You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Evolution of Histocompatibility Diversity in an Asexual Vertebrate, Poeciliopsis 2 monacha-Lucida (Pisces: Poeciliidae)
A. Bradley Eisenbrey and William S. Moore
Vol. 35, No. 6 (Nov., 1981), pp. 1180-1191
Published by: Society for the Study of Evolution
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2408131
Page Count: 12
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Several hypothetical mechanisms have been proposed to explain the existence of histocompatibility diversity in parthenogenetic species of the poeciliid fish genus Poeciliopsis. These mechanisms include recurring hybridizations, introgression of genes from the supporting sexual populations, and mutation of preexisting, or ancestral, clonal genotypes by gain-loss or loss mutations. Predictions derived from each of these hypotheses were tested using antibody prepared in rabbits against six histocompatibility clones of Poeciliopsis 2 monacha-lucida previously identified. Microcytotoxicity was used to type a sample of 100 wild-caught and laboratory reared Poeciliopsis 2 monacha-lucida, P. monacha, P. lucida, P. monacha-lucida, P. latidens, P. monacha-latidens and P. occidentalis, from the Rios Mayo, Fuerte, Sinaloa, and Mocorito of northwestern Mexico. No antigens were found to be unique to the six triploid clones against which the antisera were prepared. Therefore, it was concluded that loss mutations, through gene silencings or deletions, were responsible for the formation of the unique histocompatibility complex involving unidirectional acute and weak histocompatibility between four of the six clones. It is possible that the four closely related clones descended by a series of loss mutations from a single ancestral female that arose via hybridization. A more parsimonious explanation, however, is that there were two ancestral sibling females involved in the origin of the clonal complex.
Evolution © 1981 Society for the Study of Evolution