Guppy Forum
Home | Contact Us    
Volume 6 | April 2005    
| Back to Menu |
 

 


By Enrique Patiño and Sergio Chaim,
with contributions from Tomoko, Ramona and others...

Last Update: 4/24/2005

Editor's note

This is work in progress, but if we wait until we are done to publish it, it may be a while. Plus, we think that we should try to get your help in finishing this piece; particluarly the gene tables. As editors, we decided to publish this article as a draft. We will make an announcemet on our forum each time we update or modify this article. We will mark the new update date each time. When we get close to where we are happy with it, we may replace this article in the April 2005 issue with a redirect page to the revised gene tables. We will use pictures form different sources to fill in the tables where possible

Introduction

A lot of the material here we have borrowed from other sources, including some of the text. Some of the text has been edited to fit our format, but some of it remains a lot like the original source. But since what we are doing here is simply organizing information as a public service, we figure that any infringement of copyrights may be forgiven. If anyone has a problem or has comments about format or copyright issues in essays like this, please send us an email. We may be missing some citations. We do not claim to be a scientific publication, but do our best in referencing as well as we can with our limited time. It is our hope that this way of organizing information is useful to our readers. Ata point where we are ready to update this presentation, we may move it out of this format into a separate e-booklet.

Guppy Genetics - A Relative Old Science

One important point to make is that the study of guppy genetics is not new. In the Natural Environment Research Council’s Ecological Dynamics and Genes (EDGE) Programme webpages (UK), someone wrote: “In the early 1900s, the guppy (Poecilia reticulata) was already a subject of genetic investigation. At this time, quantitative genetic theory and methodology had not yet been developed, but significant progress in the understanding of guppy genetics was made without the knowledge of polygenic inheritance and quantitative genetics. The reason for this is that much variation in male colour pattern is determined by a relatively small number of genes which can be identified by their distinct phenotypic effects. Moreover, the sex-linked genetic control of these characters and the ease of guppy rearing, facilitated these early genetic experiments. After the introduction of the concept of polygenic inheritance, guppies were investigated using quantitative genetic approaches, and various breeding designs which included selection experiments, parent-offspring regressions, sib analyses and combinations of these techniques were employed.” In other words, while some of the latest genetic techniques such as genetic linkage mapping, microsatelites and such modern laboratory techniques, as well as important genetics studies in other teleosts such ad the medaka and zebrafish, do shed important light into "new frontiers" in guppy genetics, we can't dismiss what we know about guppy genetics from earlier work as useless or irrelevant; especially at the level of the sofisticated hobbyist. Fine tuning a strain requires a lot of attention to the smallest details.

Old Scientific Literature

While scientific papers published in the early 20th Century significantly contribute to our undertanding of the genetic baseline of the guppy, as a species, one has to know how to interpret the information they offer. For example, hobbyists know of the existance of phenotypes that do not fall into the patterns describen in Winge's papers, and that have not been discussed in the scientific literature yet. How do these phenotypes and corresponding genotypes relate to Winge's genes? Or how do we know for sure if Winge's "genes" are not really "gene complexes"? This are important questions because much of the genetics that is important to the current hobbyist is linked to the sex chromosomes.

Wild Guppies

Adapted from Brooks, R. and J. A. Endler (2001)... Wild male guppies are quite variable (within and among population) with respect to secondary sexual characteristics such as: body and tail size, spots of pterin and carotenoid (red, orange, and yellow), melanin (black and fuzzy black), and structural color (iridescent blue, green, and silver). It is comon for these color patterns to vary in size, shape, and position among individual males to such a degree that one could easily identify individuals within a group. The genetic basis for this variation has been well studied (Endler 1983; Houde and Endler 1990; Endler and Houde 1995).

Adapted from Lindholm and Breden (2002)... Secondary sexual characters have been shown to be attractive to females in the wild. A review of the literature on the inheritance of these attractive male traits reveals that color patterns, caudal fin size and shape, courtship rates, and a composite measure of attractiveness in the wild are primarily sex linked in guppies. An exception to this generalization is body size. Male body size is an attractive traits (to female guppies) and shows high heritability. However, body size has not been shown to be sex linked (Reynolds and Gross 1992; Yamanaka et al. 1995; Brooks and Endler 2001).

Winge (1922a,b, 1927) and Yamamoto (1975) showed that the presence of particular guppy color spots is controlled by many genes exclusive to the Y chromosome, a couple of genes exclusive to the X chromosome, several genes that recombine between the X and Y chromosomes, and a very small number on the autosomes. Of the color pattern alleles that have been identified, at least 20 (but up to 26) are on or very near to the non-recombining section of the Y chromosome. Each male inherits and transmits a subset of these alleles as a Y-linked supergene (Yamamoto 1975).

At least seventeen alleles (up to 24) are known to recombine between the X and the Y chromosome and five are autosomal (Yamamoto 1975; Angus 1989). The autosomal genes control body background color rather than the presence of particular color spots (Yamamoto 1975), except for the Zebrinus and Bar genes (Phang 2001). Genes (for ornamentation) found on the X chromosome or the autosomes are generally sex limited to males in wild populations (Haskins et al. 1970). That means that even if these are found on the X chromosome, their phenotype is only expressed in males (in wild populations). The exception seems to be those alleles related to melanin production, which seem to be expressed in females as well.

Lindholm and Breden (2002) stated.."The extent to which color genes studied in domesticated strains represent genes found in natural populations is unknown." However, it has been determined that the diverse color patterns of domesticated color varieties of guppy are primarily determined by X-linked and Y-linked genes (Phang et al., 1985, 1989; Khoo et al., 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 2003)." This means that modern phenotypes may be inherited much like in wild populations.

Modern Phenotypes In Today's Guppy Labs

Many of the alleles responsible for some of the modern phenotypes (modern strains) have not been studied using the scientific method. However, a lot is known, from empirical observations, by breeders their "guppy laboratories" around the planet. That is what we have as information to determine the patterns of inheritance of such modern phenotypes. This essay is just an introductio to that subject. We basically need your help.

If you are interested in engaging in serious discussion about guppy genetics, or have information you are willing to share with others, please volunteer to moderate or help moderate a group in guppylabs.info forum. Or, if you have specific information that may be useful in editing, complementing, or correcting the information presented here, we would very much like to hear from you. Please send any relevant information to: genetics_guppylabs.info (replace the _ for @).

Sex Determination In guppies

Guppies have two different sex-determining chromosomes (X and Y) and 22 homologous pairs of autosomal chromosomes, for a total of 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). Recombination (crossover) between the X and Y chromosome is suppressed near a major sex-determining locus on the Y chromosome (Angus 1989; Winge 1922a, 1927; Yamamoto 1975), but there is an extensive homologous region in the Y chromosome in which recombination between X and Y chromosome is possible (about one half of the Y chromosome can pair up with homologous regions of the X chromosome during meiosis).

Khoo et al. (1999) suggest that the sex-determining region is flanked on both sides by recombining regions using a linkage map based on phenotypic traits. However, Lindholm and Breden (2002) reported that the orientation of the X and Y chromosomes during meiosis allows for recombination in only two of 49 possible crossover sites (4%), and suggested that recombination is not very common in the pairing, homologous region of the X and Y chromosomes.

Since YY males, which have no X chromosome, can be fully viable, the X chromosome is assumed to carry similar genes to the Y, except from those in the sex determining region, (Winge and Ditlevsen 1938; Haskins et al. 1970; Angus 1989). Lindholm and Breden (2002) suggest that the X chromosome may have a region homologous to that of the non-recombining region of the Y, but indicate that so far no genes have been shown to be exclusively linked to it. Traut and Winking (2001) suggested that a large part of the non-pairing region of the Y chromosome is made of "male-specific repetitive DNA" [sequence], and that there is structural variation among Y chromosomes in this region - this is unlike any other chromosome, where there are no "structural differences"-. According to Nanda et al. (1994), This "male-specific repetitive DNA" is particularly common in domesticated strains. We will come back to this later on our discussion.

Autosomal Effects on Sex Determination

Some of the sex-determining factors in guppies are autosomal. That is why it is possible to have XX males or XY females (Nayudu 1979; Angus 1989). Colored (XX) females, one of which (on the left of this picture) showed its anal fin in the process of transformation to a gonopodium (Winge, 1927)


(from Winge, 1927)

Inheritance and Linkage of Selected Traits In Guppies

Here we present informaton about color alleles and traits that are known to be linked to the sex chromosomes. We think that having this information available to the hobbyist may be useful; you decide. For now, consider this a "work in progress."

Y-Linked Inheritance In Guppies

Large part of the non-homologous region of the Y chromosome in guppies is made out of male-specific repetitive DNA sequences (Traut and Winking 2001). It is also known that there is structural variation among Y chromosomes in this same region (Lindholm and Breden, 2002). This agrees with results from other studies showing that Y chromosomes, but not X chromosomes, of some domesticated guppies carry large numbers of simple repetitive DNA sequences (e.g., Nanda et al. 1990). Hornaday et al. (1994) also showed that these male-specific simple repetitive DNA sequences were not present in recent descendants of wild guppies. According to (reference), this suggests some sort of control mechanism limiting accumulation of such repeats through natural selection in the wild. In our fishrooms, our modern strains may have accumulated large numbers of simple repetitive DNA sequences, but are of no real consequence for "fitness" since natural selection forces are not present given our rearing protocols. However, these male-specific repetitive DNA sequences may play a role in "extending" the "normal" coloration in male guppies of domesticated strains.

In addition to that information regarding eh possible effects of sex-linked inheritance, a large part of the genes responsible for guppy coloration, body and tail size are sex-linked in that they are located in the sex chromosomes and are inherited accordingly. Below is a table with a list of Y-lined traits and genes.

X or Y-Linked Inheritance (present in the X or Y chromosome - Crossing over does occur between X and Y chromosomes for these loci)

X-linked color patterns almost always have male-limited expression. However, these can be developed in females with testosterone treatment, which can allow confirmation of inheritance in females. Only patterns that have never been reported from wild populations show weak expression in females without testosterone treatment (Nigrocaudatus I and II, Flavus, Pigmentiert caudalis, red tail, blue tail, green tail, variegated tail, and black caudal peduncle; references in table below) and are most likely mutations restricted to domesticated guppy populations.

By treating females with testosterone, Haskins et al. (1961) showed that some color patterns that were inherited on the X or the Y chromosome in low-predation populations were exclusively Y linked in high-predation populations. Thus, the low-predation populations that are characterized by higher levels of preference and elevated levels of male coloration are also those that exhibit color genes linked to the X chromosome in the wild. So, X-linked inheritance is also very imprtant for the construction of moders, highly colored strains. We dont know how many X-linked genes are extressed in females of moder strains.

Autosomal Inheritance

The autosomes also have a few genes for pigmentation and fin morphology. Zebrinus and Bar are similar to the sex-linked pigmentation traits in that expression is limited to males. The other known autosomal genes for color ans shape are expressed in both males and females.

Gene Table

This table was derived from: "will quote source here soon"

Here is where one has to be careful aboout how to interpret some of the phenotypes from earlier publications.


GENE TABLE

N = the number of offspring examined.

 
Original Diagram 
Example of Modern Strain
N
 
Y linked - Not Known to Recombine
Maculatus-red 
Not Available
3,841
Schmidt 1920; Winge 1922a, 1922b, 1927, 1934; Winge and Ditlevsen 1938, 1947; Haskins and Haskins 1951; Haskins et al. 1970
Oculatus
Not Available
399
Schmidt 1920; Winge 1927
Armatus 
Not Available
1,412
 Blacher 1927, 1928; Winge 1927; Haskins et al. 1970
Pauper
Not Available
636 
Winge 1927, 1934; Winge and Ditlevsen 1938, 1947; Haskins et al. 1970
Sanguineus 
Not Available
575
Winge 1927
Iridescens 
Not Available
256
 Winge 1922b; Blacher 1928; Winge and Ditlevsen 1947; Dzwillo 1959
Aureus 
Not Available
105
 Winge 1927
Variabilis
Not Available
81
Winge 1927
Ferrugineus 
Not Available
Winge 1927
Bimaculatus
Not Available
68
Blacher 1927, 1928
Reticulatus 
Not Available
Not Available
Natali and Natali 1931 (in Kirpichnikov 1981)
Trimaculatus 
Not Available
78
Natali and Natali 1931 (in Kirpichnikov 1981)
Viridis 
Not Available
Natali and Natali 1931 (in Kirpichnikov 1981)
Bipunctatus 
Not Available
Natali and Natali 1931 (in Kirpichnikov 1981); Kirpichnikov 1935
Doppelschwert 
609
 Dzwillo 1959
Filigran 
Not Available
71
Dzwillo 1959
X linked - Not Known to Recombine

N = the number of offspring examined.

N
 
Lineatus 
Not Available
76
Winge 1927, 1934
Nigrocaudatus I 
Not Available
21
Nybelin 1947
X and Y linked

N = the number of offspring examined; in some cases, crossing over was detected only outside of controlled crosses

     
Crossover Frequency
 
     
X to Y
Y to X
 
 
Original Diagram 
Example of Modern Strain
% (N)
% (N)
 
Maculatus-black 
Not Available
Winge and Ditlevsen 1947; Haskins et al. 1961
Elongatus 
Not Available
4.31 (348)
 6.43 (1,276) 
Winge 1922a, 1927
Vitellinus 
Not Available
6.13 (1,321)
 3.75 (800) 
Winge 1927, 1934; Haskins et al. 1970
Coccineus
Not Available
 .33 (1,198) 
.48 (414) 
Winge 1927, 1934; Dzwillo 1959
Tigrinus
Not Available
 .21 (938) 
2.91 (206)
 Winge 1927, 1934
Luteus 
Not Available
.89 (1,012) 
3.82 (157) 
Winge 1927, 1934
Minutus 
Not Available
2.67 (487) 
Winge 1927, 1934
Cinnamomeus 
Not Available
Winge 1927
Solaris 
Not Available
0 (20) 
Kirpichnikov 1935
Caudomaculatus 
Not Available
Blacher 1928
Anterior rubra 
Not Available
Not Available
20 (25) 
Blacher 1928
Purpureus
Not Available
0 (52) 
Natali and Natali 1931 (in Kirpichnikov 1981); Kirpichnikov 1935
Lutescens 
Not Available
Natali and Natali 1931 (in Kirpichnikov 1981)
Nigrocaudatus II 
Not Available
0 (74) 
4.00 (25) 
Dzwillo 1959; Nayudu 1979
Flavus 
Not Available
0 (77) 
0 (17) 
Winge and Ditlevsen 1947; Nayudu 1979
Pigmentiert caudalis
Not Available
Not Available
 5.19 (270) 
7.42 (364) 
Dzwillo 1959; Schro¨der 1969a; Nayudu 1979
Sb 
Not Available
Not Available
Haskins et al. 1961
Red tail 
Not Available
Not Available
2.06 (97)
1.64 (548) 
Fernando and Phang 1990; Khoo et al. 1999b, 1999c
Blue tail 
Not Available
Not Available
1.79 (280)
Fernando and Phang 1990; Phang and Fernando 1991
Green tail 
Not Available
Not Available
0 (312)
Phang et al. 1989a; Phang and Fernando 1991; V. P. E. Phang, unpublished data
Snakeskin body 
Not Available
Not Available
.36 (2,507)
Phang et al. 1989a, 1989b, 1990; Phang and Fernando 1991
Snakeskin tail 
Not Available
Not Available
.11 (948)
Phang et al. 1989a, 1989b, 1990; Phang and Fernando 1991
Variegated tail
Not Available
Not Available
1.03 (679)
 3.25 (462) 
Khoo et al. 1999a, 1999b
Black caudal peduncle 
Not Available
Not Available
2.73 (549)
 2.56 (260) 
Khoo et al. 1999b, 1999c
Autosomal
Zebrinus 
Not Available
Not Available
Winge 1927
Bar 
Not Available
Not Available
Phang et al. 1999
Blond

Goodrich et al. 1944; Ramona Osche

Golden 
Not Available
Not Available
Goodrich et al. 1944
Blue 
Not Available
Not Available
Dzwillo 1959
asian blue
(r2r2)
 
Ramona Osche
european blue
(r1r1)
Ramona Osche
Albino 
Not Available
Haskins and Haskins 1948
Kalymma 
Not Available
Not Available
Schro¨der 1969b
Suppressor 
Not Available
Not Available
Schro¨der 1969b

Quantitative Genetics of Guppy Coloration

Brooks, R. and J. A. Endler (2001) performed quantitative genetic analysis of the ornamentation, sexual attractiveness, and mating success of male guppies (Poecilia reticulata). They analyzed male ornamentation both from the point of view of single ornamental traits (e.g., the area of each color) and of composite measures of the way the entire pattern is likely to be perceived by females (e.g., the mean and contrast in chroma). They demonstrated that there is substantial additive genetic variation in almost all measures of male ornamentation and that much of this variation may be Y linked.

Houde (1992) "the area of orange could be studied as a quantitative trait and that it was inherited largely from the sire, suggesting Y linkage. There is substantial additive genetic variation in male ornamentation and complex genetic covariation among these traits. There is also positive family-level covariation between attractiveness and mating success (Brooks 2000). Some studies on many species have consistently revealed a phenotypic association between attractiveness to females, mating success, and ornamental characters (for guppies, see Houde 1987; Endler and Houde 1995)."

Brooks, R. and J. A. Endler (2001) "a substantial proportion of the variation in each of the several ornamental traits borne by male guppies trait is genetically additive, and thus may respond to sexual and other types of natural selection" Brooks, R. and J. A. Endler (2001) "both direct sexual selection and indirect selection via sexual selection is operating directly on correlated traits and may influence the elaboration of male ornaments. Indirect sexual selection may prevent the simultaneous optimization of all ornamental contributions to male attractiveness and may thus contribute to the extraordinary genetic variation in ornaments among males within [wild] guppy populations." As mentioned above, predation in wild pupolation for example, can influence the level of coloration and what is considered attractive by a conspecific female.

Brooks, R. and J. A. Endler (2001) "The high and significant heritability estimates in most of the male traits that we measured are consistent with findings of highly heritable male ornaments and displays in several species (references in Andersson 1994, p. 49; Pomiankowski and Møller 1995; Alatalo et al. 1997). Some authors consider this pattern paradoxical (Taylor and Williams 1982; Kirkpatrick and Ryan 1991) because directional sexual selection should erode additive genetic variation in ornamentation. However, recent work has demonstrated many plausible ways in which additive variation for sexual traits can be maintained (Iwasa and Pomiankowski 1991; Pomiankowski et al. 1991; Pomiankowski and Møller 1995; Rowe and Houle 1996; Gray and Cade 1999; Hughes et al. 1999; Moore and Moore 1999)."

Brooks (2000) "significant negative genetic correlations between male survival in the absence of predation and both attractiveness and ornamentation. Such a pattern of selection may oppose the fixation of alleles underlying attractive ornamentation. Both the argument that indirect selection constrains sexual selection and the demonstration that natural and sexual selection are in opposition echo arguments that antagonistic pleiotropy among life-history-related fitness components can explain the maintenance of additive variation (Rose 1982). However, the general importance of antagonistic pleiotropy in maintaining polymorphism has been questioned (Curtsinger et al. 1994; Hedrick 1999), and direct evidence is required to test our assertions."

The following are quantitative traits that should respond to directional selection. Quantitative genetic analyses indicate a Y-linked component Regerences Will be added shortly

Trait
Reference
Orange area
Houde 1992; Brooks and Endler 2001; Karino and Haijima 2001
Black area
Brooks and Endler 2001
Fuzzy black area
Brooks and Endler 2001
Iridescent area
Brooks and Endler 2001
Mean brightness
Brooks and Endler 2001
Brightness contrast
Brooks and Endler 2001
Mean chroma
Brooks and Endler 2001
Attractiveness
Brooks 2000
Tail area
Brooks and Endler 2001
Courtship
Farr 1983

 

References will be added shortly

 

Copyright © 2004-2005 | E. Patiño and S. Chaim

Designed by: Patino-Burch Design