| Literature DB >> 23903977 |
Sascha Naomi McKeon1, Marta Moreno, Maria Anise Sallum, Marinete Marins Povoa, Jan Evelyn Conn.
Abstract
To evaluate whether environmental heterogeneity contributes to the genetic heterogeneity in Anopheles triannulatus, larval habitat characteristics across the Brazilian states of Roraima and Pará and genetic sequences were examined. A comparison with Anopheles goeldii was utilised to determine whether high genetic diversity was unique to An. triannulatus. Student t test and analysis of variance found no differences in habitat characteristics between the species. Analysis of population structure of An. triannulatus and An. goeldii revealed distinct demographic histories in a largely overlapping geographic range. Cytochrome oxidase I sequence parsimony networks found geographic clustering for both species; however nuclear marker networks depicted An. triannulatus with a more complex history of fragmentation, secondary contact and recent divergence. Evidence of Pleistocene expansions suggests both species are more likely to be genetically structured by geographic and ecological barriers than demography. We hypothesise that niche partitioning is a driving force for diversity, particularly in An. triannulatus.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23903977 PMCID: PMC3970595 DOI: 10.1590/0074-0276108052013012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz ISSN: 0074-0276 Impact factor: 2.743
Fig. 1map of Brazil indicating the location of the 13 localities and species distributions. See Supplementary data for more information. PA: state of Pará; RR: state of Roraima.
Characteristics (± 95% confidence intervals) of habitats with Anopheles triannulatus only, Anopheles goeldii only, both species or neither species present
|
|
| Both | Neither | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collections (n) | 12 | 13 | 17 | 34 |
| pH | 5.5 ± 0.00 | 5.58 ± 0.15 | 5.68 ± 0.24 | 5.62 ± 0.16 |
| Alkalinity (ppm) | 35 ± 29.40 | 33.85 ± 27.50 | 47.06 ± 27.91 | 52.35 ± 42.58 |
| Temperature (°C) | 26.29 ± 1.37 | 27.44 ± 1.88 | 26.79 ± 1.10 | 26.48 ± 0.95 |
| Conductivity (μS/cm) | 35.68 ± 16.33 | 39.49 ± 19.68 | 34.01 ± 12.93 | 26.04 ± 9.76 |
| Salinity (ppm) | 18.09 ± 8.13 | 19.92 ± 10.31 | 25.11 ± 17.34 | 13.24 ± 4.90 |
| Turbidity (JTUs) | 21.67 ± 15.93 | 28.46 ± 16.88 | 17.50 ± 6.88 | 13.09 ± 5.36 |
| Canopy coverage (%) | 11.28 ± 14.20 | 13.74 ± 13.43 | 13.77 ± 11.38 | 10.55 ± 6.33 |
Fig. 2concatenated (cytochrome oxidase I + white gene) Bayesian inference trees, partitioned by gene using the model of nucleotide substitution that best fit the data as determined by jModelTest. blue: samples from Goianésia, Tucuruí, Jacundá and Marabá [state of Pará (PA)] corresponding to An. triannulatus population 3; green: Mojú and Goianésia samples (PA) in addition to An. triannulatus population 2; orange: localities in the state of Roraima and An. triannulatus population 1. Asterisk means Anopheles marajoara outgroups.
Fig. 3statistical parsimony network of cytochrome oxidase I sequences at 95% support. black: localities in the state of Roraima; grey: Mojú and Goianésia samples from the state of Pará (PA); n: number of sequences; white: samples from Goianésia, Tucuruí, Jacundá and Marabá (PA). For An. triannulatus , black refers to population 1, grey (with the addition of haplotype 14) to population 2 and white to population 3.
Analysis of molecular variance calculations for inter and intravariation among species and populations for various markers
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gene | Source of variation | Variance (%) | Fixation index | Variance (%) | Fixation index |
|
| Between RR and PA | 41.01 | FCT = 0.41 | 45.12 | FCT = 0.45 |
|
| Among localities within states | 29.23 | FSC = 0.50 | 5.29 | FSC = 0.10 |
|
| Within a given locality | 29.76 | FST = 0.70 | 49.59 | FST = 0.50 |
|
| Between RR and PA | -3.01 | FCT = -0.03 | 89.46 | FCT = 0.89 |
|
| Among localities within states | 58.62 | FSC = 0.57 | 0.42 | FSC = 0.04 |
|
| Within a given locality | 44.38 | FST = 0.56 | 10.12 | FST = 0.90 |
|
| Between SPN populations | 38.85 | FCT = 0.39 | - | - |
|
| Among localities | 33.92 | FSC = 0.55 | - | - |
|
| Within a given locality | 27.23 | FST = 0.73 | - | - |
a : p < 0.05; b : p < 0.001; c : not significant; COI : cytochrome oxidase I; PA: state of Pará; RR: state of Roraima; SPN: statistical parsimony network derived groupings.
Fig. 4statistical parsimony network of white gene (A) and internal transcribed spacer 2 sequences (B) at 95%, except ITS2 An. goeldii which is at 94% sequence support. black: localities in the state of Roraima; grey: Mojú and Goianésia samples from the state of Pará (PA); n: number of sequences; white: samples from Goianésia, Tucuruí, Jacundá and Marabá (PA).
Inter and intrapopulation differentiation of Anopheles triannulatus and Anopheles goeldii populations based on statistical parsimony network
| Comparison | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| RR vs. PA | Three populations | RR vs. PA | |
| HS | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.86 |
|
| 1.77 | 1.41 | 1.60 |
|
| 7.43 | 7.00 | 7.83 |
| Snn | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.97 |
| χ2 | 129 | 258 | 125.84 |
| GST | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.045 |
| Kt | 10.09 | 10.09 | 7.43 |
a : p < 0.0001; G ST : genetic differentiation; H S : genetic differentiation based on haplotype data; K S *: differentiation based on sequence data; K t : average number of nucleotide differences; n: number of total individuals compared; PA: state of Pará; RR: state of Roraima; S nn : measures how often the nearest neighbours of sequences are found in the same population; χ 2 : genetic differentiation based on allele frequencies; Z *: rank statistic to analyse sequence similarity.
Multiple statistical analyses evaluating the probability for a recent population expansion
| Species | n |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 129 | -0.22187 | -1.28038 | -0.99732 | -10.329 | 0.08650 |
| Roraima | 57 | -0.37846 | -1.32424 | -1.17022 | -1.488 | 0.09200 |
| Pará | 72 | -0.47543 | -0.97094 | -0.93438 | -5.842 | 0.08900 |
| Population 1 | 56 | -0.08718 | -1.11433 | -0.88956 | -1.209 | 0.10200 |
| Population 2 | 36 | -1.06921 | -0.55581 | -0.85324 | -3.582 | 0.07770 |
| Population 3 | 37 | -1.02686 | -0.40080 | -0.71980 | -4.809 | 0.07800 |
|
| 133 | -0.30013 | -1.24177 | -1.01960 | -5.867 | 0.08260 |
| Roraima | 103 | 0.06971 | -1.6295 | -1.1537 | -1.677 | 0.0989 |
| Pará | 30 | -0.0415 | 0.15645 | 0.11023 | -3.321 | 0.1185 |
a : significance, p < 0.50; D : Fu and Li's D (Fu 1993); D T : Tajima's D (Tajima 1989); F : Fu and Li's F (Fu 1993); F S : Fu's Fs (Fu 1997); n: sample size; R 2 : Ramos-Onsin's and Roza's R 2 (Ramos-Onsins & Rozas 2002).
Fig. 5representative mismatch distributions with calculated τ and estimated time of sudden expansion. Bars indicate observed values. Line represents the model for all Anopheles triannulatus (A), all Anopheles goeldii (B), An. triannulatus population 2 (C) (Mojú and Goianésia samples) and An. triannulatus population 3 (D) (Goianésia, Tucuruí and Jacundá samples). ya: years ago.
Species distribution of anopheline larvae in different larval habitats by locality over three transmission seasons (2009-2011)
| Locality | Habitat type |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Amajarí (1) | Marsh | 0 | 0 |
| Pool | 1 | 1 | |
| Alto Alegre (2) | Ditch | 0 | 0 |
| Marsh | 4 | 0 | |
| Pond | 0 | 7 | |
| Seepage | 0 | 0 | |
| Stream margin | 2 | 1 | |
| Boa Vista (3) | Ditch | 0 | 0 |
| Marsh | 0 | 0 | |
| Pond | 0 | 4 | |
| Pool | 0 | 14 | |
| Seepage | 0 | 6 | |
| Stream margin | 0 | 0 | |
| Mucajaí (4) | Ditch | 0 | 0 |
| Pool | 0 | 62 | |
| Iracema (5) | Ditch | 10 | 45 |
| Pond | 40 | 11 | |
| Petrolina (6) | Ditch | 0 | 0 |
| Pond | 0 | 0 | |
| Stream margin | 0 | 3 | |
| Martins Pereira (7) | Stream margin | 1 | 2 |
| Swamp | 14 | 4 | |
| Ecuador (8) | Pond | 0 | 2 |
| Seepage | 0 | 5 | |
| Stream margin | 0 | 0 | |
| Swamp | 0 | 0 | |
| Mojú (9) | Pond | 19 | 19 |
| Marsh | 66 | 31 | |
| Stream margin | 0 | 0 | |
| Goianésia (10) | Marsh | 0 | 0 |
| Pond | 14 | 0 | |
| Pool | 0 | 0 | |
| Stream margin | 0 | 0 | |
| Swamp | 0 | 0 | |
| Tucuruí (11) | Pond | 7 | 2 |
| Stream margin | 6 | 0 | |
| Jacundá (12) | Marsh | 5 | 0 |
| Pond | 11 | 0 | |
| Stream margin | 0 | 2 | |
| Marabá (13) | Ditch | 0 | 6 |
| Marsh | 0 | 0 | |
| Pond | 2 | 3 | |
| Stream margin | 1 | 0 | |
| Total | 203 | 230 |
1-13: see Fig. 1 for more information.
Description of shared cytochrome oxidase I haplotypes and genetic polymorphism statistics
| Site | n | Haplotypes | π (SD) | 1-∑ƒ i 2 (SD) |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - |
| 2 | 4 | 1 (2) , 40, 41 | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.83 (0.22) | 12 | 7.67 | |
| 5 | 37 | 1 (15) , 2 (6) , 7, 8, 9 (2), 35, 36 (2), 37, 39 (4), 43, 45 | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.80 (0.05) | 20 | 5.61 | |
| 7 | 15 | 2 (9) , 14, 38, 42 (3), 44 | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.63 (0.13) | 14 | 2.27 | |
| 9 | 30 | 3 (11), 4 (7), 10, 11, 30, 31 (2), 32, 33, 34 (4) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.81 (0.05) | 12 | 1.95 | |
| 10 | 14 | 6 (3) , 12, 13 (3), 15, 16 , 17 (2), 24 , 25 , 28 | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.92 (0.05) | 20 | 6.99 | |
| 11 | 13 | 5 (2) , 6 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 26 , 27 | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.96 (0.04) | 16 | 4 | |
| 12 | 15 | 5 (4) , 6 (4) , 23 (2), 24 , 25 (2 ), 29 | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.83 (0.06) | 9 | 2.99 | |
| 129 | 0.02 (0.00) | 0.95 (0.01) | 57 | 10.1 | |||
|
| 2 | 4 | 46 , 47 (3) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.50 (0.27) | 2 | 1 |
| 3 | 15 | 46 (4) , 47 (7) , 48 , 49 , 77, 78 | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.74 (0.09) | 15 | 3.26 | |
| 4 | 18 | 46 (3) , 47 (6 ), 48 (2) , 49 (2) , 50 , 63 , 67, 72 | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.86 (0.06) | 18 | 6.78 | |
| 5 | 50 | 46 (7) , 47 (14) , 48 (10) , 49 (3) , 50 (2) , 51, 52, 63 (3) , 70, 71, 73 (2) , 74 (2), 75 | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.86 (0.03) | 24 | 6.29 | |
| 6 | 3 | 47 (2) , 72 | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.67 (0.31) | 11 | 7.33 | |
| 7 | 6 | 46 , 50 , 68, 69 , 73 , 76 | 0.01 (0.00) | 1.00 (0.10) | 18 | 8.47 | |
| 8 | 7 | 46 (5) , 47 , 53 | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.52 (0.21) | 12 | 3.81 | |
| 9 | 17 | 53 , 56 , 57, 59, 60 (2) , 61 (3) , 62 (2), 64 , 65, 66 | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.93 (0.04) | 10 | 2.18 | |
| 11 | 2 | 54 , 63 | - | - | - | - | |
| 13 | 11 | 54 (3) , 55 (2), 58, 60 , 63 (2) , 64 | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.91 (0.07) | 13 | 5.6 | |
| 133 | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.90 (0.002) | 44 | 7.43 |
K : average number of differences; n: number of sequences; P : polymorphic sites; SD: standard deviation; 1-Σf i 2 : haplotype diversity; Π: nucleotide diversity; 1-13: see Fig. 1 for more information. Bold indicates shared haplotypes and indicates diversity among lineages or species.
Description of shared white haplotypes and genetic polymorphism statistics for Anopheles triannulatus and Anopheles goeldii
| Species | Site | n | Haplotypes | π (SD) | 1-∑ƒ i 2 (SD) |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 1 | B | - | - | - | - |
| 2 | 3 | B , E (2) | - | - | - | - | |
| 5 | 10 | B (3), C (4), D (2), E | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.51 (0.16) | 7 | 2.47 | |
| 7 | 4 | E (2), P, T | - | - | - | - | |
| 9 | 9 | A (8), U | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.22 (0.17) | 1 | 0.22 | |
| 10 | 9 | E , N (2), O, Q (3), R, S | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.81(0.12) | 9 | 3.94 | |
| 11 | 10 | E , F, I , J (2), K, L (2), N (2) | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.93 (0.06) | 11 | 4.02 | |
| 12 | 8 | G (2), H, I , J , L (2), M | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.93(0.08) | 4 | 1.54 | |
| 54 | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.93 (0.02) | 24 | 5.43 | |||
|
| 2 | 4 | V , W (2), CC | - | - | - | - |
| 3 | 10 | V (3), W (6), X | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.600(0.13) | 4 | 1.07 | |
| 4 | 10 | V , W (9) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.20 (0.15) | 1 | 0.20 | |
| 5 | 9 | W (9) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.000(0.00) | 0 | 0 | |
| 8 | 1 | W | - | - | - | - | |
| 9 | 10 | Y (9), Z | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.200(0.15) | 2 | 0.4 | |
| 13 | 8 | Y (5), AA (2), BB | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.61 (0.16) | 3 | 1.04 | |
| 52 | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.66 (0.05) | 12 | 2.85 |
K : average number of differences; n: number of sequences; P : polymorphic sites; SD: standard deviation; 1-Σf i 2 : haplotype diversity; Π: nucleotide diversity; 1-13: see Fig. 1 for more information. Bold indicates diversity among lineages or species.