Paper detail

Speed of adaptation and genomic footprints of host-parasite coevolution under arms race and trench warfare dynamics

Coevolution is expected to follow two alternative dynamics, often called trench warfare and arms races in plant-pathogen systems. Trench warfare situations are stable cycles of allele frequencies at the coevolving loci of both host and parasite, and it is predicted that the loci will show molecular evolutionary signatures of balancing selection, while arms races involve successive selective sweeps at the interacting loci. We study a haploid gene-for-gene model that includes mutation and genetic drift due to finite population size. We study the outcomes under different coevolutionary parameters to quantify the frequency of fixation of alleles, i.e. occurrence of an arms race dynamics. We find that contrary to the conventional wisdom, trench warfare situations do not imply larger numbers of coevolutionary cycles per unit time than arms races. Therefore, one cannot infer the nature of the dynamics in such systems based on the speed of coevolution estimated from cycle times. We subsequently perform coalescent simulations to generate sequences at the host and parasite loci. We ask whether the signatures expected under balancing selection or selective sweeps (unexpectedly high or low diversity, and high or low Tajima D values, respectively) are likely to be observable in genomic data. Genomic footprints of recurrent selective sweeps are often found, whereas trench warfare yields signatures of balancing selection only in parasite sequences, and only in a limited parameter space with high effective population sizes and long-term selection. Therefore, the existence of a deterministic polymorphic equilibrium does not imply long-term trench warfare necessary for the signature of balancing selection to be observed in the coevolving genes sequence. Our results suggest that to search for signatures of coevolution via population genomics, it is best to study pathogen rather than host genomes.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.