D. willistoni (SP vs PS)

D. williostoni (SP vs PS)

I performed differential expression analysis by comparing cells in the SP cluster with cells in PS1, PS2, PS3. I then took the list of genes from this analysis (SP-biased, PS-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.

indexmuller_Amuller_Dmuller_E
conserved80151218
moved_on000
gene_death302234
moved_off2186
other283426

Using these conservation classes I wanted to see if there were differences in PS expression. We can look for enrichment in two ways: (1) we can look at the percent of PS 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.

PS Expression

In Figures 1-3 I look at the proportion of PS 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 PS expression for genes with “Selection Against” for all three Muller elements.

Mann-Whitney U (Favor vs Against): 1.247889494162566e-10

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): 4.356009043322584e-24

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): 3.009253790452862e-45

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

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

Enrichment of PS biased genes

Next, we looked at contingency tables to test for a relationship between PS 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
NS0070
PS1051
SP790181

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

biasSelection FavorSelection Against
PS Biased16
Not Biased7926

Fisher’s Exact Test: 0.002094000366233636

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

biasconservedmoved_ongene_deathmoved_off
NS12033
PS3101310
SP108065

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

biasSelection FavorSelection Against
PS Biased3123
Not Biased12017

Fisher’s Exact Test: 1.6180277946244638e-05

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

biasconservedmoved_ongene_deathmoved_off
NS16052
PS500213
SP152081

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

biasSelection FavorSelection Against
PS Biased5024
Not Biased16816

Fisher’s Exact Test: 6.496432841647948e-06