| Literature DB >> 23894623 |
Yi-Yan Chen1, Ying Zhu, Qiu-Hong Wan, Ji-Kang Lou, Wen-Jing Li, Yun-Fa Ge, Sheng-Guo Fang.
Abstract
Genetic variation plays a significant role in maintaining the evolutionary potential of a species. Comparing the patterns of adaptive and neutral diversity in extant populations is useful for understanding the local adaptations of a species. In this study, we determined the fine-scale genetic structure of 6 extant populations of the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) using mtDNA and DNA fingerprints, and then overlaid adaptive variations in 6 functional Aime-MHC class II genes (DRA, DRB3, DQA1, DQA2, DQB1, and DQB2) on this framework. We found that: (1) analysis of the mtDNA and DNA fingerprint-based networks of the 6 populations identified the independent evolutionary histories of the 2 panda subspecies; (2) the basal (ancestral) branches of the fingerprint-based Sichuan-derived network all originated from the smallest Xiaoxiangling (XXL) population, suggesting the status of a glacial refuge in XXL; (3) the MHC variations among the tested populations showed that the XXL population exhibited extraordinary high levels of MHC diversity in allelic richness, which is consistent with the diversity characteristics of a glacial refuge; (4) the phylogenetic tree showed that the basal clades of giant panda DQB sequences were all occupied by XXL-specific sequences, providing evidence for the ancestor-resembling traits of XXL. Finally, we found that the giant panda had many more DQ alleles than DR alleles (33∶13), contrary to other mammals, and that the XXL refuge showed special characteristics in the DQB loci, with 7 DQB members of 9 XXL-unique alleles. Thus, this study identified XXL as a glacial refuge, specifically harboring the most number of primitive DQB alleles.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23894623 PMCID: PMC3716684 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070229
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Distribution of giant panda populations and network relationships among panda mtDNA haplotypes.
Current distribution of extant giant panda populations (A) and network relationships among the panda mtDNA haplotypes (B). The 6 isolated populations are indicated in dark green, according to the most recent survey [5]. Population-scale networks are shown in a and b (QLI, red; MSH, blue; QLA, yellow; DXL, purple; XXL, sky-blue; and LSH, green). The solid circles represent each unique haplotype, with their sizes proportional to their frequency. Empty circles indicate the undetected haplotypes that are necessary to link all observed haplotypes to the network.
Figure 2MtDNA-based mismatch distributions and Bayesian skyline plot.
MtDNA-based mismatch distributions (A) and Bayesian Skyline Plot (B) for the 2 subspecies and the species as a whole.
Figure 3DNA fingerprint-based median-joining network.
DNA fingerprint-based median-joining network relationships of the 6 panda populations. The populations from which the individuals were collected are indicated in the same color scheme given in Figure 1B).
Allele frequencies, numbers of alleles and observed heterozygosities (H) for the Aime-MHC class II alpha genes.
| Locus | Allele | Population | Locus | Allele | Population | ||||||||||
| QLI | MSH | QLA | DXL | XXL | LSH | QLI | MSH | QLA | DXL | XXL | LSH | ||||
| DQA1 | DQA1 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.32 | 0.22 | 0.34 | 0.30 | DQA2 | DQA2 | 0.48 | 0.75 | 0.83 | 0.28 | 0.50 | 0.53 |
| DQA1 | 0.18 | 0.45 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.07 | DQA2 | 0.02 | 0.19 | 0.16 | 0.44 | 0.38 | 0.38 | ||
| DQA1 | 0.31 | 0.02 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.13 | DQA2 | 0.23 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.01 | ||
| DQA1 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.16 | 0.21 | DQA2 | 0.28 | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| DQA1 | 0.28 | 0.23 | 0.25 | 0.25 | – | 0.09 |
| – | – | – | 0.03 | – | 0.07 | ||
| DQA1 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.13 | – |
| – | – | – | 0.09 | – | 0.01 | ||
| DQA1 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.02 | – | – | 0.05 |
| – | – | – | 0.06 | 0.03 | – | ||
|
| 0.01 | – | – | 0.03 | – | 0.04 |
| – | – | – | 0.03 | 0.02 | – | ||
|
| – | 0.12 | – | 0.09 | 0.25 | 0.07 |
| 0.28 | 0.32 | 0.33 | 0.81 | 0.74 | 0.71 | ||
|
| – | – | – | – | – | 0.05 | |||||||||
|
| 0.85 | 0.68 | 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.81 | 0.90 | |||||||||
| DRA | DRA | 0.98 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.85 | 0.92 | all | DQA (18) | 12 | 11 | 10 | 15 | 11 | 14 |
|
| 0.02 | 0.01 | – | – | 0.15 | 0.08 | DRA (2) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||
|
| 0.00 | 0.03 | – | – | 0.10 | 0.10 | All (20) | 14 | 13 | 11 | 16 | 13 | 16 | ||
Numbers in parentheses are the total numbers of alleles.
*: P<0.05 and **: P<0.01.
Alleles represented in bold were newly identified in current study, while the others were defined in a previous study [30];
and c indicate the allele was LSH-specific and QLI-specific (Qinling subspecies-specific), respectively.
Allele frequencies, numbers of alleles and observed heterozygosities (H) for the Aime-MHC class II beta genes.
| Locus | Allele | Population | Locus | Allele | Population | ||||||||||
| QLI | MSH | QLA | DXL | XXL | LSH | QLI | MSH | QLA | DXL | XXL | LSH | ||||
| DQB1 | DQB1 | 0.01 | – | 0.09 | – | 0.09 | 0.11 | DRB3 | DRB3 | 0.35 | 0.13 | 0.22 | 0.20 | 0.23 | 0.20 |
| DQB1 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.31 | 0.54 | 0.18 | 0.32 | DRB3 | 0.03 | – | 0.03 | – | 0.02 | 0.03 | ||
| DQB1 | – | 0.07 | 0.09 | – | 0.12 | 0.09 | DRB3 | 0.04 | 0.17 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.22 | 0.34 | ||
| DQB1 | 0.76 | 0.53 | 0.38 | – | 0.29 | 0.41 | DRB3 | 0.33 | 0.16 | 0.06 | – | – | 0.06 | ||
| DQB1 | 0.20 | 0.26 | 0.09 | – | – | 0.012 | DRB3 | 0.06 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.04 | ||
| DQB1 | – | 0.06 | 0.02 | – | 0.03 | – | DRB3 | 0.04 | – | – | 0.30 | – | – | ||
|
| – | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.46 | 0.06 | 0.05 | DRB3 | 0.06 | 0.20 | 0.02 | – | – | 0.03 | ||
|
| – | – | – | – | 0.03 | – | DRB3 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.22 | – | 0.12 | 0.03 | ||
|
| – | – | – | – | 0.03 | – |
| 0.07 | 0.17 | 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.23 | 0.27 | ||
|
| – | – | – | – | 0.12 | – |
| – | – | – | – | 0.05 | – | ||
|
| – | – | – | – | 0.03 | – |
| – | – | – | – | 0.07 | – | ||
|
| – | – | – | – | 0.03 | – |
| 0.83 | 0.82 | 0.74 | 0.30 | 0.73 | 0.89 | ||
|
| 0.43 | 0.33 | 0.56 | 0.64 | 0.77 | 0.75 | |||||||||
| DQB2 | DQB2 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.91 | 1.00 | all | DQB (15) | 5 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 14 | 7 |
|
| – | – | – | – | 0.05 | – | DRB (11) | 9 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 8 | ||
|
| – | – | – | – | 0.05 | – | all (26) | 14 | 14 | 16 | 8 | 22 | 15 | ||
|
| – | – | – | – | 0.09 | – | |||||||||
*: P<0.05.
**: P<0.01.
Numbers in parentheses are the total numbers of alleles.
The alleles bolded were newly identified in the current study, while the others were defined in previous studies [30], [31];
and c indicate the allele was Sichuan subspecies-specific and XXL-specific (refuge), respectively.
Synonymous (d S) and nonsynonymous (d N) substitutions for the Aime-MHC class II genes.
| Locus |
|
|
|
| |
| DQA1 | ABS | 0.116±0.048 | 0.092±0.063 | 1.261 | 0.792 |
| non-ABS | 0.010±0.006 | 0.015±0.010 | 0.667 | 0.731 | |
| ALL | 0.031±0.012 | 0.027±0.013 | 1.148 | 0.778 | |
| DQA2 | ABS | 0.125±0.044 | 0.092±0.059 | 1.359 | 0.688 |
| non-ABS | 0.017±0.007 | 0.019±0.013 | 0.895 | 0.898 | |
| ALL | 0.038±0.011 | 0.030±0.014 | 1.267 | 0.654 | |
| DRA | ABS | 0.022±0.022 | 0.000±0.000 | – | 0.294 |
| non-ABS | 0.007±0.007 | 0.039±0.027 | 0.179 | 0.284 | |
| ALL | 0.011±0.008 | 0.030±0.021 | 0.367 | 0.412 | |
| DQB1 | ABS | 0.196±0.051 | 0.056±0.042 | 3.500 |
|
| non-ABS | 0.027±0.008 | 0.028±0.013 | 0.964 | 0.921 | |
| ALL | 0.064±0.015 | 0.034±0.016 | 1.882 | 0.041 | |
| DQB2 | ABS | 0.297±0.063 | 0.060±0.044 | 4.950 |
|
| non-ABS | 0.046±0.017 | 0.040±0.019 | 1.150 | 0.785 | |
| ALL | 0.102±0.022 | 0.044±0.018 | 2.318 | 0.025 | |
| DRB3 | ABS | 0.235±0.037 | 0.108±0.037 | 2.176 | 0.066 |
| non-ABS | 0.028±0.008 | 0.037±0.011 | 0.757 | 0.503 | |
| ALL | 0.072±0.0140 | 0.052±0.012 | 1.385 | 0.269 |
Standard errors (in parentheses) were obtained through 1000 bootstrap replicates.
P values in bold indicate d N is significantly larger than d S (P<0.05).
Inference of positive selection for alpha and beta genes in giant panda with different models.
| Locus | Model | InL | Parameters | Positively selected sites |
| DQA1 | M0 (one ratio) | −537.489 | ω = 1.080 | |
| M7 (nearly neutral with beta) | −522.272 | p = 0.005, q = 0.047 | ||
| M8 (beta & ω) | −499.021 | p0 = 0.985, p = 0.005, q = 0.045, ω2 = 28.410 | 23 | |
| DQA2 | M0 (one ratio) | −523.760 | ω = 1.229 | |
| M7 (nearly neutral with beta) | −519.361 | p = 0.005, q = 0.012 | ||
| M8 (beta & ω) | −501.255 | p0 = 0.995, p = 99.000, q = 71.048, ω2 = 58.615 | 23 | |
| DRA | M0 (one ratio) | −343.406 | ω = 0.382 | |
| M7 (nearly neutral with beta) | −343.406 | p = 61.310, q = 99.000 | ||
| M8 (beta & ω) | −343.406 | p0 = 0.100, p = 61.309, q = 99.000, ω2 = 1.000 | ||
| DQB1 | M0 (one ratio) | −783.408 | ω = 0.541 | |
| M7 (nearly neutral with beta) | −772.205 | p = 1.120, q = 1.138 | ||
| M8 (beta & ω) | −720.368 | p0 = 0.995, p = 0.011, q = 0.039, ω2 = 15.996 |
| |
| DQB2 | M0 (one ratio) | −515.205 | ω = 0.698 | |
| M7 (nearly neutral with beta) | −507.847 | p = 0.005, q = 0.012 | ||
| M8 (beta & ω) | −502.949 | p0 = 0.973, p = 0.005, q = 0.011, ω2 = 10.250 |
| |
| DRB3 | M0 (one ratio) | −756.906 | ω = 0.335 | |
| M7 (nearly neutral with beta) | −732.770 | p = 0.005, q = 0.020 | ||
| M8 (beta & ω) | −728.612 | p0 = 0.946, p = 6.933, q = 71.662, ω2 = 3.081 |
|
Note: ω = d N/d S; p and q: parameters of beta distribution;
p0: proportion of sites with ω≤1;
ω2: value of ω for sites under positive selection.
*: posterior probability, P<0.95.
**: posterior probability, P<0.99.
Figures in bold are referred to as ABS sites.
Figure 4Maximum likelihood phylogenetic trees.
Maximum likelihood (ML) phylogenetic relationships of the Aime-MHC class II alpha (A) and beta (B) alleles. Bootstrap values less than 50 (50%) are not shown.