Cargando…
The evolution of genomic imprinting: theories, predictions and empirical tests
The epigenetic phenomenon of genomic imprinting has motivated the development of numerous theories for its evolutionary origins and genomic distribution. In this review, we examine the three theories that have best withstood theoretical and empirical scrutiny. These are: Haig and colleagues' ki...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4105453/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24755983 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2014.29 |
_version_ | 1782327368406269952 |
---|---|
author | Patten, M M Ross, L Curley, J P Queller, D C Bonduriansky, R Wolf, J B |
author_facet | Patten, M M Ross, L Curley, J P Queller, D C Bonduriansky, R Wolf, J B |
author_sort | Patten, M M |
collection | PubMed |
description | The epigenetic phenomenon of genomic imprinting has motivated the development of numerous theories for its evolutionary origins and genomic distribution. In this review, we examine the three theories that have best withstood theoretical and empirical scrutiny. These are: Haig and colleagues' kinship theory; Day and Bonduriansky's sexual antagonism theory; and Wolf and Hager's maternal–offspring coadaptation theory. These theories have fundamentally different perspectives on the adaptive significance of imprinting. The kinship theory views imprinting as a mechanism to change gene dosage, with imprinting evolving because of the differential effect that gene dosage has on the fitness of matrilineal and patrilineal relatives. The sexual antagonism and maternal–offspring coadaptation theories view genomic imprinting as a mechanism to modify the resemblance of an individual to its two parents, with imprinting evolving to increase the probability of expressing the fitter of the two alleles at a locus. In an effort to stimulate further empirical work on the topic, we carefully detail the logic and assumptions of all three theories, clarify the specific predictions of each and suggest tests to discriminate between these alternative theories for why particular genes are imprinted. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4105453 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-41054532014-08-01 The evolution of genomic imprinting: theories, predictions and empirical tests Patten, M M Ross, L Curley, J P Queller, D C Bonduriansky, R Wolf, J B Heredity (Edinb) Review The epigenetic phenomenon of genomic imprinting has motivated the development of numerous theories for its evolutionary origins and genomic distribution. In this review, we examine the three theories that have best withstood theoretical and empirical scrutiny. These are: Haig and colleagues' kinship theory; Day and Bonduriansky's sexual antagonism theory; and Wolf and Hager's maternal–offspring coadaptation theory. These theories have fundamentally different perspectives on the adaptive significance of imprinting. The kinship theory views imprinting as a mechanism to change gene dosage, with imprinting evolving because of the differential effect that gene dosage has on the fitness of matrilineal and patrilineal relatives. The sexual antagonism and maternal–offspring coadaptation theories view genomic imprinting as a mechanism to modify the resemblance of an individual to its two parents, with imprinting evolving to increase the probability of expressing the fitter of the two alleles at a locus. In an effort to stimulate further empirical work on the topic, we carefully detail the logic and assumptions of all three theories, clarify the specific predictions of each and suggest tests to discriminate between these alternative theories for why particular genes are imprinted. Nature Publishing Group 2014-08 2014-04-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4105453/ /pubmed/24755983 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2014.29 Text en Copyright © 2014 The Genetics Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ |
spellingShingle | Review Patten, M M Ross, L Curley, J P Queller, D C Bonduriansky, R Wolf, J B The evolution of genomic imprinting: theories, predictions and empirical tests |
title | The evolution of genomic imprinting: theories, predictions and empirical tests |
title_full | The evolution of genomic imprinting: theories, predictions and empirical tests |
title_fullStr | The evolution of genomic imprinting: theories, predictions and empirical tests |
title_full_unstemmed | The evolution of genomic imprinting: theories, predictions and empirical tests |
title_short | The evolution of genomic imprinting: theories, predictions and empirical tests |
title_sort | evolution of genomic imprinting: theories, predictions and empirical tests |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4105453/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24755983 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2014.29 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pattenmm theevolutionofgenomicimprintingtheoriespredictionsandempiricaltests AT rossl theevolutionofgenomicimprintingtheoriespredictionsandempiricaltests AT curleyjp theevolutionofgenomicimprintingtheoriespredictionsandempiricaltests AT quellerdc theevolutionofgenomicimprintingtheoriespredictionsandempiricaltests AT bondurianskyr theevolutionofgenomicimprintingtheoriespredictionsandempiricaltests AT wolfjb theevolutionofgenomicimprintingtheoriespredictionsandempiricaltests AT pattenmm evolutionofgenomicimprintingtheoriespredictionsandempiricaltests AT rossl evolutionofgenomicimprintingtheoriespredictionsandempiricaltests AT curleyjp evolutionofgenomicimprintingtheoriespredictionsandempiricaltests AT quellerdc evolutionofgenomicimprintingtheoriespredictionsandempiricaltests AT bondurianskyr evolutionofgenomicimprintingtheoriespredictionsandempiricaltests AT wolfjb evolutionofgenomicimprintingtheoriespredictionsandempiricaltests |