Poisson distribution with mean 2Nu, is then applied at random to genes in the offspring zygotes. Each mutation is assumed to produce a new functional allelic type according to the mutation scheme assumed.
Each run was started with 2N different alleles in the population and allowed to evolve for a number of generations until a mutation-selection-drift equilibrium was reached. Equilibrium was assumed when the average number of alleles in the population over subsequent intervals of 20 generations had oscillated 10 times. Beginning at that time genealogical information was recorded.
The genealogy was tracked in a forward manner by the method of ![]()
![]()
![]()
Number of alleles and coalescence times:
Simulations were performed for each of the following six parameter sets, for the four models of SI with and without FS: N = 50, u = 2 x 10-5; N = 100, u = 10-5; N = 200, u = 5 x 10-6; N = 50, u = 2 x 10-4; N = 100, u = 10-4; N = 200, u = 5 x 10-5. We computed the mean number of extant alleles in the population (n), the mean coalescence time of all alleles [Tc, time back to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA)], and the average pairwise divergence times between alleles (Td). To investigate the pattern of variation of Tc as a function of u, we also simulated cases with N = 50 and u from 2 x 10-3 to 2 x 10-5.
Measures of genealogical structure:
Simulations were performed for the four SI models without FS and for SSIdomcodFS with N = 500 and u = 10-5. Two approaches were used to characterize the topological structure of allelic genealogies under the different models. The first was to draw, for each replicate run, a random sample of seven alleles from the population and compute the time intervals between successive coalescent events in the genealogy, T(i), where i is the number of distinct lineages present during that interval (2
i
7). These time intervals were averaged over replicates, in units of the product T(i)i(i - 1), and plotted against i. For a gene genealogy described by the coalescence process for a random sample of neutral genes, these standardized time intervals are independent and exponentially distributed with the same expectation 4N (![]()
![]()
; RST =
; RSD =
; RBD =
; with an=
n-1i=1
and bn =
+
n-1i=1
. Averages and variances of these ratios over replicates were computed. The four ratios were also estimated from the branch lengths of genealogical trees obtained from published sequences of S-alleles in B. oleracea (23 alleles) and B. campestris (19 alleles; see ![]()
![]()
![]()
Maintenance of ancestral alleles in the population:
As previous results suggested that some alleles in the dominance models have very long life spans (![]()
Substitution rate:
To investigate the pattern of variation of the substitution rate as a function of N, we performed simulations for all four models without FS and for SSIdomcodFS with u = 10-5 and N varying between 30 and 5000. The substitution rate was computed by counting the number of mutations per gene that accumulated during the time T between the first generation of genealogical recording and the appearance of the MRCA of all extant alleles. This number divided by Tu estimated the substitution rate for nucleotide changes resulting in new alleles, or rate of codon substitution, expressed in units of 1/u generations.
Dominance levels of internal and terminal nodes in allelic genealogies:
Simulations were performed to assess the effect of the mutation scheme on dominance levels of different nodes in the allelic genealogies. Three models (SSIdom, SSIdomcod, SSIdomcodFS) were compared for the random and one-step mutation schemes, using 500 replicate runs with N = 200 and u = 5 x 10-5. For each replicate, six alleles were randomly sampled (five alleles for the SSIdom model), and the dominance levels of the five (four) internal nodes were extracted from the vector of dominance levels of parental alleles at the time of mutation. Dominance levels of alleles at any generation t were computed from the number nt of alleles at that time in the population as the position from 1 to nt in the dominance hierarchy, divided by nt, and thus vary between 1/nt and 1. For each replicate, we also computed the difference in dominance levels between the two alleles that first coalesced in the genealogies of all extant alleles. This quantity was compared to the average difference in dominance levels between random pairs of alleles, which is given by
nti=2
(nt - 1) .
| RANDOM-WALK APPROXIMATION |
|---|
Time since origin of alleles:
The random-walk model is given in ![]()
![]()
![]()
Time to coalescence:
The random-walk model also provides an estimate of Tc if the dynamics of incompatibility alleles in finite populations are simulated as a Moran process (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
| RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
|---|
Coalescence times:
Table 2 shows results for three population sizes (N = 50, 100, and 200) and two values of Nu, using the population simulation program. For each of the four models, the number of alleles, mean coalescence time of all alleles, Tc, and average pairwise divergence times between alleles, Td (shown in units of N generations), are given both with and without FS. Values of Tc and Td covary closely over the different models, so only the pattern of Tc needs to be discussed.
|
For the cases without FS, GSI, SSIcod, and SSIdom can be ordered with respect to Tc as SSIcod > GSI > SSIdom. The difference between SSIcod and GSI is about 10%, whereas SSIdom has markedly lower Tc-values (~1/3 of SSIcod). The differences are most pronounced for the smaller value of Nu. With constant Nu, these three models also share the pattern that Tc, when expressed in units of N generations, increases with N as observed by ![]()
For the case with FS, the ranking orders of SSIcodFS, GSIFS, and SSIdomFS with respect to Tc and Td are the same. Quantitatively, FS has a larger effect on Tc for the SSIdom and SSIcod models (Tc increases by 1020%) than for GSI (Tc increases by ~5%). However, the major effects of FS on Tc are in the SSIdomcod model. SSIdomcodFS shows the same increase of Tc with N for Nu constant as the other models, and the increase in Tc by FS is more than threefold for N = 200. The Tc-values in the SSIdomcodFS model are distinctly larger than in the SSIdom and SSIdomFS models, making it intermediate between the SSIdom and SSIcod models for all parameters. The difference between SSIdomcod and SSIdomcodFS results from the qualitative differences in the dynamics of these models (![]()
![]()
The pattern of Tc when u is varied and N kept constant (N = 50) is shown in Figure 1. For comparison, the expected curve for a symmetric overdominant locus with selection coefficient s = 1 is also shown. All models, except SSIdomcod, show the same pattern of increasing Tc with decreasing u, with the lines almost exactly parallel, and the same ordering of models as in Table 2. The SSIdomcod model, however, shows a smaller relative increase in Tc with decreasing u.
|
In Figure 2, Tc-values from simulations based on the random-walk model are compared with the population simulations of Table 2 for 4Nu = 0.004 and N = 50, 100, and 200. The random-walk simulations underestimate Tc slightly in all models except SSIdomcod, but the discrepancy is smallest for N = 200. The fit of the random-walk model is sufficiently accurate that we have attempted extrapolation to larger population sizes, where the population simulations are too time consuming to perform (Figure 2; N = 500, 1000, 5000). The results for larger population sizes show that the ranking of the models is unchanged, but the absolute differences in Tc-values between the SSIdomcod model and the other models are further increased such that Tc for the SSIcod model is 15 times greater than Tc for the SSIdomcod model for N = 5000 (u = 2 x 10-7).
|
The random-walk simulations are based solely on the probabilities of entry and loss as functions of the dominance levels and the average probability that a new mutant invades. The close fit of Tc-values obtained from the random-walk simulations to the population simulations therefore strengthens the conclusion that the qualitatively different pattern observed in the SSIdomcod model must be caused primarily by the directional turnover process of alleles in this model (![]()
![]()
Overall measures of genealogical structure:
Figure 3 shows the standardized time intervals between coalescence events for seven alleles sampled from 1000 replicate simulations of N = 500, u = 10-5, for each of the models. None of the models departs very much from the horizontal pattern expected for a gene genealogy described by the coalescence process for a random sample of neutral genes (![]()
|
![]()
![]()
|
Time since origin of extant alleles:
Figure 5 shows the expected times since origin of extant alleles as a function of their dominance levels at the present time for one parameter set (N = 200, u = 5 x 10-6), in the random-walk model. These times differ less than 10% from the results obtained from population simulations. Figure 5 shows that, in all models, recessive alleles are expected to have an older origin than dominant alleles. For the SSIdomcod model, this appears at first to contradict that the expected life span of an allele is largest if the allele is dominant when it arises (![]()
|
The effect of asymmetrical interaction among alleles:
Table 3 shows the proportion of runs where the MRCA allele is still present in the population, for u = 10-5 and various population sizes. This proportion clearly shows dependence on the number of alleles and the asymmetry in their interaction, and we therefore also included the number of alleles present. For the dominance models, extant recessive alleles are older and present at higher frequencies than are dominant alleles, and we include (in parentheses) the frequency with which an extant MRCA belongs to the most recessive class.
|
The results show that the probability that the MRCA is present drops rapidly with the number of alleles in the models with codominance. The number of allelic turnovers that have occurred in these models since the first occurrence of the MRCA is proportional to n2, as explained above. The probability that a given allele goes extinct is 1/n at each turnover, because all alleles are equivalent in the codominant models, and when n is large, the number of turnovers since the MRCA is so large that each initial allele is likely to have gone extinct. In the SSIdom model, however, the probability that the MRCA is present is very high, and this allele is usually the most recessive. This happens because recessive alleles in the SSIdom model have a much higher life span and higher allele frequency than dominant alleles (![]()
![]()
Substitution rates:
The substitution rate in units of 1/u generations as a function of the population size (u = 10-5) is shown in Figure 6. In all cases, the rate of substitution of alleles exceeds the relative rate of one expected for neutral alleles (![]()
GSI > SSIdomcodFS > SSIdom. The high substitution rate in the SSIdomcod model is again caused by the directional substitution process, because a substitution occurs whenever an allele is replaced by its dominant descendants. For all models the substitution rate initially increases with population size because selection for new alleles increasingly outweighs genetic drift. For large populations, the substitution rate decreases again because the intensity of selection favoring new alleles decreases with increasing number of extant alleles. The population size yielding the maximum substitution rate is therefore expected to depend on u. For this mutation rate (u = 10-5), an intermediate population size of the order of 5001000 yields a maximum substitution rate, but the substitution rate decreases only slowly for N > 1000.
|
The effect of the mutation scheme:
Table 4 shows the effect of the mutation scheme on various aspects of the genealogical structure and allelic dynamics. Under the one-step mutation scheme, a descendant allele is given a dominance level next to that of its ancestor, and this causes a relative increase of recessive mutations because recessive alleles are more common. However, this does not affect the number of alleles maintained in any model (Table 4). Values of Tc are insensitive to the mutation scheme in the SSIdom model and the SSIdomcodFS model; i.e., the differences are less than 15%. The SSIdomcod model, in contrast, shows a more than threefold decrease in Tc with the one-step mutation scheme, indicating that the turnover process in this model becomes even more deterministic. This is because successful dominant alleles are generated exclusively from extant long-lived dominant alleles under the one-step mutation scheme, and they force other alleles to become more recessive and hence more prone to loss. Substitution rates are always lower under the one-step scheme because the mutation rate to dominant alleles that are more likely to be successful is reduced as compared to the random scheme. These results were also observed with other sets of population sizes and mutation rates (results not shown).
|
The lower part of Table 4 shows for each model the average dominance level at internal nodes (at the time of mutation) in the genealogical tree of a sample of alleles (five in SSIdom, and six in SSIdomcod and SSIdomcodFS). The table starts from the tip in the genealogy (two lineages present at the time of coalescence, i.e., MRCA) to the bottom of the tree (five or six lineages in the genealogy present at the time of coalescence, i.e., the first coalescence). In the SSIdom model for both mutation schemes, the dominance level decreases steadily when moving up the tree (back in time), and this agrees with the observation that the most recessive allele is often the MRCA (Table 4, rows 35). The results for the SSIdomcodFS model are qualitatively similar to those for the SSIdom model, but again, the SSIdomcod model shows a deviant pattern, in that the dominance level increases when moving up the tree. This pattern becomes more pronounced with the one-step mutation scheme, such that the MRCA was almost certainly the most dominant allele at the time of coalescence of all alleles. Furthermore, the probability that this MRCA is still present is very large. However, it is not particularly likely that it is still dominant (18.1%), because alleles change dominance levels through their life span in the SSIdomcod model.
The difference in dominance levels between the two alleles involved in the first (most recent) coalescence is shown in Table 4, row 6. This measure is included because it can be estimated from genealogies reconstructed from sequence data of extant alleles. For comparison, the average difference in dominance levels between two randomly chosen alleles is 0.39 for six alleles present and 0.37 for nine alleles present. The observed value for the SSIdom model with random mutation is slightly higher than 0.39, showing that there is a tendency for the first coalescence to be between a dominant and a recessive allele. This is expected because recessive alleles attain high frequencies and generate many descendants and, among these, dominant descendants are more likely to invade the population. However, this effect is barely detectable. With the one-step mutation scheme, the difference in dominance levels is much smaller. This reflects the fact that the first coalescence is (almost always) between alleles at two adjacent dominance levels, not surprisingly given the mutation process assumed.
| CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
The expected Tc for alleles in models of SSI are generally long and comparable to those for GSI. Transspecific polymorphism due to a deep root of the genealogical tree of alleles is therefore equally likely in GSI and SSI. The only exception may be for species with an incompatibility system that may be described by the SSIdomcod model. Values of Tc are not likely to distinguish any of the other models, because the differences are small, usually less than threefold. The current and historical mutation rates probably differ among different SSI systems, and because the mutation rate has a large effect on Tc, such differences may well override the differences in Tc seen in comparisons among models. One striking observation, though, is that differences between sexes in the expression of dominance (SSIdomcod) can lead to a directional turnover process of alleles, which results in reduced values of Tc, especially when the population size is large and the mutation rate is small.
In Brassica species, sex-specific differences in dominance have been observed (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The occurrence of transspecific polymorphism is usually taken as evidence that a set of allelic lines inherited by both descendent species during the speciation process have survived until the present time. However, introgression of S-alleles may be an alternative hypothesis for the transspecific polymorphism in Brassicaceae. Hybridization is common in the Brassicaceae. B. oleracea and B. campestris can be hybridized in the laboratory, and both species hybridize with the self-compatible B. napus [B. oleracea and B. napus with difficulty (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The expected elevation in substitution rate at nonsynonymous sites involved in the determination of specificity depends on the model of incompatibility. The directional substitution process of alleles in the SSIdomcod model may lead to accelerated evolution at these sites that is not explained by the selection intensity of the balancing selection alone. The magnitude of this effect is surprisingly high and may be detectable if species with sex differences in dominance levels (perhaps in Brassicaceae or Corylaceae) are compared to species with similar dominance relations in both sexes (e.g., Convolvulaceae).
Dominance in both pollen and style (SSIdom model) causes decreased Tc-values compared to the codominant models. This is mainly due to the decrease in the number of alleles in this model. The SSIdom model can be thought of as a case of asymmetrical balancing selection, where dominant alleles are more strongly favored when rare and more strongly disfavored when common. If selection coefficients of individual alleles are constant, asymmetrical overdominance decreases the number of alleles maintained in finite populations, in that a subset of strongly selected alleles survives longer (![]()
![]()
![]()
The overall shape of the allelic genealogies observed was quantified by two different approaches in the different models, namely the standardized time intervals between coalescence events and UYENOYAMA's (1997) ratios. The results clearly show that none of these approaches can reliably distinguish between models, using experimental data, because the models behave similarly. However, the insensitivity of Uyenoyama's ratios to the presence or absence of dominance in SSI models broadens their application to detect significant deviations from expectation in genealogies of SSI systems. ![]()
|
The random-walk model captures the essential information with respect to allelic dynamics and coalescence times for all the models investigated (including the codominant models). This shows that the probabilities of invasion and extinction of alleles as a function of their dominance levels is the main determinant of S-allele evolution. In the models of SSI, these probabilities currently must be estimated from simulations, and a theory in line with TAKAHATA's (1990) theory for MHC would ease their estimation considerably.
When the dominance levels of the alleles are considered, the superficial similarity in genealogical shape disappears. In the SSIdom and SSIdomcodFS models, a recessive allele is generally very old, and it is likely to be the MRCA of all extant alleles. In the SSIdomcod model, recessive alleles also tend to be oldest, but the age differences among alleles are small. The age of an allele cannot be inferred experimentally from the reconstruction of an intraspecific genealogy, but a joint genealogy of alleles from more species may indicate allelic age. This requires that the domain of allelic specificity of the alleles is identified, such that allele homology can be identified in comparisons among species. The identification of allelic specificity may, however, be obtained from transformation experiments where S-alleles are transferred between species (see ![]()
The details of the mutation model do not appear to influence Tc very much, as judged from the two extreme mutation schemes modeled in this study. On the other hand, from a genealogical tree of the alleles where the dominance levels of the nodes are known, inferences on the mutation scheme may be made. If closely related alleles have similar dominance levels, a mutation scheme, where the dominance level of a descendant allele is close to that of its ancestor is likely.
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank D. Charlesworth, M. K. Uyenoyama, and two anonymous reviewers for many helpful comments to the manuscript; P. Awadalla for analysis of Brassica sequences; and the Department of Computer Sciences, University of Aarhus, for providing computing facilities. This study was supported by grants 9400065 (M.H.S.) and 94-0163-1 (F.B.C.) from the Danish Natural Science Research Council and a travel grant from the European Science Foundation Scientific Programme in Population Biology (M.H.S.).
Manuscript received March 5, 1998; Accepted for publication June 17, 1998.
| LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
BARTON, N. H. and B. O. BENGTSSON, 1986 The barrier to gene exchange between hybridizing populations. Heredity 56:357-376.
BATEMAN, A. J., 1955 Self-incompatibility systems in angiosperms. III. Cruciferae. Heredity 9:53-68.
BENGTSSON, B. O., 1985 The flow of genes through a genetic barrier, pp. 3142 in Evolution: Essays in Honour of John Maynard Smith, edited by J. J. GREENWOOD and M. SLATKIN. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
CLARK, A. G. and T.-H. KAO, 1991 Excess nonsynonomous substitution at shared polymorphic sites among self-incompatibility alleles of Solonaceae. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88:9823-9827
DWYER, K. G., M. A. BALENT, J. B. NASRALLAH, and M. E. NASRALLAH, 1991 DNA sequences of self-incompatibility genes from Brassica campestris and B. oleracea: polymorphism predating speciation. Plant Mol. Biol. 16:481-486[Medline].
EMERSON, S., 1939 A preliminary survey of the Oenothera organensis population. Genetics 24:524-537
EWENS, W. J., 1979 Mathematical population genetics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
FELSENSTEIN, J., 1992 Estimating effective population size from samples of sequences: inefficiency of pairwise and segregating sites as compared to phylogenetic estimates. Genet. Res. 59:139-147[Medline].
FELSENSTEIN, J., 1995 PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package) version 3.572. Distributed over the World Wide Web, Seattle.
HATAKEYAMA, K., M. WATANABE, T. TAKAHASI, K. OJIMA, and K. HINATA, 1998 Dominance relationships between S-alleles in self-incompatible Brassica campestris L. Heredity 80:241-247.
IOERGER, T. R., A. G. CLARK, and T.-H. KAO, 1990 Polymorphism at the self-incompatibility locus in Solanaceae predates speciation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87:9732-9735
JORGENSEN, R. B. and B. ANDERSEN, 1994 Spontaneous hybridization between oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and weedy B. campestris (Brassicaceae): a risk of growing genetically modified oilseed rape. Am. J. Bot. 81:1620-1626.
KAO, T.-H. and A. G. MCCUBBIN, 1996 How flowering plants discriminate between self and non-self pollen to prevent inbreeding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:12059-12065
KIMURA, M., 1968 Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217:624-626[Medline].
KLEIN, J., 1980 Generation of diversity at MHC loci: implications for T cell receptor repertoires, pp. 239253 in Immunology 80, edited by M. FOUGERREAU and J. DAUSSET. Academic Press, London.
KOWYAMA, Y., H. TAKAHASI, K. MURAOKA, T. TANI, and K. HARA et al., 1994 Number, frequency and dominance relationships of S-alleles in diploid Ipomoea trifida.. Heredity 73:275-283.
KUSABA, M., T. NISHIO, Y. SATTA, K. HINATA, and D. OCKENDON, 1997 Striking sequence similarity in inter- and intra-specific comparisons of class I SLG alleles from Brassica oleracea and Brassica campestris: implications for the evolution and recognition mechanism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:7673-7678
LANDBO, L., B. ANDERSEN, and R. B. JORGENSEN, 1996 Natural hybridisation between oilseed rape and a wild relative: hybrids among seeds from weedy B. campestris.. Hereditas 125:89-91.
LAWLOR, D. A., F. E. WARD, P. D. ENNIS, A. P. JACKSON, and P. PARHAM, 1988 HLA-A and B polymorphisms predate the divergence of humans and chimpanzees. Nature 355:268-271.
LUNDQUIST, A., 1994 "Slow" and "quick" S-alleles without dominance interaction in the sporophytic one-locus self-incompatibility system of Stellaria holostea (Caryophyllaceae). Hereditas 120:191-202.
MARUYAMA, T. and M. NEI, 1981 Genetic variability maintained by mutation and overdominant selection in finite populations. Genetics 98:441-459
MCCONNELL, T. J., W. S. TALBOT, R. A. MCINDOE, and E. K. WAKELAND, 1988 The origin of MHC class II polymorphisms within the genus Mus.. Nature 332:651-654[Medline].
MCNAUGHTON, I. H., 1976 Swedes and rapes, pp. 5356 in Evolution of Crop Plants, edited by N. W. SIMMONDS. Longman, London.
MEHLENBACHER, S. H., 1997 Revised dominance hierarchy for S-alleles in Corylus avellana L. Theor. Appl. Genet. 94:360-366.
MORAN, P. A. P., 1958 Random processes in genetics. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 54:60-71.
RICHMAN, A. D. and J. R. KOHN, 1996 Learning from rejection: the evolutionary biology of single-locus incompatibility. TREE 11:497-502.
RICHMAN, A. D., T.-H. KAO, S. W. SCHAEFFER, and M. K. UYENOYAMA, 1995 S-allele sequence diversity in natural populations of Solanum carolinense (Horsenettle). Heredity 75:405-415.
RICHMAN, A. D., M. K. UYENOYAMA, and J. R. KOHN, 1996a S-allele diversity in a natural population of Physalis crassifolia (Solanaceae) (ground cherry) assessed by RT-PCR. Heredity 76:497-505.
RICHMAN, A. D., M. K. UYENOYAMA, and J. R. KOHN, 1996b Allelic diversity and gene genealogy at the self-incompatibility locus in the Solonaceae. Science 273:1212-1216[Abstract].
ROBERTSON, A., 1962 Selection for heterozygotes in small populations. Genetics 47:1291-1300
SAMPSON, D. R., 1964 A one-locus self-incompatibility system in Raphanus raphinistrum.. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 6:435-445.
SAMPSON, D. R., 1974 Equilibrium frequencies of sporophytic self-incompatibility alleles. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 16:611-618.
SCHIERUP, M. H., X. VEKEMANS, and F. B. CHRISTIANSEN, 1997 Evolutionary dynamics of sporophytic self-incompatibility alleles in plants. Genetics 147:835-846[Abstract].
STEVENS, J. P. and Q. O. N. KAY, 1989 The number, dominance relationships and frequencies of self-incompatibility alleles in a natural population of Sinapsis arvensis L. in South Wales. Heredity 62:199-205.
TAKAHATA, N., 1990 A simple genealogical structure of strongly balanced allelic lines and trans-species evolution of polymorphism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87:2419-2423
TAKAHATA, N. and M. NEI, 1990 Allelic genealogy under overdominant and frequency-dependent selection and polymorphism of major histocompatibility complex loci. Genetics 124:967-978[Abstract].
TAKAHATA, N., Y. SATTA, and J. KLEIN, 1992 Polymorphism and balancing selection at major histocompatibility complex loci. Genetics 130:925-938[Abstract].
THOMPSON, K. F. and J. P. TAYLOR, 1966 Non-linear dominance relationships between S alleles. Heredity 21:345-362.
THOMPSON, J. D., D. G. HIGGINS, and T. J. GIBSON, 1994 CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, positions-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 22:4673-4680
UYENOYAMA, M. K., 1995 A generalized least-squares estimate for the origin of sporophytic self-incompatibility. Genetics 139:975-992[Abstract].
UYENOYAMA, M. K., 1997 Genealogical structure among alleles regulating self-incompatibility in Angiosperms. Genetics 147:1389-1400[Abstract].
VEKEMANS, X. and M. SLATKIN, 1994 Gene and allelic genealogies at a gametophytic self-incompatibility locus. Genetics 137:1157-1165[Abstract].
VEKEMANS, X., M. H. SCHIERUP, and F. B. CHRISTIANSEN, 1998 Mate availability and fecundity selection in multi-allelic self-incompatibility systems in plants. Evolution 52:19-29.
WRIGHT, S., 1939 The distribution of self-sterility alleles in populations. Genetics 24:538-552
This article has been cited by other articles:





