| Literature DB >> 24068852 |
Ceiridwen J Edwards1, Carl D Soulsbury, Mark J Statham, Simon Y W Ho, Dave Wall, Gaudenz Dolf, Graziella Iossa, Phillip J Baker, Stephen Harris, Benjamin N Sacks, Daniel G Bradley.
Abstract
Quaternary climatic fluctuations have had profound effects on the phylogeographic structure of many species. Classically, species were thought to have become isolated in peninsular refugia, but there is limited evidence that large, non-polar species survived outside traditional refugial areas. We examined the phylogeographic structure of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), a species that shows high ecological adaptability in the western Palaearctic region. We compared mitochondrial DNA sequences (cytochrome b and control region) from 399 modern and 31 ancient individuals from across Europe. Our objective was to test whether red foxes colonised the British Isles from mainland Europe in the late Pleistocene, or whether there is evidence that they persisted in the region through the Last Glacial Maximum. We found red foxes to show a high degree of phylogeographic structuring across Europe and, consistent with palaeontological and ancient DNA evidence, confirmed via phylogenetic indicators that red foxes were persistent in areas outside peninsular refugia during the last ice age. Bayesian analyses and tests of neutrality indicated population expansion. We conclude that there is evidence that red foxes from the British Isles derived from central European populations that became isolated after the closure of the landbridge with Europe.Entities:
Keywords: British Isles; Control region; Cytochrome b gene; Europe; Mitochondrial DNA; Phylogeography; Red fox
Year: 2012 PMID: 24068852 PMCID: PMC3778924 DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.10.010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Quat Sci Rev ISSN: 0277-3791 Impact factor: 4.112
Fig. 1Map of sample locations. Numbers indicate modern cytochrome b data/modern control region data, with numbers in bold denoting sequence data generated as part of this study and numbers in italic showing published data used for analysis (for more details see Table S1). Black circles indicate ancient sequences, with sample sizes.
Sample size, number of mtDNA cytb haplotypes including singleton haplotypes, and gene diversity for each population. Tajima's D and Fu's Fs tests of selective neutrality are shown for each region.
| Population | Haplotypes | Unique haplotypes | Singleton haplotypes | Haplotype diversity | Nucleotide diversity | Tajima's | Fu's | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0.26 ± 0.08 | 0.0028 ± 0.002 | −1.36 (0.07) | −0.42 (0.43) | |
| −0.47 (0.37) | −0.04 (0.53) | |||||||
| Scotland | 17 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.12 ± 0.10 | 0.0011 ± 0.001 | ||
| England | 74 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 0.51 ± 0.06 | 0.0051 ± 0.003 | ||
| Wales | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 ± 0.31 | 0.0062 ± 0.006 | ||
| −1.45 (0.06) | −4.31 (0.01) | |||||||
| Spain | 39 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 0.74 ± 0.05 | 0.0034 ± 0.003 | ||
| −1.17 (0.11) | −5.91 (0.02) | |||||||
| Holland | 12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.41 ± 0.13 | 0.0038 ± 0.003 | ||
| France | 8 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0.75 ± 0.14 | 0.0080 ± 0.005 | ||
| Switzerland | 19 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 0.82 ± 0.06 | 0.0088 ± 0.005 | ||
| Germany | 19 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0.71 ± 0.08 | 0.0030 ± 0.002 | ||
| Austria | 6 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0.93 ± 0.12 | 0.0166 ± 0.011 | ||
| Denmark | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.29 ± 0.20 | 0.0009 ± 0.001 | ||
| −0.67 (0.30) | −1.76 (0.11) | |||||||
| Sweden | 21 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0.69 ± 0.07 | 0.0030 ± 0.002 | ||
| Norway | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.0000 ± 0.000 | ||
| Estonia | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.60 ± 0.18 | 0.0037 ± 0.003 | ||
| 39 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 0.58 ± 0.09 | 0.0028 ± 0.002 | −1.88 (0.02) | −3.98 (0.00) | |
| −0.56 (0.35) | −1.19 (0.27) | |||||||
| Bulgaria | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0.90 ± 0.16 | 0.0087 ± 0.006 | ||
| Serbia | 20 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0.80 ± 0.04 | 0.0062 ± 0.004 | ||
| East Europe | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.0000 ± 0.000 | ||
| − | − |
Sample size, number of mtDNA CR haplotypes including singleton haplotypes, and gene diversity for each population. Tajima's D and Fu's Fs tests of selective neutrality are shown for each region.
| Population | Haplotypes | Unique haplotypes | Singleton haplotypes | Haplotype diversity | Nucleotide diversity | Tajima's | Fu's | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 49 | 12 | 7 | 5 | 0.71 ± 0.06 | 0.0110 ± 0.007 | −1.11 (0.14) | −2.08 (0.21) | |
| −0.47 (0.48) | −1.22 (0.36) | |||||||
| Scotland | 18 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0.31 ± 0.14 | 0.0060 ± 0.004 | ||
| England | 73 | 11 | 5 | 5 | 0.68 ± 0.05 | 0.0126 ± 0.007 | ||
| Wales | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0.67 ± 0.31 | 0.0106 ± 0.010 | ||
| 2.15 (0.98) | 1.60 (0.78) | |||||||
| Spain | 26 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0.83 ± 0.03 | 0.0124 ± 0.007 | ||
| −0.31 (0.45) | −14.23 (0.00) | |||||||
| Holland | 12 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0.85 ± 0.07 | 0.0130 ± 0.008 | ||
| France | 11 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0.85 ± 0.09 | 0.0181 ± 0.011 | ||
| Switzerland | 18 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 0.82 ± 0.06 | 0.0125 ± 0.008 | ||
| France/Switzerland | 26 | 16 | 10 | 6 | 0.95 ± 0.02 | 0.0153 ± 0.009 | ||
| Germany | 22 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 0.92 ± 0.03 | 0.0130 ± 0.008 | ||
| Denmark | 10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0.38 ± 0.18 | 0.0060 ± 0.004 | ||
| −0.63 (0.30) | −2.69 (0.12) | |||||||
| Sweden | 20 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 0.91 ± 0.04 | 0.0140 ± 0.008 | ||
| Norway | 10 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0.20 ± 0.15 | 0.0040 ± 0.003 | ||
| Estonia | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0.60 ± 0.18 | 0.0120 ± 0.009 | ||
| 21 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0.62 ± 0.09 | 0.0045 ± 0.003 | 0.94 (0.83) | 0.34 (0.60) | |
| Serbia | 24 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0.70 ± 0.06 | 0.0149 ± 0.009 | 1.23 (0.91) | 3.34 (0.94) |
| East Europe | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.0000 ± 0.000 | ||
| 54 | 31 | − |
Fig. 2Median networks constructed from (a) 321 bp of cytb from 356 modern red fox sequences, and (b) 251 bp of CR from 351 modern red fox sequences, across Europe. Circles represent sequence haplotypes, the area being proportional to the frequency of the haplotypes. Points are theoretical intermediate nodes introduced by the median-joining algorithm, and branches between haplotypes represent single nucleotide mutations. Haplotypes labelled with a letter are discussed in the main text and equal those shown in Fig. 5 and Table 3.
Fig. 3Two-dimensional MDS plots, drawn using data from: (a) 321 bp of cytb, and (b) 251 bp of CR, summarising genetic distances among the modern red fox populations. (a) The proportion of the data explaining the first two principal coordinates, the R2 value, is 87.0%. Hierarchical groupings as calculated by SAMOVA (K values 2–5) are shown, highlighting the independence of the Holland and British Isles cluster to increasing values of K. (b) The proportion of the data explaining the first two principal coordinates, the R2 value, is 82.6%. For this rapidly mutating marker, the best hierarchical grouping improves as K is increased, until K = 14, where only neighbouring Germany and Switzerland, and the British Isles cluster together (as shown).
Fig. 5Temporal networks constructed from: (a) 201 bp of cytb from 355 modern and 31 ancient red foxes, and (b) 193 bp of CR from 351 modern and 27 ancient red foxes. Haplotypes labelled with a letter are discussed in the main text and equal those shown in Fig. 2 and Table 3.
Table detailing haplotype-sharing across modern, Holocene and Pleistocene time-slices. Haplotype labels correspond to those labelled in Fig. 2.
| Haplotype label | Modern | Holocene | Pleistocene |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Italy (31), Spain (21), Sweden (21), Germany (15), Serbia (11), Norway (8), Denmark (7), Switzerland (7), England (4), Estonia (3), Holland (3), Poland (3), Bulgaria (1), France (1), Ireland (1), Scotland (1) | France (7), England (1), Spain (1) | England (2), France (2), Austria (1), Belgium (1), Germany (1), Poland (1) |
| B | England (50), Ireland (44), Scotland (16), Holland (9), Serbia (3), Switzerland (3), France (2), Spain (2), Wales (2) | England (1), Switzerland (1) | England (1), France (1) |
| C | Italy (2) | Switzerland (1) | France (1) |
| D | England (14), Switzerland (4), Austria (1), France (1), Ireland (1), Wales (1) | Luxembourg (2) | |
| E | France (2), Spain (6) | France (2) | |
| F | England (37), Scotland (15), Holland (8), Ireland (6), France (4), Serbia (4), Wales (2), Switzerland (1) | France (1) |
Fig. 4Map describing the seven locations (Balkans, Britain, Central Europe, Iberia, Ireland, Italy and Scandinavia) to which each of the 301 modern and 20 ancient red fox were assigned in the combined cytb/CR phylogeographic analysis. Non-reversible diffusion rates were estimated across the entire distribution of posterior trees and, therefore, reflect average rates of diffusion over time. Pairwise diffusions with Bayes factor >10 are shown; these are considered to be different from zero.
IMa joint estimates of demographic parameters: Ne (effective population size = θ/4μ; where θ is genetic diversity and μ is mutation rate), Nem (effective migration rate = θm/4; where m is the migration rate per generation), and population splitting times (t/μ) under two models based on concatenated cytb and CR sequences. The 90% highest posterior density (HPD) intervals corresponding to parameter estimates are indicated in parentheses. Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are based on the assumed site-specific mutation rate, 9.36% per Myr for the combined cytb/CR haplotype.
| Demographic model: | Isolation with migration (90% HPD) | Isolation only (90% HPD) |
|---|---|---|
| 150,000 (62,000–233,000) | 215,000 (139,000–325,000) | |
| 481,000 (243,000–1,035,000) | 416,000 (225,000–844,000) | |
| 112,000 (40,000–374,000) | 262,000 (157,000–422,000) | |
| 3270 (110–20,140) | – | |
| – | – | |
| Splitting time | 19,000 years (5900–51,500) | 10,000 years (5700–14,500) |
| Alternative splitting time 1 | 6765 years (2100–18,335) | 3560 years (2030–5160) |
| Alternative splitting time 2 | 5260 years (1630–14,260) | 2770 years (1580–4015) |
The posterior density function smoothed peak approached zero for gene flow into Central Europe.
These estimates assume a mutation rate of 26.29% per Myr. This value is based on the Bayesian median posterior estimate assuming homogeneous rates among sites, and does not take into account the 95% CI of the estimate.
These estimates assume a mutation rate of 33.81% per Myr. This value is based on the Bayesian median posterior estimate using a gamma-distributed rate heterogeneity across sites, and does not take into account the 95% CI of the estimate.