A conserved genetic architecture among populations of the maize progenitor, teosinte, was radically altered by domestication

Significance We investigated the genetic architecture of maize domestication using a quantitative genetics approach. With multiple populations of teosinte and maize, we also compared the genetic architecture among populations within maize and teosinte. We showed that genetic architecture among populations within teosinte or maize is generally conserved, in contrast to the radical differences between teosinte and maize. Our results suggest that while selection drove changes in essentially all traits between teosinte and maize, selection is far less important for explaining domestication trait differences among populations within teosinte or maize.
Very little is known about how domestication was constrained by the quantitative genetic architecture of crop progenitors and how quantitative genetic architecture was altered by domestication. Yang et al. [C. J. Yang et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 5643–5652 (2019)] drew multiple conclusions about how genetic architecture influenced and was altered by maize domestication based on one sympatric pair of teosinte and maize populations. To test the generality of their conclusions, we assayed the structure of genetic variances, genetic correlations among traits, strength of selection during domestication, and diversity in genetic architecture within teosinte and maize. Our results confirm that additive genetic variance is decreased, while dominance genetic variance is increased, during maize domestication. The genetic correlations are moderately conserved among traits between teosinte and maize, while the genetic variance–covariance matrices (G-matrices) of teosinte and maize are quite different, primarily due to changes in the submatrix for reproductive traits. The inferred long-term selection intensities during domestication were weak, and the neutral hypothesis was rejected for reproductive and environmental response traits, suggesting that they were targets of selection during domestication. The G-matrix of teosinte imposed considerable constraint on selection during the early domestication process, and constraint increased further along the domestication trajectory. Finally, we assayed variation among populations and observed that genetic architecture is generally conserved among populations within teosinte and maize but is radically different between teosinte and maize. While selection drove changes in essentially all traits between teosinte and maize, selection explains little of the difference in domestication traits among populations within teosinte or maize.