Main Menu (Mobile)- Block

Main Menu - Block

janelia7_blocks-janelia7_fake_breadcrumb | block
Koyama Lab / Publications
custom | custom

Filter

facetapi-Q2b17qCsTdECvJIqZJgYMaGsr8vANl1n | block

Associated Lab

facetapi-W9JlIB1X0bjs93n1Alu3wHJQTTgDCBGe | block
facetapi-PV5lg7xuz68EAY8eakJzrcmwtdGEnxR0 | block
facetapi-021SKYQnqXW6ODq5W5dPAFEDBaEJubhN | block
general_search_page-panel_pane_1 | views_panes

3920 Publications

Showing 1341-1350 of 3920 results
11/08/07 | Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny.
Clark AG, Eisen MB, Smith DR, Bergman CM, Oliver B, Markow TA, Kaufman TC, Kellis M, Gelbart W, Iyer VN, Pollard DA, Sackton TB, Larracuente AM, Singh ND, Abad JP, Abt DN, Adryan B, Aguade M, Akashi H, Anderson WW, Aquadro CF, Ardell DH, Arguello R, Artieri CG, Barbash DA, Barker D, Barsanti P, Batterham P, Batzoglou S, Begun D, Bhutkar A, Blanco E, Bosak SA, Bradley RK, Brand AD, Brent MR, Brooks AN, Brown RH, Butlin RK, Caggese C, Calvi BR, Bernardo de Carvalho A, Caspi A, Castrezana S, Celniker SE, Chang JL, Chapple C, Chatterji S, Chinwalla A, Civetta A, Clifton SW, Comeron JM, Costello JC, Coyne JA, Daub J, David RG, Delcher AL, Delehaunty K, Do CB, Ebling H, Edwards K, Eickbush T, Evans JD, Filipski A, Findeiss S, Freyhult E, Fulton L, Fulton R, Garcia AC, Gardiner A, Garfield DA, Garvin BE, Gibson G, Gilbert D, Gnerre S, Godfrey J, Good R, Gotea V, Gravely B, Greenberg AJ, Griffiths-Jones S, Gross S, Guigo R, Gustafson EA, Haerty W, Hahn MW, Halligan DL, Halpern AL, Halter GM, Han MV, Heger A, Hillier L, Hinrichs AS, Holmes I, Hoskins RA, Hubisz MJ, Hultmark D, Huntley MA, Jaffe DB, Jagadeeshan S, Jeck WR, Johnson J, Jones CD, Jordan WC, Karpen GH, Kataoka E, Keightley PD, Kheradpour P, Kirkness EF, Koerich LB, Kristiansen K, Kudrna D, Kulathinal RJ, Kumar S, Kwok R, Lander E, Langley CH, Lapoint R, Lazzaro BP, Lee S, Levesque L, Li R, Lin C, Lin MF, Lindblad-Toh K, Llopart A, Long M, Low L, Lozovsky E, Lu J, Luo M, Machado CA, Makalowski W, Marzo M, Matsuda M, Matzkin L, McAllister B, McBride CS, McKernan B, McKernan K, Mendez-Lago M, Minx P, Mollenhauer MU, Montooth K, Mount SM, Mu X, Myers E, Negre B, Newfeld S, Nielsen R, Noor MA, O’Grady P, Pachter L, Papaceit M, Parisi MJ, Parisi M, Parts L, Pedersen JS, Pesole G, Phillippy AM, Ponting CP, Pop M, Porcelli D, Powell JR, Prohaska S, Pruitt K, Puig M, Quesneville H, Ram KR, Rand D, Rasmussen MD, Reed LK, Reenan R, Reily A, Remington KA, Rieger TT, Ritchie MG, Robin C, Rogers Y, Rohde C, Rozas J, Rubenfield MJ, Ruiz A, Russo S, Salzberg SL, Sanchez-Gracia A, Saranga DJ, Sato H, Schaeffer SW, Schatz MC, Schlenke T, Schwartz R, Segarra C, Singh RS, Sirot L, Sirota M, Sisneros NB, Smith CD, Smith TF, Spieth J, Stage DE, Stark A, Stephan W, Strausberg RL, Strempel S, Sturgill D, Sutton G, Sutton GG, Tao W, Teichmann S, Tobari YN, Tomimura Y, Tsolas JM, Valente VL, Venter E, Venter JC, Vicario S, Vieira FG, Vilella AJ, Villasante A, Walenz B, Wang J, Wasserman M, Watts T, Wilson D, Wilson RK, Wing RA, Wolfner MF, Wong A, Wong GK, Wu C, Wu G, Yamamoto D, Yang H, Yang S, Yorke JA, Yoshida K, Zdobnov E, Zhang P, Zhang Y, Zimin AV, Baldwin J, Abdouelleil A, Abdulkadir J, Abebe A, Abera B, Abreu J, Acer SC, Aftuck L, Alexander A, An P, Anderson E, Anderson S, Arachi H, Azer M, Bachantsang P, Barry A, Bayul T, Berlin A, Bessette D, Bloom T, Blye J, Boguslavskiy L, Bonnet C, Boukhgalter B, Bourzgui I, Brown A, Cahill P, Channer S, Cheshatsang Y, Chuda L, Citroen M, Collymore A, Cooke P, Costello M, D’Aco K, Daza R, De Haan G, DeGray S, DeMaso C, Dhargay N, Dooley K, Dooley E, Doricent M, Dorje P, Dorjee K, Dupes A, Elong R, Falk J, Farina A, Faro S, Ferguson D, Fisher S, Foley CD, Franke A, Friedrich D, Gadbois L, Gearin G, Gearin CR, Giannoukos G, Goode T, Graham J, Grandbois E, Grewal S, Gyaltsen K, Hafez N, Hagos B, Hall J, Henson C, Hollinger A, Honan T, Huard MD, Hughes L, Hurhula B, Husby ME, Kamat A, Kanga B, Kashin S, Khazanovich D, Kisner P, Lance K, Lara M, Lee W, Lennon N, Letendre F, LeVine R, Lipovsky A, Liu X, Liu J, Liu S, Lokyitsang T, Lokyitsang Y, Lubonja R, Lui A, MacDonald P, Magnisalis V, Maru K, Matthews C, McCusker W, McDonough S, Mehta T, Meldrim J, Meneus L, Mihai O, Mihalev A, Mihova T, Mittelman R, Mlenga V, Montmayeur A, Mulrain L, Navidi A, Naylor J, Negash T, Nguyen T, Nguyen N, Nicol R, Norbu C, Norbu N, Novod N, O’Neill B, Osman S, Markiewicz E, Oyono OL, Patti C, Phunkhang P, Pierre F, Priest M, Raghuraman S, Rege F, Reyes R, Rise C, Rogov P, Ross K, Ryan E, Settipalli S, Shea T, Sherpa N, Shi L, Shih D, Sparrow T, Spaulding J, Stalker J, Stange-Thomann N, Stavropoulos S, Stone C, Strader C, Tesfaye S, Thomson T, Thoulutsang Y, Thoulutsang D, Topham K, Topping I, Tsamla T, Vassiliev H, Vo A, Wangchuk T, Wangdi T, Weiand M, Wilkinson J, Wilson A, Yadav S, Young G, Yu Q, Zembek L, Zhong D, Zimmer A, Zwirko Z, Jaffe DB, Alvarez P, Brockman W, Butler J, Chin C, Gnerre S, Grabherr M, Kleber M, Mauceli E, MacCallum I
Nature. 2007 Nov 8;450:203-18. doi: 10.1038/nature06341

Comparative analysis of multiple genomes in a phylogenetic framework dramatically improves the precision and sensitivity of evolutionary inference, producing more robust results than single-genome analyses can provide. The genomes of 12 Drosophila species, ten of which are presented here for the first time (sechellia, simulans, yakuba, erecta, ananassae, persimilis, willistoni, mojavensis, virilis and grimshawi), illustrate how rates and patterns of sequence divergence across taxa can illuminate evolutionary processes on a genomic scale. These genome sequences augment the formidable genetic tools that have made Drosophila melanogaster a pre-eminent model for animal genetics, and will further catalyse fundamental research on mechanisms of development, cell biology, genetics, disease, neurobiology, behaviour, physiology and evolution. Despite remarkable similarities among these Drosophila species, we identified many putatively non-neutral changes in protein-coding genes, non-coding RNA genes, and cis-regulatory regions. These may prove to underlie differences in the ecology and behaviour of these diverse species.

View Publication Page
05/28/19 | Evolution of Mechanisms that Control Mating in Drosophila Males.
Ahmed OM, Avila-Herrera A, Tun KM, Serpa PH, Peng J, Parthasarathy S, Knapp J, Stern DL, Davis GW, Pollard KS, Shah NM
Cell Reports. 2019 May 28;27(9):2527-2536.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.04.104

Genetically wired neural mechanisms inhibit mating between species because even naive animals rarely mate with other species. These mechanisms can evolve through changes in expression or function of key genes in sensory pathways or central circuits. Gr32a is a gustatory chemoreceptor that, in D. melanogaster, is essential to inhibit interspecies courtship and sense quinine. Similar to D. melanogaster, we find that D. simulans Gr32a is expressed in foreleg tarsi, sensorimotor appendages that inhibit interspecies courtship, and it is required to sense quinine. Nevertheless, Gr32a is not required to inhibit interspecies mating by D. simulans males. However, and similar to its function in D. melanogaster, Ppk25, a member of the Pickpocket family, promotes conspecific courtship in D. simulans. Together, we have identified distinct evolutionary mechanisms underlying chemosensory control of taste and courtship in closely related Drosophila species.

View Publication Page
01/01/12 | Evolution of multiple additive loci caused divergence between Drosophila yakuba and D. santomea in wing rowing during male courtship.
Cande J, Andolfatto P, Prud'homme B, Stern DL, Gompel N
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43888. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043888

In Drosophila, male flies perform innate, stereotyped courtship behavior. This innate behavior evolves rapidly between fly species, and is likely to have contributed to reproductive isolation and species divergence. We currently understand little about the neurobiological and genetic mechanisms that contributed to the evolution of courtship behavior. Here we describe a novel behavioral difference between the two closely related species D. yakuba and D. santomea: the frequency of wing rowing during courtship. During courtship, D. santomea males repeatedly rotate their wing blades to face forward and then back (rowing), while D. yakuba males rarely row their wings. We found little intraspecific variation in the frequency of wing rowing for both species. We exploited multiplexed shotgun genotyping (MSG) to genotype two backcross populations with a single lane of Illumina sequencing. We performed quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping using the ancestry information estimated by MSG and found that the species difference in wing rowing mapped to four or five genetically separable regions. We found no evidence that these loci display epistasis. The identified loci all act in the same direction and can account for most of the species difference.

View Publication Page
06/01/09 | Evolution of mutational robustness in the yeast genome: a link to essential genes and meiotic recombination hotspots.
Keller PJ, Knop M
PLoS Genetics. 2009 Jun;5(6):e1000533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000533

Deleterious mutations inevitably emerge in any evolutionary process and are speculated to decisively influence the structure of the genome. Meiosis, which is thought to play a major role in handling mutations on the population level, recombines chromosomes via non-randomly distributed hot spots for meiotic recombination. In many genomes, various types of genetic elements are distributed in patterns that are currently not well understood. In particular, important (essential) genes are arranged in clusters, which often cannot be explained by a functional relationship of the involved genes. Here we show by computer simulation that essential gene (EG) clustering provides a fitness benefit in handling deleterious mutations in sexual populations with variable levels of inbreeding and outbreeding. We find that recessive lethal mutations enforce a selective pressure towards clustered genome architectures. Our simulations correctly predict (i) the evolution of non-random distributions of meiotic crossovers, (ii) the genome-wide anti-correlation of meiotic crossovers and EG clustering, (iii) the evolution of EG enrichment in pericentromeric regions and (iv) the associated absence of meiotic crossovers (cold centromeres). Our results furthermore predict optimal crossover rates for yeast chromosomes, which match the experimentally determined rates. Using a Saccharomyces cerevisiae conditional mutator strain, we show that haploid lethal phenotypes result predominantly from mutation of single loci and generally do not impair mating, which leads to an accumulation of mutational load following meiosis and mating. We hypothesize that purging of deleterious mutations in essential genes constitutes an important factor driving meiotic crossover. Therefore, the increased robustness of populations to deleterious mutations, which arises from clustered genome architectures, may provide a significant selective force shaping crossover distribution. Our analysis reveals a new aspect of the evolution of genome architectures that complements insights about molecular constraints, such as the interference of pericentromeric crossovers with chromosome segregation.

View Publication Page
12/11/09 | Evolution of the tan locus contributed to pigment loss in Drosophila santomea: a response to Matute et al.
Rebeiz M, Ramos-Womack M, Jeong S, Andolfatto P, Werner T, True J, Stern DL, Carroll SB
Cell. 2009 Dec 11;139(6):1189-96. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.11.004

We have shown previously that the loss of abdominal pigmentation in D. santomea relative to its sister species D. yakuba resulted, in part, from cis-regulatory mutations at the tan locus. Matute et al. claim, based solely upon extrapolation from genetic crosses of D. santomea and D. melanogaster, a much more divergent species, that at least four X chromosome regions but not tan are responsible for pigmentation differences. Here, we provide additional evidence from introgressions of D. yakuba genes into D. santomea that support a causative role for tan in the loss of pigmentation and present analyses that contradict Matute et al.’s claims. We discuss how the choice of parental species and other factors affect the ability to identify loci responsible for species divergence, and we affirm that all of our previously reported results and conclusions stand.

View Publication Page

For too long, efforts to synthesize evolution and development have failed to build a united view of the origins and evolution of biological diversity. In this groundbreaking book, David Stern sets out to draw evolutionary biology and developmental biology together by cutting through the differences that divide the disciplines and by revealing their deeper similarities. He draws upon the insights of generations of evolutionary biologists and scores of developmental biologists to build a solid foundation for future investigation of the genetic and developmental causes of diversity. Along the way, and in plain English, he explicates many of the guiding principles of evolution, population genetics, and developmental biology. Each chapter offers a clear review of fundamental principles, together with thoughtprovoking ideas that will be tested only with data emerging from current and future studies. With the basic principles established, he then offers a new way of thinking about development—backwards—to clarify precisely how the mechanisms of development influence evolution. In the same spirit, he takes a fresh look at evolution in populations, arguing that population history influences precisely how developmental mechanisms evolve. Both Stern's new perspective on development and his reassessment of the role of populations leads to the surprising conclusion that the evolution of genomes appears to be predictable. Stern argues that developmental biology and evolutionary biology are intertwined: it is impossible to understand one of them fully without understanding the other. This book provides a clear and wide-ranging introduction to evolution and development for the basic reader; graduate students will be introduced to the cutting-edge of research in evolutionary developmental biology; and experts in evolution or development will receive both an uncomplicated introduction to the other discipline and an abundance of new, provocative ideas.

Stern, David L. Evolution, Development, and the Predictable Genome. Austin, TX: Roberts and Company Publishers, 2010.

View Publication Page
08/10/07 | Evolution. An embarrassment of switches.
Kruglyak L, Stern DL
Science. 2007 Aug 10;317(5839):758-9. doi: 10.1126/science.1146921
11/30/00 | Evolutionary biology. The problem of variation.
Stern DL
Nature. 2000 Nov 30;408(6812):529, 531. doi: 10.1038/35046183
08/01/00 | Evolutionary developmental biology and the problem of variation.
Stern DL
Evolution. 2000 Aug;54(4):1079-91

One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved. Which mutations generate evolutionarily relevant phenotypic variation? What kinds of molecular changes do they entail? What are the phenotypic magnitudes, frequencies of origin, and pleiotropic effects of such mutations? How is the genome constructed to allow the observed abundance of phenotypic diversity? Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism. Arguments on both sides have been biased by misconceptions of the developmental effects of mutations. For example, the traditional view that mutations of important developmental genes always have large pleiotropic effects can now be seen to be a conclusion drawn from observations of a small class of mutations with dramatic effects. It is possible that some mutations, for example, those in cis-regulatory DNA, have few or no pleiotropic effects and may be the predominant source of morphological evolution. In contrast, mutations causing dramatic phenotypic effects, although superficially similar to hypothesized evolutionary transitions, are unlikely to fairly represent the true path of evolution. Recent developmental studies of gene function provide a new way of conceptualizing and studying variation that contrasts with the traditional genetic view that was incorporated into neo-Darwinian theory and population genetics. This new approach in developmental biology is as important for microevolutionary studies as the actual results from recent evolutionary developmental studies. In particular, this approach will assist in the task of identifying the specific mutations generating phenotypic variation and elucidating how they alter gene function. These data will provide the current missing link between molecular and phenotypic variation in natural populations.

View Publication Page
10/01/10 | Evolutionary divergence of the paralogs Methoprene tolerant (Met) and germ cell expressed (gce) within the genus Drosophila.
Baumann A, Fujiwara Y, Wilson TG
Journal of Insect Physiology. 2010 Oct;56(10):1445-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2010.05.001

Juvenile hormone (JH) signaling underpins both regulatory and developmental pathways in insects. However, the JH receptor is poorly understood. Methoprene tolerant (Met) and germ cell expressed (gce) have been implicated in JH signaling in Drosophila. We investigated the evolution of Met and gce across 12 Drosophila species and found that these paralogs are conserved across at least 63 million years of dipteran evolution. Distinct patterns of selection found using estimates of dN/dS ratios across Drosophila Met and gce coding sequences, along with their incongruent temporal expression profiles in embryonic Drosophila melanogaster, illustrate avenues through which these genes have diverged within the Diptera. Additionally, we demonstrate that the annotated gene CG15032 is the 5’ terminus of gce. In mosquitoes and beetles, a single Met-like homolog displays structural similarity to both Met and gce, and the intron locations are conserved with those of gce. We found that Tribolium and mosquito Met orthologs are assembled from Met- and gce-specific domains in a modular fashion. Our results suggest that Drosophila Met and gce experienced divergent evolutionary pressures following the duplication of an ancestral gce-like gene found in less derived holometabolous insects.

View Publication Page