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_A | muller_D | muller_E | |
---|---|---|---|
conserved | 46 | 100 | 141 |
recent_conserved | 0 | 0 | 0 |
moved_on | 0 | 0 | 0 |
gene_death | 32 | 20 | 27 |
moved_off | 2 | 14 | 5 |
other | 27 | 32 | 26 |
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.
Mann-Whitney U (Favor vs Against): 3.567965845326442e-13
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.
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.
bias | conserved | moved_on | gene_death | moved_off |
---|---|---|---|---|
NS | 5 | 0 | 7 | 0 |
EPS | 1 | 0 | 15 | 1 |
SP | 40 | 0 | 10 | 1 |
Table 3. Number of genes with selection on Muller A.
bias | Selection Favor | Selection Against |
---|---|---|
EPS Biased | 1 | 16 |
Not Biased | 45 | 18 |
Fisher’s Exact Test: 1.0219338190613155e-06
Table 4. Number of genes with differential expression on Muller D.
bias | conserved | moved_on | gene_death | moved_off |
---|---|---|---|---|
NS | 17 | 0 | 6 | 7 |
EPS | 27 | 0 | 13 | 6 |
SP | 56 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Table 5. Number of genes with selection on Muller D.
bias | Selection Favor | Selection Against |
---|---|---|
EPS Biased | 27 | 19 |
Not Biased | 73 | 15 |
Fisher’s Exact Test: 0.0032662535424320812
Table 6. Number of genes with differential expression on Muller E.
bias | conserved | moved_on | gene_death | moved_off |
---|---|---|---|---|
NS | 19 | 0 | 6 | 1 |
EPS | 44 | 0 | 17 | 3 |
SP | 78 | 0 | 4 | 1 |
Table 7. Number of genes with selection on Muller E.
bias | Selection Favor | Selection Against |
---|---|---|
EPS Biased | 44 | 20 |
Not Biased | 97 | 12 |
Fisher’s Exact Test: 0.0019497319372953786