D. willistoni (SP vs EPS)

D. williostoni (SP vs EPS)

I performed differential expression analysis by comparing cells in the SP cluster with cells in EPS. I then took the list of genes from this analysis (SP-biased, EPS-biased, Not Significant) and filtered out the orthologs. The majority of orthologs expressed in the germline were conserved with very few genes moving onto the respective Muller element (Table 1).

Table 1. Number of genes per Muller Element.

muller_Amuller_Dmuller_E
conserved46100141
recent_conserved000
moved_on000
gene_death322027
moved_off2145
other273226

Using these conservation classes I wanted to see if there were differences in EPS expression. We can look for enrichment in two ways: (1) we can look at the percent of EPS cells expressing genes in each class, (2) we can use contingency tables to test to look for a relationship between expression bias and movement class. If MSCI is driving gene movement, we expect that Muller A (X) and D (Neo-X) will have increased movement off for genes important for spermatogenesis. As a control, Muller E (2) would not show selection.

EPS Expression

In Figures 1-3 I look at the proportion of EPS cells that expressed genes in the different movement classes. The number of genes in the moved_on and moved_off classes are very low (< 10) which makes interpretation difficult. I decided to group genes into “Selection Favor” and “Selection Against” for all statistical analyses. Here I compare the distribution of the proportion of cells using a Mann-Whitney U test. We see an significant increase in EPS expression for genes with “Selection Against” for all three Muller elements.

Mann-Whitney U (Favor vs Against): 0.0928171971739644

Figure 1. Gene movement on/off of Muller element A.

Figure 1. Gene movement on/off of Muller element A.

Mann-Whitney U (Favor vs Against): 3.567965845326442e-13

Figure 2. Gene movement on/off of Muller element D.

Figure 2. Gene movement on/off of Muller element D.

Mann-Whitney U (Favor vs Against): 2.203276012631366e-25

Figure 3. Gene movement on/off of Muller element E.

Figure 3. Gene movement on/off of Muller element E.

Enrichment of EPS biased genes

Next, we looked at contingency tables to test for a relationship between EPS biased expression and selection against. Again, cell counts are very low for some combinations (Table 2,4,6) so I combined counts to make statistical analysis possible (Table 3,5,7). Again there is evidence of a enrichment of genes that underwent “Selection Against” for all tested Muller elements.

Table 2. Number of genes with differential expression on Muller A.

biasconservedmoved_ongene_deathmoved_off
NS5070
EPS10151
SP400101

Table 3. Number of genes with selection on Muller A.

biasSelection FavorSelection Against
EPS Biased116
Not Biased4518

Fisher’s Exact Test: 1.0219338190613155e-06

Table 4. Number of genes with differential expression on Muller D.

biasconservedmoved_ongene_deathmoved_off
NS17067
EPS270136
SP56011

Table 5. Number of genes with selection on Muller D.

biasSelection FavorSelection Against
EPS Biased2719
Not Biased7315

Fisher’s Exact Test: 0.0032662535424320812

Table 6. Number of genes with differential expression on Muller E.

biasconservedmoved_ongene_deathmoved_off
NS19061
EPS440173
SP78041

Table 7. Number of genes with selection on Muller E.

biasSelection FavorSelection Against
EPS Biased4420
Not Biased9712

Fisher’s Exact Test: 0.0019497319372953786