| Literature DB >> 22952746 |
Kallare P Arunkumar1, Anup Kumar Sahu, Atish Ranjan Mohanty, Arvind K Awasthi, Appukuttannair R Pradeep, S Raje Urs, Javaregowda Nagaraju.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Indian golden saturniid silkmoth (Antheraea assama), popularly known as muga silkmoth, is a semi-domesticated silk producing insect confined to a narrow habitat range of the northeastern region of India. Owing to the prevailing socio-political problems, the muga silkworm habitats in the northeastern region have not been accessible hampering the phylogeography studies of this rare silkmoth. Recently, we have been successful in our attempt to collect muga cocoon samples, although to a limited extent, from their natural habitats. Out of 87 microsatellite markers developed previously for A. assama, 13 informative markers were employed to genotype 97 individuals from six populations and analyzed their population structure and genetic variation. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22952746 PMCID: PMC3429497 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043716
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Sampling locations of muga silkmoth, A. assama.
Locus-wise data on the number of alleles (Na), number of effective alleles (Ne), mean observed (Mean Ho) and expected (Mean He) heterozygosities, the number of migrants (Nm), fixation index (F) and F statistics.
| Locus | Na | Ne | Mean Ho | Mean He | Nm | F | FIS | FIT | FST | |
|
| 4 | 1.170 | 0.021 | 0.097 | 0.164 | 0.868 | 0.784 | 0.915 | 0.604 | |
|
| 7 | 2.350 | 0.173 | 0.493 | 0.933 | 0.713 | 0.649 | 0.723 | 0.211 | |
|
| 2 | 1.195 | 0.068 | 0.111 | 0.484 | 0.110 | 0.386 | 0.595 | 0.340 | |
|
| 4 | 1.059 | 0.039 | 0.044 | 2.533 | 0.105 | 0.105 | 0.186 | 0.090 | |
|
| 3 | 1.232 | 0.173 | 0.158 | 0.187 | 0.094 | −0.094 | 0.532 | 0.572 | |
|
| 8 | 1.410 | 0.089 | 0.156 | 0.262 | 0.436 | 0.432 | 0.709 | 0.488 | |
|
| 7 | 2.249 | 0.202 | 0.454 | 0.858 | 0.546 | 0.555 | 0.655 | 0.226 | |
|
| 5 | 1.537 | 0.132 | 0.335 | 0.660 | 0.540 | 0.606 | 0.714 | 0.275 | |
|
| 6 | 1.616 | 0.161 | 0.298 | 0.639 | 0.479 | 0.458 | 0.610 | 0.281 | |
|
| 5 | 1.347 | 0.039 | 0.233 | 0.417 | 0.897 | 0.832 | 0.895 | 0.375 | |
|
| 2 | 1.074 | 0.000 | 0.063 | 5.558 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.043 | |
|
| 4 | 1.126 | 0.013 | 0.079 | 1.485 | 0.480 | 0.839 | 0.862 | 0.144 | |
|
| 2 | 1.295 | 0.181 | 0.177 | 0.697 | −0.058 | −0.024 | 0.246 | 0.264 | |
|
| 0.499 | 0.502 | 0.665 | 0.301 | ||||||
Population-wise data on the mean number of alleles per locus (Na), number of effective alleles (Ne), number of private alleles, mean observed (Ho) and expected (He) heterozygosity, fixation index (F) and percentage polymorphism observed in 13 SSR loci (% P).
| Population | Na | Ne | Ho | He | No. private alleles | F | % P |
| WWS-1 | 4.000 | 2.362 | 0.252 | 0.474 | 1.923 | 0.553 | 100 |
| Selsela | 1.692 | 1.303 | 0.107 | 0.173 | 0.000 | 0.365 | 46.15 |
| Asanang | 1.923 | 1.248 | 0.099 | 0.162 | 0.077 | 0.275 | 61.54 |
| Tura | 1.923 | 1.232 | 0.050 | 0.139 | 0.231 | 0.436 | 61.54 |
| Agropetal | 1.923 | 1.277 | 0.075 | 0.178 | 0.000 | 0.536 | 76.92 |
| Bhagmara | 1.462 | 1.190 | 0.012 | 0.120 | 0.000 | 0.901 | 38.46 |
Locus-wise data on the number of alleles (Na), number of effective alleles (Ne), mean observed (Mean Ho) and expected (Mean He) heterozygosities, the number of migrants (Nm), fixation index (F) and F statistics obtained by analyzing five populations excluding WWS-1 population.
| Locus | Na | Ne | Mean He | Mean Ho | Nm | F | FIS | FIT | FST |
|
| 2 | 1.023 | 0.021 | 0.000 | 5.313 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.045 |
|
| 4 | 1.831 | 0.432 | 0.090 | 1.191 | 0.803 | 0.791 | 0.828 | 0.174 |
|
| 2 | 1.036 | 0.034 | 0.035 | 19.579 | −0.030 | −0.031 | −0.018 | 0.013 |
|
| 3 | 1.250 | 0.165 | 0.208 | 1.831 | −0.208 | −0.260 | −0.108 | 0.120 |
|
| 4 | 1.069 | 0.052 | 0.029 | 2.869 | 0.446 | 0.446 | 0.490 | 0.080 |
|
| 2 | 1.702 | 0.385 | 0.101 | 0.835 | 0.632 | 0.736 | 0.797 | 0.230 |
|
| 3 | 1.514 | 0.323 | 0.135 | 3.122 | 0.508 | 0.583 | 0.614 | 0.074 |
|
| 4 | 1.341 | 0.224 | 0.147 | 3.523 | 0.437 | 0.346 | 0.389 | 0.066 |
|
| 3 | 1.249 | 0.189 | 0.000 | 7.203 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.034 |
|
| 2 | 1.065 | 0.055 | 0.000 | 4.297 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.055 |
|
| 2 | 1.016 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 7.813 | −0.040 | −0.040 | −0.008 | 0.031 |
|
| 2 | 1.154 | 0.112 | 0.135 | 2.047 | −0.136 | −0.203 | −0.072 | 0.109 |
|
| 4.586 | 0.480 | 0.447 | 0.493 | 0.086 |
Figure 2Population structure of six A. assama populations prepared using STUCTURE program.
Upper panel shows the structure obtained by analysis of all six populations and the lower panel shows the structure obtained by excluding WWS-1 population.
Figure 3NJ tree constructed based on Nei minimum genetic distance matrix data.
The numbers near the nodes are the bootstrap values.
A. assama populations screened with SSR markers, their place of collection and number of individuals screened in each population.
| Sl. no. |
| Place of collection | Sampling coordinates | Number of individuals |
| 1 | WWS-1 | West Garo Hills, Meghalaya | 25.82N/90.00E | 18 |
| 2 | Selsela | Bolsalgere, Selsela, West Garo Hills, Meghalaya | 25.77N/90.00E | 10 |
| 3 | Asanang | Digrongre, Asanang, West Garo Hills, Meghalaya | 25.68N/90.15E | 20 |
| 4 | Tura | Tura, Meghalaya | 25.51N/90.26E | 14 |
| 5 | Agropetal | East Garo Hills, Meghalaya | 25.86N/90.88E | 20 |
| 6 | Baghmara | Tinang, Bagmara, South Garo Hills, Megahalya | 25.22N/90.79E | 15 |