Are there biological generalities that underlie hybrid sterility or inviability? Recently, around a dozen “speciation genes” have been identified mainly in Drosophila, and the biological functions of these genes are revealing molecular generalities. Major cases of hybrid sterility and inviability seem to result from chromatin evolution and molecular drive in speciation. Repetitive satellite DNAs within heterochromatin, especially at centromeres, evolve rapidly through molecular drive mechanisms (both meiotic and centromeric). Chromatin-binding proteins, therefore, must also evolve rapidly to maintain binding capability. As a result, chromatin binding proteins may not be able to interact with chromosomes from another species in a hybrid, causing hybrid sterility and inviability.
1. Introduction
Are there biological generalities that underlie hybrid sterility or inviability? In other words, do common mechanisms dictate that mules and leopons, for example, are sterile? The widely accepted Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibility (DMI) model of reproductive isolation [1, 2] does not provide an answer to this question. Instead, the DMI model only predicts that combinations of incompatible genes from different species lead to sterile or inviable hybrids. According to Mayr [3], reproductive isolation is an accidental byproduct of speciation. Recently, around a dozen “speciation genes” have been identified, and the biological functions of these genes are revealing molecular generalities that control hybrid sterility and inviability [4–8] (but see [9]). They are chromatin evolution and molecular drive in speciation.
Dover [10] argues, “In the case of many families of genes and noncoding sequences…, fixation of mutations within a population may proceed as a consequence of molecular mechanisms of turnover within the genome [i.e., molecular drive]. …There are circumstances in which the unusual concerted pattern of fixation permits the establishment of biological novelty and species discontinuities [i.e., reproductive isolation]…” Genes encoding heterochromatin proteins may have evolved rapidly to counteract mutations within repetitive DNA sequences in heterochromatin, which accumulate by molecular drive. The molecular drive theory once dominated the field of speciation, supported by the discovery that selfish transposable elements cause hybrid dysgenesis [11–14]. However, this hypothesis has been discounted, as there is no direct evidence that transposons are involved in reproductive isolation [15, 16] (but see [17, 18]). Even the most contemporary textbook concerning speciation [19] does not cite the Dover’s [10].
2. Lhr and Hmr of Drosophila
When Drosophila melanogaster females mate with Drosophila simulans males, only weak, sterile, female hybrids eclose, as male hybrids die during larval stages [20]. Watanabe [21] discovered a D. simulans mutation, Lethal hybrid rescue (Lhr), that prevents hybrid larval lethality and restores female hybrid vigor [22]. It was thought that the wild-type allele of D. simulans Lhr was incompatible with X-linked genes from D. melanogaster. It has since been demonstrated that Lhr encodes a heterochromatin protein, HP3, which contains a boundary element-associated factor 32/Su(var)3-7/Stonewall (BESS) domain [23–25]. The X-linked Hybrid male rescue (Hmr) of D. melanogaster [26] has an effect similar to Lhr when mutated, and it also restores female hybrid fertility in this context [27]. Hmr encodes a DNA-binding protein with two myb/SANT-like in Adf-1 (MADF) domains [28].
LHR and HMR may physically interact through their BESS and MADF domains and may colocalize to specific chromatin regions. LHR also interacts with the heterochromatin proteins HP1 and HP6, as demonstrated by yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) experiments, RNA interference (RNAi) knockdown, and Bayesian network analysis [23, 25, 29–31]. The ratio of the number of nonsynonymous substitutions per nonsynonymous site to the number of synonymous substitutions per synonymous site (Ka/Ks) [32] and McDonald-Kreitman (MK) test [33] indicate that Hmr and a subset of genes encoding heterochromatin proteins (including Lhr and HP6) have evolved under positive selection [23, 28, 31, 34]. The involvement of Lhr and Hmr in reproductive isolation is reminiscent of speciation mediated by molecular drive. A comprehensive analysis of LHR, but not HMR, binding sites in the genome has been performed [35].
3. zhr of Drosophila
Involvement of heterochromatic repetitive sequences in hybrid inviability is evident when crosses between D. simulans females and D. melanogaster males (reciprocal to the cross discussed above) are analyzed. Progeny from this cross are sterile, male hybrids, as most female hybrids die during embryogenesis [20, 36]. We discovered zygotic hybrid rescue (zhr), a D. melanogaster gene that prevents female embryonic lethality in this context [37]. Genetic analyses using chromosome deficiencies and duplications [38–40] indicate that female hybrids are rescued if the number of 359-bp repetitive sequences (1.688 satellite) on the D. melanogaster X chromosome is decreased. In addition, hybrids of both sexes are inviable when repetitive sequences are added. In embryos from D. simulans mothers, chromatin regions rich in the 1.688 satellite are not properly condensed [41], resulting in mitotic defects such as chromosome bridges and irregularly spaced nuclei [41, 42].
The 1.688 satellite was one of the earliest sequences cloned in Drosophila [43, 44] and represents more than 4% of the D. melanogaster genome [45–47]. Related sequences are present in D. simulans, but the homology is low [48–51]. Heterochromatin regions rich in the 1.688 satellite may represent binding sites for the putative HMR/LHR complex. However, because zhr only affects hybrid viability when D. simulans females are crossed to D. melanogaster males (not the reciprocal cross), the larval and embryonic hybrid-inviability phenotypes associated with these crosses were thought to be independent (see [37, 52] for additional evidence). However, the possibility remains that female hybrids from D. melanogaster mothers are viable because proteins necessary to cope with D. melanogaster heterochromatin on the X chromosome are supplied maternally. This explanation is consistent with the model proposed by [53, 54]. Identification of proteins that bind to the 1.688 heterochromatin satellite will be informative [55–58]. maternal hybrid rescue (mhr) of D. simulans [52] and Simulans hybrid females rescue (Shfr) [59] represent loci encoding strong 1.688-binding candidates.
Although the 1.688 satellite does not seem to encode any proteins, it is transcribed in ovaries and silenced by the RNAi machinery. This silencing is mediated by repeat-associated small interfering RNA, also called Piwi-associated RNA [60]. In hybrids, failure to silence the 1.688 satellite may lead to heterochromatin decondensation and lethality [54]. Finally, the hybrid lethal on the X (hlx) locus of D. mauritiana affects viability of D. simulans hybrids and has been mapped to heterochromatin [61]. It will be interesting to determine whether this locus also consists of repetitive sequences, similar to zhr.
4. OdsH of Drosophila
In reciprocal crosses between D. mauritiana and D. simulans, female hybrids are fertile but male hybrids are sterile [62]. Many genes have been identified that affect this male hybrid sterility (for a review see [63]). These loci are scattered throughout the two genomes, but an X-linked gene, Odysseus (Ods), plays a particularly important role. When the D. mauritiana allele of Ods is cointrogressed with a closely linked gene onto the D. simulans genetic background, males become sterile [64, 65]. This hybrid male sterility gene has been isolated as Ods-site homeobox (OdsH) [66]. OdsH is paralogous to uncoordinated-4 (unc-4), which is expressed in postmitotic neurons and epidermal cells [67]. In Drosophila, OdsH is thought to have arisen through gene duplication and neofunctionalization, thereby assuming a novel role in spermatogenesis [66, 68, 69]. Ample evidence suggests that OdsH, especially its DNA-binding homeodomain, has evolved under positive selection [66, 69]. Four genes downregulated in sterile male hybrids are thought to lie downstream of OdsH [70]. And misexpressed genes are disproportionately more common on autosomes than on the X in the males with OdsH introgression [71]. Regulatory regions of these genes may contain binding sites for the OdsH transcription factor.
Alternatively, but not mutually exclusively, Bayes and Malik [72] suggested that the ODSH protein localizes to evolutionarily dynamic loci in heterochromatin and that ODSH abundance and localization during premeiotic phases of spermatogenesis are different between D. simulans and D. mauritiana. ODSH from D. mauritiana associates with the heterochromatic Y chromosome of D. simulans, leading to decondensation and male hybrid sterility [72]. These data reveal that rapid heterochromatin evolution affects the onset of male hybrid sterility [72], in addition to hybrid inviability [37, 41]. However, it remains unclear which DNA sequences ODSH binds with the highest affinity.
5. Nup160 and Nup96 of Drosophila
The discovery of strains that restore the fertility of D. simulans/D. melanogaster female hybrids [73] provided the tools to introgress D. simulans chromosomal segments onto the D. melanogaster genetic background [74]. Both male and female introgression homozygotes successfully made were sterile, and the genes responsible for the male and female sterility have been mapped [75–77]. Among them, Nucleoporin 160 (Nup160) of D. simulans was identified as the gene underlying female sterility on the D. melanogaster genetic background [78]. Both D. simulans Nup160 and Nucleoporin 96 (Nup96), which also encodes a component protein of the nuclear pore complex (NPC), cause inviability in D. melanogaster/D. simulans male hybrids [78–80]. This is independent of the F1 hybrid inviability that can be rescued by Lhr mutation and is only revealed in introgression bearers or hemizygotes made from D. melanogaster deficiencies [81, 82].
Population genetics studies have indicated that positive selection is operating in seven nucleoporin genes, including Nup160 and Nup96 [79, 80, 83] and have revealed significant correlated evolution between them [84]. Several hypotheses have been proposed for why nucleoporins are evolving so rapidly in Drosophila [78–80, 83], but here I will focus on the hypothesis most highly related to the molecular drive theory. The NPC forms channels that allow transport of macromolecules between the nucleus and cytoplasm (for a recent review see [85]). In addition, NPC components also function in kinetochore/spindle formation and transcriptional regulation (i.e., dosage compensation) [86–91]. The evolution of scaffold nucleoporins (the NUP107-160 complex) may have accelerated to recognize repetitive sequences in centromeric heterochromatin. In this way, incompatible NPCs may result in hybrid sterility and inviability through improper kinetochore formation. Alternatively, small RNAs derived from repetitive DNA sequences may not be properly trafficked in cells with incompatible NPCs. This leads to chromatin decondensation and, ultimately, sterility or inviability. Such a model has been proposed in the meiotic drive system of D. melanogaster (see below). In this case, mislocalized and truncated Ran GTPase Activating Protein (RanGAP), which is encoded by Segregation distortion (Sd) [92], disrupts proper nuclear transport of small RNAs derived from Responder (Rsp) and ribonucleoprotein complexes that are required to suppress the Rsp satellites [54, 93].
6. Prdm9 of Mice
Evidence for chromatin mechanisms in speciation is not restricted to Drosophila. In the cross between Mus musculus musculus and M. m. domesticus, female hybrids are fertile, but male hybrids are sterile (for a review see [94]; see also [95, 96]). Backcross analyses have indicated that three or more independently segregating loci are involved in this male hybrid sterility. One gene, Hybrid sterility 1 (Hst1) of M. m. domesticus, is polymorphic: the Hst1s allele causes sterility, but Hst1f does not [97]. This situation is similar to the hybrid rescue mutations in Drosophila. The Hst1 locus was mapped to the PR domain zinc finger protein 9 (Prdm9) gene, where PR stands for PRDIBF1 and RIZ homology. Prdm9 encodes a histone H3 lysine 4 (H3K4) trimethyltransferase [98], which is also known as the Meisetz, meiosis-induced factor containing a PR/SET domain and a zinc-finger motif [99]. Hybrid males sterilized by the Prdm9 introgression exhibit frequent dissociation of the X and Y chromosomes during meiosis [98], similar to the sterile male hybrid from a cross between M. m. musculus and M. spretus [100–102]. A gene involved in M. musculus/M. spretus male hybrid sterility and a gene responsible for X-Y dissociation in M. m. musculus/M. m. molossinus hybrid males (the latter termed Sex-chromosome association (Sxa)) have been mapped to the pseudoautosomal region of the X chromosome [103, 104]. The heterochromatin content of this region is quantitatively different among species or subspecies [105, 106].
The DNA-binding domain of PRDM9 consists of multiple, tandem C2H2 zinc finger domains and is evolving rapidly under positive selection in diverse metazoans, including rodents and primates. Rapid evolution of this binding domain likely results from recurrent selection for binding specificity to satellite DNAs [107–109]. The interaction between PRDM9 and repetitive sequences also affects meiotic recombination [110–112]. Histone H3 modifications are typical epigenetic events that determine chromatin status (for reviews see [113, 114]). Genomic regions characterized by heterochromatin-mediated gene silencing are rich in histone H3K9 methylation and have few histone acetylations. In contrast, histones in transcriptionally active euchromatic regions are highly acetylated and methylated at H3K4. Interestingly, chromatin structures regulated by H3K9 methylation, Su(var)3-9, HP1, or the RNAi pathway are required to maintain the structural integrity of tandemly repeated, heterochromatic sequences, like the 1.688 satellite, in D. melanogaster [115].
7. Three Drives in Speciation
The meiotic drive model of male hybrid sterility assumes an arms race between meiotic drive genes and suppressor genes in which male hybrids exhibit segregation distortion or sterility if they inherit drive genes, but not their corresponding suppressors [116, 117]. At first, this model was not accepted because cryptic segregation distortion was not detected in interspecies crosses of Drosophila [118, 119]. In the cross between D. mauritiana and D. simulans, one gene involved in male hybrid sterility is not separable from the meiotic drive gene, too much yin (tmy), by recombination [120]. In addition, the gene Overdrive (Ovd) causes both male hybrid sterility and meiotic drive in aged males when D. pseudoobscura pseudoobscura is crossed with D. p. bogotana [121, 122]. Interestingly, Ovd encodes a protein that contains a MADF DNA-binding domain [122], similar to HMR of D. melanogaster [28].
In the context of speciation, meiotic drive can be the manifestation of molecular drive. The most common example of this phenomenon is centromere drive. The centromere drive model assumes that both DNA and protein components of centromeric chromatin are evolving rapidly and that incompatibilities between rapidly evolving centromeric components may be responsible for hybrid sterility [123]. In particular, the expansion of centromeric repetitive sequences provides more microtubule attachment sites, thereby creating a stronger centromere that tends to be included in the oocyte nucleus [123]. This represents an alternative force from molecular drive that is distinct from a variety of mutational processes that include replication slippage, unequal exchange, transposition, and excision [10, 124–126]. To suppress potential nondisjunction of chromosomes that carry expanded satellite DNAs, the gene centromere identifier (cid) has evolved rapidly in diverse organisms including Drosophila [127, 128]. cid encodes centromeric histone H3-like, a homologue of human Centromere protein A (CENP-A). Examples of centromeric repeats affecting meiotic drive include the Rsp locus of D. melanogaster, which is the target of Sd [129], and the Cent728 repeat, which is responsible for female meiotic drive in the Monkeyflower hybrid between Mimulus guttatus and Mimulus nasutus [130].
8. Applicability and Related Issues
Above I proposed a theory that hybrid sterility and inviability are generally the manifestation of chromatin evolution and molecular drive in the context of speciation, but I do not claim that this model explains every case. Among hybrid incompatibility genes discussed in recent review papers, only 10 of 18 (Table 1 of [5]), 8 of 14 (Table 1 of [6]), and 7 of 14 (Table S1 of [9]) are consistent with this theory. In addition, as most hybrid incompatibility data are from Drosophila, a different trend may appear if reproductive isolation genes are identified from diverse taxa. A famous exception to this theory involves the JYalpha gene in Drosophila. JYalpha encodes a protein with sodium/potassium-exchanging ATPase activity and is located on chromosome 4 in D. melanogaster but on chromosome 3 in D. simulans. Therefore, males carrying homozygous introgression of D. simulans chromosome 4 on the D. melanogaster genetic background are sterile, as they do not inherit JYalpha from either species [131–133]. This is an example of male hybrid sterility caused by gene transposition between species, which is consistent with the gene duplication and nonfunctionalization model of speciation [134].
Haldane’s rule is generally observed when hybrid sterility and inviability are encountered. This rule states that “when in the F1 offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogametic (XY or ZW)] sex” [135]. This rule is empirical and seems to be a composite phenomenon [136–138], although the dominance theory is applicable in most cases [139]. Here I propose an additional explanation for Haldane’s rule, based on chromatin evolution and molecular drive in speciation. In hybrid animals, chromatin-binding proteins supplied from one species may not be able to recognize the other species’ Y or W chromosome, as these chromosomes are generally heterochromatic and have high levels of repetitive satellite DNAs. This results in meiotic or mitotic chromosome decondensation or nondisjunction and leads to hybrid sterility or inviability in the heterogametic sex.
There are several chromatin state systems that have not been discussed yet, which may be related to the present issue. First, inactivation of the X chromosome in primary spermatocytes is necessary for the normal progression of spermatogenesis in heterogametic (XY) males [140] (but see [141, 142]), a process termed meiotic sex chromosome inactivation (MSCI). In some cases, male hybrid sterility may result from ineffective MSCI, as DNA-binding proteins may not be able to recognize and inactivate X chromosomes from different species (e.g., [63, 102]). Second, genomic imprinting affects a subset of genes, resulting in monoallelic and parent-of-origin-specific expression. This process usually depends on DNA methylation or histone modification (e.g., [143–146]). Species-specific variations in epigenetic marks may disrupt imprinting and lead to hybrid inviability. This can explain classic observations of unilateral incompatibility in rodent and flowering plant species (e.g., [147–150]).
9. Conclusion
As has been discussed in this paper, major cases of hybrid sterility and inviability seem to result from chromatin evolution and molecular drive in speciation (Table 1). Repetitive satellite DNAs within heterochromatin, especially at centromeres, evolve rapidly through molecular drive mechanisms (both meiotic and centromeric). Chromatin-binding proteins, therefore, must also evolve rapidly to maintain binding capability. As a result, chromatin-binding proteins may not be able to interact with chromosomes from another species in a hybrid, causing hybrid sterility and inviability (Figure 1).
Hybrid incompatibility genes mentioned in the current paper. Whether data concerning these genes are consistent or inconsistent with the current hypothesis is indicated.
Gene
Species
Phenotypea
Comment
Consistent
Reference
Lhr (HP3)
Drosophila melanogaster/D. simulans
F1-L
Interaction with heterochromatin proteins
Yes
[23, 24]
Hmr
D. melanogaster/D. simulans
F1-L, FS
Chromatin-binding
Yes
[28]
zhr (1.688)
D. melanogaster/D. simulans
F1-L
Centromeric repetitive DNA
Yes
[37, 41]
hlx
D. melanogaster/D. simulans
BC-L
Centromeric repetitive DNA?
Yes
[61]
OdsH
D. melanogaster/D. simulans
F1, BC-MS
Heterochromatin-binding
Yes
[66, 72]
Nup160
D. melanogaster/D. simulans
BC-L, FS
Centromeric heterochromatin-binding?
Yes
[78, 80]
Nup96
D. melanogaster/D. simulans
BC-L
Centromeric heterochromatin-binding?
Yes
[79]
Prdm9
Mus m. musculus/M. m. domesticus
F1, BC-MS
Histone methylation
Yes
[98]
Sxa
M. m. musculus/M. m. domesticus; M. musculus/M. spretus
A hybrid sterility and inviability model based on chromatin evolution and molecular drive in speciation. Repetitive satellite DNAs evolve rapidly, thereby accelerating the evolution of chromatin-binding proteins (from the common ancestor to species 1 and species 2). Hybrids are sterile or inviable because the chromatin-binding proteins from species 2 cannot recognize the repetitive sequences of species 1.
Acknowledgment
The author’s current study is supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (21570001) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
DobzhanskyT.1937New York, NY, USAColumbia University PressMullerH. J.HuxleyJ. S.Bearing of the Drosophila work on systematics1940Oxford, UKClaredon Press185268MayrE.1942New York, NY, USAColumbia University PressMichalakP.Epigenetic, transposon and small RNA determinants of hybrid dysfunctions2009102145502-s2.0-5774918641810.1038/hdy.2008.48JohnsonN. A.Hybrid incompatibility genes: remnants of a genomic battlefield?20102673173252-s2.0-7795391349110.1016/j.tig.2010.04.005PresgravesD. C.The molecular evolutionary basis of species formation20101131751802-s2.0-7724909392410.1038/nrg2718McDermottS. R.NoorM. A. F.The role of meiotic drive in hybrid male sterility20103651544126512722-s2.0-7795155185610.1098/rstb.2009.0264MeiklejohnC. D.TaoY.Genetic conflict and sex chromosome evolution20102542152232-s2.0-7794943307510.1016/j.tree.2009.10.005NosilP.SchluterD.The genes underlying the process of speciation2011264160167DoverG.Molecular drive: a cohesive mode of species evolution198229958791111172-s2.0-002047824510.1038/299111a0EngelsW. R.PrestonC. R.Hybrid dysgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster: the biology of female and male sterility19799211611742-s2.0-0018471503DoolittleW. F.SapienzaC.Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution198028457576016032-s2.0-0018894384KidwellM. G.AshburnerM.CarsonH. L.ThompsonJ. N.Jr.Intraspecific hybrid sterility19833cLondon, UKAcademic Press125154RoseM. R.DoolittleW. F.Molecular biological mechanisms of speciation198322045931571622-s2.0-0001498327CoyneJ. A.Mutation rates in hybrids between sibling species of Drosophila19896322-s2.0-0024746076HeyJ.Speciation via hybrid dysgenesis: negative evidence from the Drosophila affinis subgroup1989782971032-s2.0-034461975010.1007/BF00058840Waugh O'NeillR. J.O'NeillM. J.Marshall GravesJ. A.Undermethylation associated with retroelement activation and chromosome remodelling in an interspecific mammalian hybrid1998393668068722-s2.0-000967369810.1038/29985LabradorM.FarréM.UtzetF.FontdevilaA.Interspecific hybridization increases transposition rates of Osvaldo19991679319372-s2.0-0032971565CoyneJ. A.OrrH. A.2004Sunderland, Mass, USASinauer AssociatesSturtevantA. H.Genetic studies on Drosophila simulans. I. Introduction. Hybrids with Drosophila melanogaster192055488500WatanabeT. K.A gene that rescues the lethal hybrids between Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans19795453253312-s2.0-0018698571BarbashD. A.RooteJ.AshburnerM.The Drosophila melanogaster Hybrid male rescue gene causes inviability in male and female species hybrids20001544174717712-s2.0-0034036460BrideauN. J.FloresH. A.WangJ.MaheshwariS.WangX.BarbashD. A.Two Dobzhansky-Muller Genes interact to cause hybrid lethality in Drosophila20063145803129212952-s2.0-3375157795010.1126/science.1133953PrigentS. R.MatsubayashiH.YamamotoM. T.Transgenic Drosophila simulans strains prove the identity of the speciation gene Lethal hybrid rescue20098453533602-s2.0-7674913578510.1266/ggs.84.353GreilF.De WitE.BussemakerH. J.Van SteenselB.HP1 controls genomic targeting of four novel heterochromatin proteins in Drosophila20072637417512-s2.0-3384694822310.1038/sj.emboj.7601527HutterP.AshburnerM.Genetic rescue of inviable hybrids between Drosophila melanogaster and its sibling species198732761203313332-s2.0-0023225168BarbashD. A.AshburnerM.A novel system of fertility rescue in Drosophila hybrids reveals a link between hybrid lethality and female sterility200316312172262-s2.0-0037274643BarbashD. A.SiinoD. F.TaroneA. M.RooteJ.A rapidly evolving MYB-related protein causes species isolation in Drosophila20031009530253072-s2.0-003754715710.1073/pnas.0836927100GiotL.BaderJ. S.BrouwerC.ChaudhuriA.KuangB.LiY.HaoY. L.OoiC. E.GodwinB.VitolsE.VijayadamodarG.PochartP.MachineniH.WelshM.KongY.ZerhusenB.MalcolmR.VarroneZ.CollisA.MintoM.BurgessS.McDanielL.StimpsonE.SpriggsF.WilliamsJ.NeurathK.IoimeN.AgeeM.VossE.FurtakK.RenzulliR.AanensenN.CarrollaS.BickelhauptE.LazovatskyY.DaSilvaA.ZhongJ.StanyonC. A.FinleyR. L.WhiteK. P.BravermanM.JarvieT.GoldS.LeachM.KnightJ.ShimketsR. A.McKennaM. P.ChantJ.RothbergJ. M.A Protein interaction map of Drosophila melanogaster20033025651172717362-s2.0-034560024710.1126/science.1090289Van SteenselB.BraunschweigU.FilionG. J.ChenM.Van BemmelJ. G.IdekerT.Bayesian network analysis of targeting interactions in chromatin20102021902002-s2.0-7564912419610.1101/gr.098822.109BrideauN. J.njb38@cornell.eduBarbashD. A.dab87@cornell.eduFunctional conservation of the Drosophila hybrid incompatibility gene Lhr2011111, article 5710.1186/1471-2148-11-57NeiM.1987New York, NY, USAColumbia University PressMcDonaldJ. H.KreitmanM.Adaptive protein evolution at the Adh locus in Drosophila199135163286526542-s2.0-0026428610BarbashD. A.AwadallaP.TaroneA. M.Functional divergence caused by ancient positive selection of a Drosophila hybrid incompatibility locus2004262-s2.0-1664439839910.1371/journal.pbio.0020142e142FilionG. J.van BemmelJ. G.BraunschweigU.TalhoutW.KindJ.WardL. D.BrugmanW.de CastroI. J.KerkhovenR. M.BussemakerH. J.van SteenselB.Systematic protein location mapping reveals five principal chromatin types in Drosophila cells201014322122242-s2.0-7795777622810.1016/j.cell.2010.09.009HadornE.Zur autonomie und phasenspezifität der latalität von bastarden zwischen Drosophila melanogaster und Drosophila simulans1961682197207SawamuraK.YamamotoM. T.WatanabeT. K.Hybrid lethal systems in the Drosophila melanogaster species complex. II. The Zygotic hybrid rescue (Zhr) gene of D. melanogaster199313323073132-s2.0-0027392096SawamuraK.YamamotoM. T.Cytogenetical localization of Zygotic hybrid rescue (Zhr), a Drosophila melanogaster gene that rescues interspecific hybrids from embryonic lethality199323934414492-s2.0-0027154908SawamuraK.FujitaA.YokoyamaR.TairaT.InoueY. H.ParkH. S.YamamotoM. T.Molecular and genetic dissection of a reproductive isolation gene, zygotic hybrid rescue, of Drosophila melanogaster19957022232322-s2.0-002905122310.1266/jjg.70.223SawamuraK.YamamotoM. T.Characterization of a reproductive isolation gene, zygotic hybrid rescue, of Drosophila melanogaster by using minichromosomes1997791971032-s2.0-003076016610.1038/sj.hdy.6881800FerreeP. M.BarbashD. A.Species-specific heterochromatin prevents mitotic chromosome segregation to cause hybrid lethality in Drosophila20097102-s2.0-7035051032910.1371/journal.pbio.1000234e1000234SawamuraK.WuC. I.KarrT. L.Early development and lethality in D. simulans/D. melanogaster hybrids38Proceedings of the Annual Drosophila Research Conference1997175CarlsonM.BrutlagD.Cloning and characterization of a complex satellite DNA from Drosophila melanogaster19771123713812-s2.0-0017414243HsiehT.BrutlagD.Sequence and sequence variation within the 1.688 g/cm3 satellite DNA of Drosophila melanogaster197913524654812-s2.0-0018641970BrutlagD. L.Molecular arrangement and evolution of heterochromatic DNA1980141211442-s2.0-0019248018HillikerA. J.AppelsR.Pleiotropic effects associated with the deletion of heterochromatin surrounding rDNA on the X chromosome of Drosophila19828644694902-s2.0-0020446471LoheA. R.HillikerA. J.RobertsP. A.Mapping simple repeated DNA sequences in heterochromatin of Drosophila melanogaster19931344114911742-s2.0-0027261149BarnesS. R.WebbD. A.DoverG.The distribution of satellite and main-band DNA components in the melanogaster species subgroup of Drosophila. I. Fractionation of DNA in actinomycin D and distamycin A density gradients19786743413632-s2.0-0018171477StrachanT.CoenE.WebbD.DoverG.Modes and rates of change of complex DNA families of Drosophila1982158137542-s2.0-0019977752StrachanT.WebbD.DoverG. A.Transition stages of molecular drive in multiple-copy DNA families in Drosophila19854717011708LoheA. R.BrutlagD. L.Identical satellite DNA sequences in sibling species of Drosophila198719421611702-s2.0-0023094117SawamuraK.TairaT.WatanabeT. K.Hybrid lethal systems in the Drosophila melanogaster species complex. I. The maternal hybrid rescue (mhr) gene of Drosophila simulans199313322993052-s2.0-0027459579HutterP.RooteJ.AshburnerM.A genetic basis for the inviability of hybrids between sibling species of Drosophila199012449099202-s2.0-0025248440FerreeP. M.BarbashD. A.Distorted sex ratios: a window into RNAi-mediated silencing2007511245324572-s2.0-3724908659110.1371/journal.pbio.0050303e303HsiehT. S.BrutlagD. L.A protein that preferentially binds Drosophila satellite DNA19797627267302-s2.0-0018418775KäsE.LaemmliU. K.In vivo topoisomerase II cleavage of the Drosophila histone and satellite III repeats: DNA sequence and structural characteristics19921127057162-s2.0-0026526740MarshallW. F.StraightA.MarkoJ. F.SwedlowJ.DernburgA.BelmontA.MurrayA. W.AgardD. A.SedatJ. W.Interphase chromosomes undergo constrained diffusional motion in living cells19977129309392-s2.0-0031457326BlattesR.MonodC.SusbielleG.CuvierO.WuJ. H.HsiehT. S.LaemmliU. K.KäsE.Displacement of D1, HP1 and topoisomerase II from satellite heterochromatin by a specific polyamide20062511239724082-s2.0-3374574902510.1038/sj.emboj.7601125CarracedoM. C.AsenjoA.CasaresP.Location of Shfr a new gene that rescues hybrid female viability in crosses between Drosophila simulans females and D. melanogaster males20008466306382-s2.0-003386408110.1046/j.1365-2540.2000.00658.xUsakinL.AbadJ.VaginV. V.De PablosB.VillasanteA.GvozdevV. A.Transcription of the 1.688 satellite DNA family is under the control of RNA interference machinery in Drosophila melanogaster ovaries20071762134313492-s2.0-3425073696510.1534/genetics.107.071720CattaniM. V.PresgravesD. C.Genetics and lineage-specific evolution of a lethal hybrid incompatibility between Drosophila mauritiana and its sibling species20091814154515552-s2.0-6765031201210.1534/genetics.108.098392DavidJ.LemeunierF.TsacasL.BocquetC.Hybridization of a new species, Drosophila mauritiana with D. Melanogaster and D. simulans19741742352412-s2.0-0016135712WuC. I.PalopoliM. F.Genetics of postmating reproductive isolation in animals1994282833082-s2.0-0028607356PerezD. E.WuC. I.JohnsonN. A.WuM. L.Genetics of reproductive isolation in the Drosophila simulans clade: DNA marker-assisted mapping and characterization of a hybrid-male sterility gene, Odysseus (Ods)199313412612752-s2.0-0027222825PerezD. E.WuC. I.Further characterization of the Odysseus locus of hybrid sterility in Drosophila: one gene is not enough199514012012062-s2.0-0028926151TingC. T.TsaurS. C.WuM. L.WuC. I.A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene19982825393150115042-s2.0-0032553369TabuchiK.YoshikawaS.YuasaY.SawamotoK.OkanoH.A novel Drosophila paired-like homeobox gene related to Caenorhabditis elegans unc-4 is expressed in subsets of postmitotic neurons and epidermal cells1998257149522-s2.0-1704445830910.1016/S0304-3940(98)00799-XTingC. T.TsaurS. C.SunS.BrowneW. E.PatelN. H.WuC. I.Gene duplication and speciation in Drosophila: evidence from the Odysseus locus20041013312232122352-s2.0-434467332910.1073/pnas.0401975101SunS.TingC. T.WuC. I.The normal function of a speciation gene, Odysseus, and its hybrid sterility effect2004305568081832-s2.0-304271399610.1126/science.1093904MichalakP.NoorM. A. F.Association of misexpression with sterility in hybrids of Drosophila simulans and D. mauritiana20045922772822-s2.0-434465102010.1007/s00239-004-2622-yLuX.ShapiroJ. A.TingC. T.LiY.LiC.XuJ.HuangH.ChengY. J.GreenbergA. J.LiS. H.WuM. L.ShenY.WuC. I.Genome-wide misexpression of X-linked versus autosomal genes associated with hybrid male sterility2010208109711022-s2.0-7795513437210.1101/gr.076620.108BayesJ. J.MalikH. S.Altered heterochromatin binding by a hybrid sterility protein in Drosophila sibling species20093265959153815412-s2.0-7045022317510.1126/science.1181756DavisA. W.RooteJ.MorleyT.SawamuraK.HerrmannS.AshburnerM.Rescue of hybrid sterility in crosses between D. melanogaster and D. simulans199638065701571592-s2.0-002996546610.1038/380157a0SawamuraK.DavisA. W.WuC. I.Genetic analysis of speciation by means of introgression into Drosophila melanogaster2000976265226552-s2.0-003464621210.1073/pnas.050558597SawamuraK.YamamotoM. T.The minimal interspecific introgression resulting in male sterility in Drosophila200484281862-s2.0-1144427024610.1017/S0016672304007001SawamuraK.KarrT. L.YamamotoM. T.Genetics of hybrid inviability and sterility in Drosophila: dissection of introgression of D. simulans genes in D. melanogaster genome20041201–32532602-s2.0-164241720310.1023/B:GENE.0000017646.11191.b0SawamuraK.RooteJ.WuC. I.YamamotoM. T.Genetic complexity underlying hybrid male sterility in Drosophila200416627897962-s2.0-164227189310.1534/genetics.166.2.789SawamuraK.sawamura@biol.tsukuba.ac.jpMaeharaK.MashinoS.KagesawaT.KajiwaraM.MatsunoK.TakahashiA.Takano-ShimizuT.Introgression of Drosophila simulans nuclear pore protein 160 in Drosophila melanogaster alone does not cause inviability but does cause female sterility2010186266967610.1534/genetics.110.119867PresgravesD. C.BalagopalanL.AbmayrS. M.OrrH. A.Adaptive evolution drives divergence of a hybrid inviability gene between two species of Drosophila200342369417157192-s2.0-003756496910.1038/nature01679TangS.PresgravesD. C.Evolution of the Drosophila nuclear pore complex results in multiple hybrid incompatibilities200932359157797822-s2.0-5984909147610.1126/science.1169123SawamuraK.Genetics of hybrid inviability and sterility in Drosophila: the Drosophila melanogaster-Drosophila simulans case20001532372472-s2.0-003447672710.1046/j.1442-1984.2000.00043.xPresgravesD. C.A fine-scale genetic analysis of hybrid incompatibilities in Drosophila200316339559722-s2.0-0037354503PresgravesD. C.StephanW.Pervasive adaptive evolution among interactors of the Drosophila hybrid inviability gene, Nup9620072413063142-s2.0-3384588430910.1093/molbev/msl157ClarkN. L.AquadroC. F.A novel method to detect proteins evolving at correlated rates: identifying new functional relationships between coevolving proteins2010275115211612-s2.0-7795153538610.1093/molbev/msp324KöhlerA.HurtE.Gene regulation by nucleoporins and links to cancer20103816152-s2.0-7795034723110.1016/j.molcel.2010.01.040MendjanS.TaipaleM.KindJ.HolzH.GebhardtP.SchelderM.VermeulenM.BuscainoA.DuncanK.MuellerJ.WilmM.StunnenbergH. G.SaumweberH.AkhtarA.Nuclear pore components are involved in the transcriptional regulation of dosage compensation in Drosophila20062168118232-s2.0-3364487052510.1016/j.molcel.2006.02.007OrjaloA. V.ArnaoutovA.ShenZ.BoyarchukY.ZeitlinS. G.FontouraB.BriggsS.DassoM.ForbesD. J.The Nup107-160 nucleoporin complex is required for correct bipolar spindle assembly2006179380638182-s2.0-3374832567810.1091/mbc.E05-11-1061ZuccoloM.AlvesA.GalyV.BolhyS.FormstecherE.RacineV.SibaritaJ. B.FukagawaT.ShiekhattarR.YenT.DoyeV.The human Nup107-160 nuclear pore subcomplex contributes to proper kinetochore functions2007267185318642-s2.0-3424727258010.1038/sj.emboj.7601642CapelsonM.LiangY.SchulteR.MairW.WagnerU.HetzerM. W.Chromatin-bound nuclear pore components regulate gene expression in higher eukaryotes201014033723832-s2.0-7574910338010.1016/j.cell.2009.12.054MishraR. K.ChakrabortyP.ArnaoutovA.FontouraB. M. A.DassoM.The Nup107-160 complex and γ-TuRC regulate microtubule polymerization at kinetochores20101221641692-s2.0-7594910389810.1038/ncb2016VaquerizasJ. M.SuyamaR.KindJ.MiuraK.LuscombeN. M.AkhtarA.Nuclear pore proteins Nup153 and megator define transcriptionally active regions in the Drosophila genome2010622-s2.0-7764921095510.1371/journal.pgen.1000846e1000846MerrillC.BayraktarogluL.KusanoA.GanetzkyB.Truncated RanGAP encoded by the Segregation Distorter Locus of Drosophila19992835408174217452-s2.0-003354871810.1126/science.283.5408.1742TaoY.MaslyJ. P.AraripeL.KeY.HartlD. L.A sex-ratio meiotic drive system in Drosophila simulans. I: an autosomal suppressor2007511256025752-s2.0-3724906355210.1371/journal.pbio.0050292e292ForejtJ.Hybrid sterility in the mouse199612104124172-s2.0-003027255710.1016/0168-9525(96)10040-8OkaA.MitaA.Sakurai-YamataniN.YamamotoH.TakagiN.Takano-ShimizuT.ToshimoriK.MoriwakiK.ShiroishiT.Hybrid breakdown caused by substitution of the X chromosome between two mouse subspecies200416629139242-s2.0-164233197610.1534/genetics.166.2.913OkaA.AotoT.TotsukaY.TakahashiR.UedaM.MitaA.Sakurai-YamataniN.YamamotoH.KurikiS.TakagiN.MoriwakiK.ShiroishiT.Disruption of genetic interaction between two autosomal regions and the X chromosome causes reproductive isolation between mouse strains derived from different subspecies200717511851972-s2.0-3384652165410.1534/genetics.106.062976ForejtJ.IvanyiP.Genetic studies on male sterility of hybrids between laboratory and wild mice (Mus musculus L.)19742421892062-s2.0-0016184741MiholaO.TrachtulecZ.VlcekC.SchimentiJ. C.ForejtJ.A mouse speciation gene encodes a meiotic histone H3 methyltransferase200932359123733752-s2.0-5844909292910.1126/science.1163601HayashiK.YoshidaK.MatsuiY.A histone H3 methyltransferase controls epigenetic events required for meiotic prophase200543870663743782-s2.0-2784444098910.1038/nature04112MatsudaY.HirobeT.ChapmanV. M.Genetic basis of X-Y chromosome dissociation and male sterility in interspecific hybrids19918811485048542-s2.0-0025753133MatsudaY.MoensP. B.ChapmanV. M.Deficiency of X and Y chromosomal pairing at meiotic prophase in spermatocytes of sterile interspecific hybrids between laboratory mice (Mus domesticus) and Mus spretus199210184834922-s2.0-002672509610.1007/BF00352471HaleD. W.WashburnL. L.EicherE. M.Meiotic abnormalities in hybrid mice of the C57BL/6J x Mus spretus cross suggest a cytogenetic basis for Haldane's rule of hybrid sterility19936342212342-s2.0-0027186233GuenetJ. L.NagamineC.Simon-ChazottesD.MontagutelliX.BonhommeF.Hst-3: an X-linked hybrid sterility gene1990562-31631652-s2.0-0025242073ImaiH. T.WadaM. Y.MoriwakiK.The sex chromosome association (Sxa) gene is located on the X-chromosome in mice199065265692-s2.0-002528269010.1266/jjg.65.65WinkingH.NielsenK.GroppA.Variable positions of NORs in Mus musculus1980262–41581642-s2.0-0018891679MatsudaY.ChapmanV. M.In situ analysis of centromeric satellite DNA segregating in Mus species crosses19901271772-s2.0-002627545510.1007/BF02443781OliverP. L.GoodstadtL.BayesJ. J.BirtleZ.RoachK. C.PhadnisN.BeatsonS. A.LunterG.MalikH. S.hsmalik@fhcrc.orgPontingC. P.chris.ponting@dpag.ox.ac.ukAccelerated evolution of the Prdm9 speciation gene across diverse metazoan taxa200951210.1371/journal.pgen.1000753e1000753ThomasJ. H.EmersonR. O.ShendureJ.Extraordinary molecular evolution in the PRDM9 fertility gene2009412, article e85052-s2.0-77249128987PontingC. P.chris.ponting@dpag.ox.ac.ukWhat are the genomic drivers of the rapid evolution of PRDM9?201127516517110.1016/j.tig.2011.02.001BaudatF.BuardJ.GreyC.Fledel-AlonA.OberC.PrzeworskiM.CoopG.De MassyB.PRDM9 is a major determinant of meiotic recombination hotspots in humans and mice201032759678368402-s2.0-7674917034610.1126/science.1183439MyersS.BowdenR.TumianA.BontropR. E.FreemanC.MacFieT. S.McVeanG.DonnellyP.Drive against hotspot motifs in primates implicates the PRDM9 gene in meiotic recombination201032759678768792-s2.0-7674915507210.1126/science.1182363ParvanovE. D.PetkovP. M.PaigenK.Prdm9 controls activation of mammalian recombination hotspots201032759678352-s2.0-7674915193410.1126/science.1181495JenuweinT.AllisC. D.Translating the histone code20012935532107410802-s2.0-003583913610.1126/science.1063127PengJ. C.KarpenG. H.Epigenetic regulation of heterochromatic DNA stability20081822042112-s2.0-4434918629410.1016/j.gde.2008.01.021PengJ. C.KarpenG. H.H3K9 methylation and RNA interference regulate nucleolar organization and repeated DNA stability20079125352-s2.0-3384586663710.1038/ncb1514FrankS. H.Divergence of meiotic drive-suppressors as an explanation for sex-biased hybrid sterility and inviability1991452262267HurstL. D.PomiankowskiA.Causes of sex ratio bias may account for unisexual sterility in hybrids: a new explanation of Haldane's rule and related phenomena199112848418582-s2.0-0025944136JohnsonN. A.WuC. I.An empirical test of the meiotic drive models of hybrid sterility: sex- ratio data from hybrids between Drosophila simulans and Drosophila sechellia199213035075112-s2.0-0026582117CoyneJ. A.OrrH. A.Further evidence against the involvement of meiotic drive in hybrid sterility1993472685687TaoY.HartlD. L.LaurieC. C.Sex-ratio segregation distortion associated with reproductive isolation in Drosophila2001982313183131882-s2.0-003581854310.1073/pnas.231478798OrrH. A.IrvingS.Segregation distortion in hybrids between the Bogota and USA subspecies of Drosophila pseudoobscura200516926716822-s2.0-1554437712410.1534/genetics.104.033274PhadnisN.OrrH. A.A single gene causes both male sterility and segregation distortion in Drosophila hybrids200932359123763792-s2.0-5844909181810.1126/science.1163934HenikoffS.AhmadK.MalikH. S.The centromere paradox: stable inheritance with rapidly evolving DNA20012935532109811022-s2.0-003583906610.1126/science.1062939SmithG. P.Evolution of repeated DNA sequences by unequal crossover197619142275285352-s2.0-0017294484CharlesworthB.SniegowskiP.StephanW.The evolutionary dynamics of repetitive DNA in eukaryotes199437164942152202-s2.0-002810818310.1038/371215a0CsinkA. K.HenikoffS.Something from nothing: the evolution and utility of satellite repeats19981452002042-s2.0-003207666010.1016/S0168-9525(98)01444-9HenikoffS.AhmadK.PlateroJ. S.Van SteenselB.Heterochromatic deposition of centromeric histone H3-like proteins20009727167212-s2.0-003468111510.1073/pnas.97.2.716MalikH. S.HenikoffS.Adaptive evolution of Cid, a centromere-specific histone in Drosophila20011573129312982-s2.0-0035103847WuC. I.LyttleT. W.WuM. L.LinG. F.Association between a satellite DNA sequence and the responder of segregation distorter in D. melanogaster19885421791892-s2.0-0023735657FishmanL.SaundersA.Centromere-associated female meiotic drive entails male fitness costs in monkeyflowers20083225907155915622-s2.0-5734910799310.1126/science.1161406MullerH. J.PontecorvoG.Recombinants between Drosophila species the F1 hybrids of which are sterile194014636931992002-s2.0-0000369290OrrH. A.Mapping and characterization of a “speciation gene” in Drosophila199259273802-s2.0-0026724155MaslyJ. P.JonesC. D.NoorM. A. F.LockeJ.OrrH. A.Gene transposition as a cause of hybrid sterility in Drosophila20063135792144814502-s2.0-3374849069710.1126/science.1128721LynchM.ForceA. G.The origin of interspecific genomic incompatibility via gene duplication200015665906052-s2.0-003452996410.1086/316992HaldaneJ. B. S.Sex ratio and unisexual sterility in hybrid animals19221221011092-s2.0-7795537936010.1007/BF02983075WuC. I.JohnsonN. A.PalopoliM. F.Haldane's rule and its legacy: why are there so many sterile males?19961172812842-s2.0-3024446742210.1016/0169-5347(96)10033-1LaurieC. C.The weaker sex is heterogametic: 75 years of Haldane's rule199714739379512-s2.0-0031266982KulathinalR. J.SinghR. S.The molecular basis of speciation: from patterns to processes, rules to mechanisms20088743273382-s2.0-5854909302310.1007/s12041-008-0055-xTurelliM.OrrH. A.The dominance theory of Haldane’s rule199514013894022-s2.0-0028956275LifschytzE.LindsleyD. L.The role of X-chromosome inactivation during spermatogenesis19726911821862-s2.0-0015253206LuX.xuemeilu@gmail.comWuC.-I.ciwu@uchicago.eduSex, sex chromosomes and gene expression20119, article 3010.1186/1741-7007-9-30MikhaylovaL. M.lusya@izba.comNurminskyD. I.dnurminsky@som.umaryland.eduLack of global meiotic sex chromosome inactivation, and paucity of tissue-specific gene expression on the Drosophila X chromosome20119, article 2910.1186/1741-7007-9-29HaigD.GrahamC.Genomic imprinting and the strange case of the insulin-like growth factor II receptor1991646104510462-s2.0-0026036288MooreT.HaigD.Genomic imprinting in mammalian development: a parental tug-of-war19917245492-s2.0-0025958320ScottR. J.SpielmanM.Deeper into the maize: new insights into genomic imprinting in plants20062812116711712-s2.0-3384554311110.1002/bies.20508KinoshitaT.IkedaY.IshikawaR.Genomic imprinting: a balance between antagonistic roles of parental chromosomes20081965745792-s2.0-5454909357210.1016/j.semcdb.2008.07.018ZechnerU.ShiW.HembergerM.HimmelbauerH.OttoS.OrthA.KalscheuerV.FischerU.ElangoR.ReisA.VogelW.RopersH.RüschendorfF.FundeleR.Divergent genetic and epigenetic post-zygotic isolation mechanisms in Mus and Peromyscus20041724534602-s2.0-1074422158510.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00656.xJosefssonC.DilkesB.ComaiL.Parent-dependent loss of gene silencing during interspecies hybridization20061613132213282-s2.0-3374566845910.1016/j.cub.2006.05.045KinoshitaT.Reproductive barrier and genomic imprinting in the endosperm of flowering plants20078231771862-s2.0-3454822097210.1266/ggs.82.177WileyC. D.MatundanH. H.DuselisA. R.IsaacsA. T.VranaP. B.pvrana@uci.eduPatterns of hybrid loss of imprinting reveal tissue- and cluster-specific regulation200831010.1371/journal.pone.0003572e3572