BACKGROUND: Late Pleistocene North America hosted at least two divergent and ecologically distinct species of mammoth: the periglacial woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) and the subglacial Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi). To date, mammoth genetic research has been entirely restricted to woolly mammoths, rendering their genetic evolution difficult to contextualize within broader Pleistocene paleoecology and biogeography. Here, we take an interspecific approach to clarifying mammoth phylogeny by targeting Columbian mammoth remains for mitogenomic sequencing. RESULTS: We sequenced the first complete mitochondrial genome of a classic Columbian mammoth, as well as the first complete mitochondrial genome of a North American woolly mammoth. Somewhat contrary to conventional paleontological models, which posit that the two species were highly divergent, the M. columbi mitogenome we obtained falls securely within a subclade of endemic North American M. primigenius. CONCLUSIONS: Though limited, our data suggest that the two species interbred at some point in their evolutionary histories. One potential explanation is that woolly mammoth haplotypes entered Columbian mammoth populations via introgression at subglacial ecotones, a scenario with compelling parallels in extant elephants and consistent with certain regional paleontological observations. This highlights the need for multi-genomic data to sufficiently characterize mammoth evolutionary history. Our results demonstrate that the use of next-generation sequencing technologies holds promise in obtaining such data, even from non-cave, non-permafrost Pleistocene depositional contexts.
BACKGROUND: Late Pleistocene North America hosted at least two divergent and ecologically distinct species of mammoth: the periglacial woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) and the subglacial Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi). To date, mammoth genetic research has been entirely restricted to woolly mammoths, rendering their genetic evolution difficult to contextualize within broader Pleistocene paleoecology and biogeography. Here, we take an interspecific approach to clarifying mammoth phylogeny by targeting Columbian mammoth remains for mitogenomic sequencing. RESULTS: We sequenced the first complete mitochondrial genome of a classic Columbian mammoth, as well as the first complete mitochondrial genome of a North American woolly mammoth. Somewhat contrary to conventional paleontological models, which posit that the two species were highly divergent, the M. columbi mitogenome we obtained falls securely within a subclade of endemic North American M. primigenius. CONCLUSIONS: Though limited, our data suggest that the two species interbred at some point in their evolutionary histories. One potential explanation is that woolly mammoth haplotypes entered Columbian mammoth populations via introgression at subglacial ecotones, a scenario with compelling parallels in extant elephants and consistent with certain regional paleontological observations. This highlights the need for multi-genomic data to sufficiently characterize mammoth evolutionary history. Our results demonstrate that the use of next-generation sequencing technologies holds promise in obtaining such data, even from non-cave, non-permafrost Pleistocene depositional contexts.
Authors: Svante Pääbo; Hendrik Poinar; David Serre; Viviane Jaenicke-Despres; Juliane Hebler; Nadin Rohland; Melanie Kuch; Johannes Krause; Linda Vigilant; Michael Hofreiter Journal: Annu Rev Genet Date: 2004 Impact factor: 16.830
Authors: Kenine E Comstock; Nicholas Georgiadis; Jill Pecon-Slattery; Alfred L Roca; Elaine A Ostrander; Stephen J O'Brien; Samuel K Wasser Journal: Mol Ecol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 6.185
Authors: Stefan Kurtz; Adam Phillippy; Arthur L Delcher; Michael Smoot; Martin Shumway; Corina Antonescu; Steven L Salzberg Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2004-01-30 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: J M Schaedler; L Krook; J A Wootton; B Hover; B Brodsky; M D Naresh; D D Gillette; D B Madsen; R H Horne; R R Minor Journal: Matrix Date: 1992-08
Authors: Eleftheria Palkopoulou; Mark Lipson; Swapan Mallick; Svend Nielsen; Nadin Rohland; Sina Baleka; Emil Karpinski; Atma M Ivancevic; Thu-Hien To; R Daniel Kortschak; Joy M Raison; Zhipeng Qu; Tat-Jun Chin; Kurt W Alt; Stefan Claesson; Love Dalén; Ross D E MacPhee; Harald Meller; Alfred L Roca; Oliver A Ryder; David Heiman; Sarah Young; Matthew Breen; Christina Williams; Bronwen L Aken; Magali Ruffier; Elinor Karlsson; Jeremy Johnson; Federica Di Palma; Jessica Alfoldi; David L Adelson; Thomas Mailund; Kasper Munch; Kerstin Lindblad-Toh; Michael Hofreiter; Hendrik Poinar; David Reich Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: David A Gold; Jacqueline Robinson; Aisling B Farrell; John M Harris; Olaf Thalmann; David K Jacobs Journal: Ecol Evol Date: 2014-01-11 Impact factor: 2.912
Authors: André E R Soares; Ben J Novak; James Haile; Tim H Heupink; Jon Fjeldså; M Thomas P Gilbert; Hendrik Poinar; George M Church; Beth Shapiro Journal: BMC Evol Biol Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 3.260
Authors: James A Fellows Yates; Dorothée G Drucker; Ella Reiter; Simon Heumos; Frido Welker; Susanne C Münzel; Piotr Wojtal; Martina Lázničková-Galetová; Nicholas J Conard; Alexander Herbig; Hervé Bocherens; Johannes Krause Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Marissa A Ahlering; Lori S Eggert; David Western; Anna Estes; Linus Munishi; Robert Fleischer; Melissa Roberts; Jesus E Maldonado Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-12-26 Impact factor: 3.240