| Literature DB >> 24447386 |
Jenni E Kesäniemi1, Marina Mustonen, Christoffer Boström, Benni W Hansen, K Emily Knott.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Temporal variation in the genetic structure of populations can be caused by multiple factors, including natural selection, stochastic environmental variation, migration, or genetic drift. In benthic marine species, the developmental mode of larvae may indicate a possibility for temporal genetic variation: species with dispersive planktonic larvae are expected to be more likely to show temporal genetic variation than species with benthic or brooded non-dispersive larvae, due to differences in larval mortality and dispersal ability. We examined temporal genetic structure in populations of Pygospio elegans, a poecilogonous polychaete with within-species variation in developmental mode. P. elegans produces either planktonic, benthic, or intermediate larvae, varying both among and within populations, providing a within-species test of the generality of a relationship between temporal genetic variation and larval developmental mode.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24447386 PMCID: PMC3905951 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-14-12
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Sampling information
| Baltic Sea (st) | Ängsö | FIA | 2008(53); 2009(52); 2010(42) | 6-8 | Low | B |
| Fårö | FIF | 2008(45); 2009(40); 2010(39) | 6-8 | Low | - | |
| | Vellerup | DKV | 2008(43); 2009(47); 2010(43) | 20-21 | Low to medium | I, P, B |
| Rörvig | DKR | 2009(42); 2010(40) | 20-22 | Medium | I, B, P | |
| | Herslev | DKH | 2008(24); 2010(42) | 14 | Low | I, B |
| Wadden Sea (it) | Netherlands | NET | 2009(48); 2010(46); 2011(42) | 28 | High to very high | P, I, B |
| North Sea (it) | Drum sands | UK | 2009(28); 2010(49) | 28 | High | P |
Pygospio elegans sampling locations (st = sub-tidal, it = intertidal), population codes, and years sampled, with number of individuals genotyped per sample in parentheses. Salinity measured at each location, qualitative estimates of worm density and observed larval developmental modes are noted, with the most common developmental mode listed first.
*Observed larval developmental modes: B = benthic, I = intermediate, P = planktonic.
Genetic diversity and sibship patterns in the temporal samples
| FIA2008 | 0.583 | 0.660 | 0.600 | 10.8 | 1.9 | 1 | |
| FIA2009 | 0.570 | 0.664 | 0.653 | 10.7 | 1.3 | 1 | |
| FIA2010 | 0.688 | 0.714 | 0.680 | 11.5 | 2.1 | 0.015 | 0 |
| | | | | | | | All: 10 |
| FIF2008 | 0.531 | 0.643 | 0.570 | 11.3 | 1.6 | 0 | |
| FIF2009 | 0.478 | 0.614 | 0.558 | 10.0 | 1.5 | 0 | |
| FIF2010 | 0.567 | 0.655 | 0.588 | 11.0 | 1.8 | 0 | |
| | | | | | | | All: 1 (no cross-year) |
| DKR2009 | 0.584 | 0.696 | 0.644 | 10.3 | 3.7 | 2* | |
| DKR2010 | 0.606 | 0.698 | 0.622 | 10.6 | 4.2 | 1 | |
| | | | | | | | All: 5* |
| DKV2008 | 0.650 | 0.771 | 0.700 | 12.7 | 3.3 | 4 | |
| DKV2009 | 0.704 | 0.775 | 0.721 | 12.2 | 2.2 | 2* | |
| DKV2010 | 0.689 | 0.729 | 0.678 | 10.8 | 1.4 | 0.030 | 1 |
| | | | | | | | All: 9* |
| DKH2008 | 0.596 | 0.677 | 0.596 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 0.099 | 0 |
| DKH2010 | 0.565 | 0.718 | 0.653 | 11.5 | 5.3 | 3 | |
| | | | | | | | All: 4 (no cross-year) |
| NET2009 | 0.586 | 0.703 | 0.616 | 11.4 | 2.3 | 1 | |
| NET2010 | 0.627 | 0.717 | 0.669 | 11.4 | 2.0 | 4 | |
| NET2011 | 0.615 | 0.774 | 0.696 | 13.2 | 4.4 | 0 | |
| | | | | | | | All: 4 (no cross-year) |
| UK2009 | 0.606 | 0.799 | 0.765 | 13.2 | 4.4 | 0 | |
| UK2010 | 0.664 | 0.797 | 0.738 | 13.7 | 5.3 | 0 | |
| All: 1 (no cross-year) |
Observed (HO) and expected (HE) heterozygosity, gene diversity (GD) and allelic richness (AR) based on a sample size of 40 for each sample (here, N = number of genes used in the rarefaction method of HP-rare). Private allele richness (PrivateAR) was calculated for temporal samples of each population separately (here, N [in italics] varies among populations, making the values comparable only among temporal samples within a population). Inbreeding coefficients (FIS, with significant values in italics) were calculated for each temporal sample. Number of full-sib families (FS) estimated within each temporal sample and within the combined dataset for each population (all) are listed. Samples marked with *have families consisting of more than two members (see text). In the combined data sets, cross-year full-sib families were found unless indicated.
AMOVA results of spatial and temporal variation in
| Source of variation | Sum of squares | Variance components | Percentage of variation | Fixation indices (P-value) |
| Among years | 22.3 | −0.006 | −0.27 | FCT = −0.003 (0.816) |
| Among populations within years | 132.2 | 0.085 | 3.61 | FSC = 0.036 (<0.001) |
| Within samples | 3436.3 | 2.273 | 96.66 | FST = 0.033 (<0.001) |
| Total | 3590.8 | 2.351 | | |
| Source of variation | Sum of squares | Variance components | Percentage of variation | Fixation indices (P-value) |
| Among populations | 110.9 | 0.067 | 2.85 | FCT = 0.029 (<0.001) |
| Among temporal samples within populations | 43.6 | 0.020 | 0.85 | FSC = 0.009 (<0.001) |
| Within samples | 3436.3 | 2.273 | 96.3 | FST = 0.037 (<0.001) |
| Total | 3590.8 | 2.360 | ||
Temporal groups consist of samples from different populations grouped by sampling year (4 groups: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011) and spatial groups consist of temporal samples grouped according to population (7 groups).
Temporal pair-wise F/Dest values for samples within each population
| FIA | 2008 | 2009 | FIF | 2008 | 2009 |
| 2009 | 0.002/0.018 | | 2009 | 0.007/0.065 | |
| 2010 | 0.008*/0.055* | 0.004/0.048 | 2010 | 0.004/0.040 | 0.011*/0.112** |
| | | | | ||
| DKR | 2009 | | DKV | 2008 | 2009 |
| 2010 | 0.008*/0.041 | | 2009 | 0.002/0.006 | |
| | | | 2010 | 0.005/0.045 | 0.007*/0.061** |
| DKH | 2008 | | | | |
| 2010 | 0.007/0.062 | | | | |
| | | | | ||
| NET | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | | |
| 2010 | 0.001/0.024 | | 2010 | −0.002/-0.001 | |
| 2011 | 0.038***/0.223*** | 0.031***/0.149*** | |||
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Additional NET2011 F/Dest analyses
| NET2010 | 0.001/0.024 | | |
| NET2011 | | ||
| NLB2010 | 0.053***/0.267** | 0.047***/0.220** | |
| NLH2010 | 0.050***/0.238** | 0.048***/0.196** | |
| FRC2010 | 0.039***/0.249** | 0.040***/0.205** | |
| FRS2010 | 0.049***/0.251** | 0.047***/0.232** | |
| | | | |
| DKR2010 | | | |
| DKV2010 | | | |
| DKH2010 | | | |
| UK2010 |
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Pair-wise FST/Dest values comparing the NET2011 sample (in bold) to previous temporal samples at the same site, as well as samples collected from two Dutch (NLB2010 & NLH2010) and two French (FRC2010 & FRS2010) populations in the previous year (data from [42]) and to four 2010 samples from this study (DKR2010; DKV2010; DKH2010; UK2010).
Figure 1Results of the STRUCTURE analysis used to clarify relationship of the NET2011 sample (K = 3). Each column in the barplot represents an individual genotype with cluster assignment denoted by different colours. Note the clear difference in assignment between the NET2011 sample and previously sampled individuals at the same location. NET2011 clusters together with samples collected from two Dutch and two French populations sampled in 2010 (data from [42]) and is distinct from UK samples (this study).
Figure 2Mean relatedness of individuals in the temporal samples. Relatedness estimates (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated in ML-Relate taking potential null alleles into account. Population codes and sampling years are described in Table 1. Symbols are used to separate populations (same symbols are used for temporal samples within a population).
Effective population size and genetic drift in the samples
| FIA 08-10 | | | | FIA 08-09 | 0.0036 (0.0043) |
| 217.4 (107–2894) | 144.9 (68–721) | 63.3 (47–93) | FIA 09-10 | 0.0110 (0.0023) | |
| FIF 08-10 | | | | FIF 08-09 | 0.0147 (0.0066) |
| 186.2 (97–1077) | 142.6 (62–1654) | 42.7 (32–59) | FIF 09-10 | 0.0202 (0.0071) | |
| DKV 08-10 | | | | DKV 08-09 | 0.0105 (0.0105) |
| 176.8 (118–314) | 169.0 (81–715) | 52.2 (39–72) | DKV 09-10 | 0.0166 (0.0056) | |
| DKR 09-10 | | | | | |
| 213.3 (97–2989) | 80.6 (60–267) | 42.5 (31–64) | DKR 09-10 | 0.0187 (0.0116) | |
| DKH 08-10 | | | | | |
| 355.5 (134-inf) | 82.8 (45–201) | 45.5 (29–73) | DKH 08-10 | 0.0166 (0.0093) | |
| NET 09-11 | | | | NET 09-10 | 0.0077 (0.0301) |
| 142.1(103–208) | 58.0 (37–94) | 43.7 (34–57) | NET 10-11 | 0.0635 (0.0297) | |
| UK 09-10 | | | | | |
| 1117.8 (170-inf) | 660.6 (109-inf) | 89.7 (57–168) | UK 09-10 | 0.0005 (0.0041) | |
Estimates of effective population size (Ne) and their 95% confidence intervals (inf = infinite) calculated with different methods (see text for more information). Mean Fs’ (SE = standard error) is the observed allele frequency change (i.e. drift) between the temporal samples (from analysis with TempoFs).