| Literature DB >> 22280487 |
Mingbo Yin1, Adam Petrusek, Jaromir Seda, Justyna Wolinska.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cyclical parthenogenetic water fleas of the genus Daphnia have become a prominent model organism in ecology and evolution. In the past, analyses of their population structure have been limited by the prevailing use of allozyme markers, which in general do not allow for the distinction of individual clones. In this study, we used 10 microsatellite markers to track changes in the taxonomic and clonal composition of Daphnia populations, and traced the abundance of the most common clones in two European reservoirs. One of the localities was inhabited by a single species of the Daphnia longispina complex (D. galeata), the other by two parental species (D. galeata and D. longispina) and their interspecific hybrids. The study took place during the transition from summer stratification to autumn mixing, representing a period of major environmental change within lake habitats.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22280487 PMCID: PMC3305588 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-12-12
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Figure 1Factorial correspondence analysis showing genetic variation among analysed individuals, based on allelic variation at 10 microsatellite loci. Each data point represents a multilocus genotype from the 40 reference clones and the reservoirs Daphnia from a) Římov and b) Vír.
Figure 2Changes in the taxon composition of . Taxon classification is based on the NewHybrids assignment; a single F2 hybrid is pooled with unidentified individuals (below a threshold of 95% posterior probability).
Changes in relative taxon frequency across time and space in Vír.
| Taxon | Time | Space | Time × Space | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -2.42 | 3.12 | 1.73 | 0.084 | |||
| F1 hybrids | 2.18 | 0.029 | ns | -3.8 | ||
| 3.71 | -7.76 | ns | ||||
The fitted binomial GLM model is shown (terms removed from the model are labelled as 'ns'). The P-values that remained significant after sequential Bonferroni correction are marked in bold (α = 0.05/3).
Figure 3Changes in clonal composition of . Distribution of the most common clones (i.e. frequency > 10% in at least one sample) is shown. Remaining clones were pooled and classified as "rare" (white area, up to 100%). NA indicates dates when Daphnia were no longer present at the sampling site. A blank square across the graph indicates a date when there were too few individuals of the species available to calculate clone frequencies (n = 4).
Changes in relative frequencies of common clones across time and space, in Římov and Vír (calculated per Daphnia taxon).
| Taxon (reservoir) | clone ID | Time | Station | Time × Space | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -3.38 | -2.87 | 2.10 | 0.035 | |||
| 2 | -2.83 | -2.66 | 3.73 | ||||
| 3 | -2.83 | ns | 1.88 | 0.059 | |||
| 4 | -5.52 | -5.48 | 4.73 | ||||
| 6 | ns | 8.52 | -5.57 | ||||
| 7 | ns | -3.46 | 1.99 | 0.046 | |||
| A | -3.39 | -2.93 | 4.1 | ||||
| B | ns | 1.28 | 0.198 | ns | |||
| C | 0.51 | 0.613 | ns | ns | |||
| F1 hybrids (Vír) | I | -5.21 | 4.04 | ns | |||
| IV | ns | -2.07 | 0.038 | 3.07 | |||
| V | 2.51 | ns | -2.13 | 0.030 | |||
| a | -2.72 | -1.83 | 0.067 | 2.32 | |||
| b | -1.93 | 0.052 | ns | 3.12 | |||
The fitted binomial GLM model is shown (terms removed from the model are labelled as 'ns'). The P-values that remained significant after sequential Bonferroni correction are marked in bold.
Figure 4Changes in clonal diversity (number of distinct multilocus genotypes/sample size) of a) . Only samples with n ≥ 10 are shown, grey dotted lines connect results from non-adjacent sampling dates.
Changes in clonal diversity across time and space, in Římov and Vír (calculated per Daphnia taxon).
| Taxon (reservoir) | Time | Space | Time × Space | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.78 | 1.76 | 0.21 | 0.07 | 0.79 | ||
| 0.03 | 0.86 | 2.90 | 0.11 | 1.93 | 0.19 | |
| F1 hybrids (Vír) | 0.67 | 0.43 | 13.49 | 9.05 | ||
| 2.08 | 0.22 | 1.91 | 0.24 | 0.01 | 0.94 | |
All significant values are marked in bold.
Hierarchical analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) among sampling stations and within time points (calculated per Daphnia taxon).
| Taxon(reservoir) | Source of variation | DF | Explained variation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Across space | 2 | 0.95% | ||
| Across time (within space) | 11 | 4.13% | ||
| Within sample | 2494 | 94.9% | ||
| Across space | 2 | 0.00% | 0.297 | |
| Across time (within space) | 12 | 0.93% | ||
| Within sample | 1425 | 99.1% | ||
| F1 hybrids (Vír) | Across space | 2 | 2.64% | |
| Across time (within space) | 9 | 1.45% | ||
| Within sample | 508 | 95.9% | ||
| Across space | 2 | 5.53% | ||
| Across time (within space) | 6 | 2.92% | ||
| Within sample | 395 | 91.6% |