| Literature DB >> 19317891 |
Sylvain Charlat1, Anne Duplouy, Emily A Hornett, Emily A Dyson, Neil Davies, George K Roderick, Nina Wedell, Gregory D D Hurst.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The interaction between the Blue Moon butterfly, Hypolimnas bolina, and Wolbachia has attracted interest because of the high prevalence of male-killing achieved within the species, the ecological consequences of this high prevalence, the intensity of selection on the host to suppress the infection, and the presence of multiple Wolbachia infections inducing different phenotypes. We examined diversity in the co-inherited marker, mtDNA, and the partitioning of this between individuals of different infection status, as a means to investigate the population biology and evolutionary history of the Wolbachia infections.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19317891 PMCID: PMC2669805 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-9-64
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Figure 1Geographic location of the populations sampled and distribution of mtDNA haplotypes among islands, partitioned by . Arrow heads indicate geographic origin of the samples. Sample number within each box corresponds to "Sample #" in Table 1. Within each island, the colours within bars indicate the relative proportion of haplotypes within each infection status. Numbers within bars indicate the number of specimens. u = uninfected, 1a = wBol1a, 1b = wBol1b, 2 = wBol2. Details on the distinction between wBol1a and wBol1b are given in the Results section, paragraph five.
Description of the samples: location and sample size per sex and infection status
| 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 5 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| 6 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | |
| 7 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | |
| 8 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | |
| 9 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |
| 10 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | |
| 11 | 4 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | |
| 12 | 20 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 13 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 14 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 15 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |
| 17 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 18 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |
| 19 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | |
| 20 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 21 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 22 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | |
| 23 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | |
| 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | |
| 25 | 5 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | |
| 26 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | |
| 27 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | |
| 28 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 | |
(U: Uninfected, wBol1: infected by wBol1, wBol2: infected by wBol2)
Figure 2Phylogeny and distribution of . The left part of the figure shows the phylogeny of the 10 H. bolina mtDNA haplotypes with respect to H. alimena, H. octocula, H. antilope, H. pandarus, H. missipus, H. anthedon, H. usambara, with Precis tugela as an outgroup. The tree was constructed via Maximum Likelihood estimation in Treefinder; aLRT (approximate likelihood ratio test) scores are given next to the nodes (only for internal nodes for clarity) and branch length indicates the number of substitution per site. H. bolina haplotypes are in italics. Genbank accession numbers are given in parenthesis. The right part of the figure gives the distribution of the various Wolbachia infections status (u: uninfected, wBol1a, wBol1b, wBol2) observed with each haplotype. Note the relative proportions of the infections are not representative of the prevalence within the species since sampling was aimed at representing the different infection status in even proportions.