| Literature DB >> 20482864 |
Jeffrey A Markert1, Robert C Schelly, Melanie Lj Stiassny.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is hypothesized that one of the mechanisms promoting diversification in cichlid fishes in the African Great Lakes has been the well-documented pattern of philopatry along shoreline habitats leading to high levels of genetic isolation among populations. However lake habitats are not the only centers of cichlid biodiversity - certain African rivers also contain large numbers of narrowly endemic species. Patterns of isolation and divergence in these systems have tended to be overlooked and are not well understood.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20482864 PMCID: PMC2886069 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-10-149
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Figure 1Patterns of genetic divergence along a 100 km stretch of the Lower Congo River. Collection sites and major features are shown on the map (A). Assignment test results and mtDNA haplotype networks are shown for T. depressum (B), and for L. tigripictilis (C) populations. Circle size and numbers in center of haplotype networks represent the number of identical haplotypes. Number of substitutions between haplotypes represented by black dots when greater than one, and by a broken line with a number for the longest branches. Collection sites in haplotype networks represented by: yellow = Site A, blue = Site B, purple = Site C, grey = Site D, and tan = Site E.
Figure 2Principal Components Analysis of body shape variance. Lamprologus tigripictilis. (A) PC1 accounts for 33.8% and PC2 for 25.2% of total shape variance, (B) Deformation implied by PC1 scores using Procrustes superposition, (C) Scree plot of percentage of variance explained by each Principal Component as a % of total variance. Teleogramma depressum (D) PC1 accounts for 42.9% and PC2 for 17.5% of total shape variance, (B) Deformation implied by PC1 scores using Procrustes superposition, (C) Scree plot of percentage of variance explained by each Principal Component as a % of total variance.
Collection localities, sample sizes, and microsatellite summary data.
| Site | Coordinates | Distance from A | N | Na | N | Na | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5° 17.20' S, 13° 44.76' E | 0 | 6 | 3.3 | 0.42 | 21 | 13 | 0.62 | |||||
| 0.231**(0.595) | 0 | 0.013 (0.052)* | 3 | |||||||||
| 5° 27.31' S, 13° 35.39' E | 43 | 10 | 4.2 | 0.42 | 16 | 10 | 0.58 | |||||
| 0 | 1 | |||||||||||
| 5° 31.14' S, 13° 37.86' E | 51 | 5 | 3.5 | 0.36 | 1 | - | - | 0.216 (0.939)** | 0.9 | |||
| - | ||||||||||||
| 5° 33.37' S, 13° 33.22' E | 62 | - | - | - | 8 | 6.4 | 0.56 | |||||
| - | 0.132 (0.364)* | 0.9 | ||||||||||
| 5° 48.11' S, 13° 27.43' E | 100 | - | - | - | 7 | 3.5 | 0.47 | |||||
"Distance from A" shows dispersal distances (km) within the river relative to Site A. N = sample size, Na = number of alleles observed per locus, Hobs = observed heterozygosity. Nm = the estimated number of migrants estimated using the private alleles method. Traditional (and standardized) ϕst values are shown between adjacent populations (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001).
Mean number of mtDNA substitutions within collection sites and among collection sites.
| Within Sites | Among Sites | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site A | Site B | Site C | Site D | Site E | |||
| 2.00 | 6.48 | - | 10.02 | - | 31.07 | 34.64 | |
| 2.67 | 7.75 | 17.33 | - | - | 31.81 | 35.24 | |
| 1.25 | - | 15.88 | 2.54 | - | - | - | |
| - | 8.36 | - | - | - | - | 10.30 | |
| - | 0.53 | - | - | - | - | - | |
Values for L. tigripictilis are shown above the diagonal, those for T. depressum are shown below.