| Literature DB >> 25372458 |
Jun Lü1, Shao-ji Hu1, Xue-yu Ma2, Jin-min Chen3, Qing-qing Li4, Hui Ye1.
Abstract
The Yunnan shoot borer, Tomicus yunnanensis, is a recently-discovered, aggressive pest of the Yunnan pine stands in southwestern China. Despite many bionomics studies and massive controlling efforts, research on its population genetics is extremely limited. The present study, aimed at investigating the origin and dispersal of this important forestry pest, analyzed the population genetic structure and demographic history using a mitochondrial cox1 gene fragment. Our results showed that T. yunnanensis most likely originated from the Central-Yunnan Altiplano, and the divergence time analysis placed the origin approximately 0.72 million-years ago. Host separation and specialization might have caused the speciation of T. yunnanensis. Genetic structure analyses identified two population groups, with six populations near the origin area forming one group and the remaining six populations from western and eastern Yunnan and southwestern Sichuan comprising the other. Divergence time analysis placed the split of the two groups at approximately 0.60 million-years ago, and haplotype phylogenetic tree, network, as well as migration rate suggested that populations of the latter group were established via a small number of individuals from the former one. Migration analysis also showed a certain degree of recent expansion from southwestern Sichuan to eastern Yunnan. Our findings implied that T. yunnanensis underwent both historical expansion and recent dispersal. The historical expansion may relate to the oscillation of regional climate due to glacial and interglacial periods in the Pleistocene, while human-mediated transportation of pine-wood material might have assisted the relocation and establishment of this pest in novel habitats.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25372458 PMCID: PMC4221261 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111940
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Summary information of 12 sampling sites, arranged by ascending order of locality code.
| Code | Locality | Coordinate | Alt./m | Time | Size |
| AN | Yunnan: Anning | 24.97, 102.33 | 1,880 | Jan. 2011 | 21 |
| HL | Sichuan: Huili | 26.30, 102.05 | 2,164 | Aug. 2011 | 19 |
| LL | Yunnan: Luliang | 25.15, 103.66 | 1,883 | Jan. 2011 | 21 |
| MZ | Yunnan: Mengzi | 23.46, 103.44 | 1,891 | Jul. 2011 | 22 |
| NH | Yunnan: Nanhua | 25.09, 101.14 | 1,899 | Mar. 2011 | 13 |
| NL | Yunnan: Ninglang | 27.38, 100.86 | 2,490 | Aug. 2007 | 20 |
| SL | Yunnan: Shilin | 24.74, 103.41 | 1,903 | Jan. 2011 | 20 |
| XC | Sichuan: Xichang | 27.49, 102.04 | 1,700 | Aug. 2011 | 20 |
| XY | Yunnan: Xiangyun | 25.37, 100.61 | 2,257 | Mar. 2011 | 23 |
| YS | Yunnan: Yanshan | 23.56, 104.31 | 1,566 | Jul. 2011 | 10 |
| YX | Yunnan: Yuxi | 24.48, 102.59 | 1,703 | Mar. 2011 | 20 |
| ZY | Yunnan: Zhanyi | 25.56, 104.01 | 2,132 | Mar. 2011 | 22 |
Figure 1Haplotype distribution of the 12 populations of T. yunnanensis, (A) distribution of all haplotypes with private haplotypes marked in white and (B) distribution of only shared haplotypes and the tentative boundary (dash line) between the two population groups defined by SAMOVA, the circle sizes corresponding to the sample size of each population.
Haplotype distribution and the number of Wolbachia infected samples (N) in the 12 populations of T. yunnanensis, the private haplotypes were underlined.
| Population | Haplotypes |
|
| Anning | H1, H2, H3, H4, | 3 |
| Huili | H2, H7, | 0 |
| Luliang | H2, H3, H6, H7, H11, H12, | 1 |
| Mengzi | H3, H6, | 2 |
| Nanhua | H18, | 0 |
| Ninglang | H2, H4, | 0 |
| Shilin | H2, H3, H6, H7, H11, | 1 |
| Xichang | H7, H9, H18, H27, | 0 |
| Xiangyun | H2, H7, H18, H27, H33, H36, | 1 |
| Yanshan | H6, | 0 |
| Yuxi | H1, H2, H3, H4, H12, H18, H27, | 0 |
| Zhanyi | H2, H3, H7, H12, H16, | 0 |
The haplotype diversity (H), nucleotide diversity (π), number of haplotypes (h), ratio of shared haplotypes (R shr), and ratio of private haplotypes (R prv) of the 12 populations of T. yunnanensis and the two population groups defined by SAMOVA and the global dataset.
| Population |
|
|
|
|
|
| Anning | 0.805±0.059 | 0.00585±0.00338 | 6 | 0.83 | 0.17 |
| Huili | 0.684±0.092 | 0.00454±0.00273 | 5 | 0.60 | 0.40 |
| Luliang | 0.871±0.057 | 0.00704±0.00397 | 10 | 0.70 | 0.30 |
| Mengzi | 0.528±0.118 | 0.00334±0.00210 | 5 | 0.60 | 0.40 |
| Nanhua | 0.949±0.042 | 0.00578±0.00345 | 9 | 0.22 | 0.78 |
| Ninglang | 0.942±0.034 | 0.00397±0.00244 | 13 | 0.31 | 0.69 |
| Shilin | 0.642±0.118 | 0.00506±0.00299 | 7 | 0.71 | 0.29 |
| Xichang | 0.753±0.094 | 0.00443±0.00267 | 9 | 0.44 | 0.56 |
| Xiangyun | 0.949±0.026 | 0.00497±0.00292 | 14 | 0.43 | 0.57 |
| Yanshan | 0.378±0.181 | 0.00139±0.00115 | 3 | 0.33 | 0.67 |
| Yuxi | 0.847±0.051 | 0.00605±0.00349 | 8 | 0.88 | 0.13 |
| Zhanyi | 0.537±0.123 | 0.00485±0.00287 | 6 | 0.83 | 0.17 |
| Group 1 | 0.830±0.027 | 0.00586±0.00325 | 22 | 0.41 | 0.59 |
| Group 2 | 0.921±0.015 | 0.00596±0.00329 | 43 | 0.16 | 0.84 |
| Global | 0.922±0.009 | 0.00726±0.00390 | 57 | 0.25 | 0.75 |
Results of the AMOVA analysis.
| Data division | Source of variation |
| Variance component | % of variation |
|
|
| Global | Among groups | 1 | 1.241 Va | 32.16 |
| 0.001 |
| Among populations within groups | 10 | 0.515 Vb | 13.35 |
| 0.000 | |
| Within populations | 219 | 2.103 Vc | 54.49 |
| 0.000 | |
| Group 1 | Among populations within groups | 5 | 0.374 Va | 14.34 |
| 0.000 |
| Within populations | 108 | 2.233 Vb | 85.66 | — | — | |
| Group 2 | Among populations within groups | 5 | 0.653 Va | 24.81 |
| 0.000 |
| Within populations | 111 | 1.978 Vb | 75.19 | — | — |
Figure 2The multidimensional scaling (MDS) plot based on K2P distances of the 12 populations of T. yunnanensis, with tentative boundary (dash line) between two population groups.
Figure 3Population genetic structures of T. yunnanensis: (A) the Bayesian Inference (BI) tree of 57 haplotypes and outgroups (black terminal) with bootstrap values over 50 (see Fig. S2 for complete haplotype numbers and interior branch bootstrap values) and (B) the median-joining haplotype network denoted with shared haplotypes, the coloration of all three charts were in accordance with the group assignment of both of the SAMOVA analyses, red: Group 1, green: Group 2, blue: admixed.
Statistics of neutrality test (Tajima's D and Fu's F) and mismatch distribution (SSD and raggedness index), with P values in parentheses.
| Population | Tajima's | Fu's | SSD | Raggedness Index |
| Anning | 1.78 (0.969) | 2.17 (0.835) | 0.048 (0.121) | 0.138 (0.069) |
| Huili | 2.10 (0.990) | 2.09 (0.868) | 0.083 (0.094) | 0.166 (0.144) |
| Luliang | 0.51 (0.715) | −0.65 (0.387) | 0.018 (0.426) | 0.037 (0.487) |
| Mengzi | −0.71 (0.276) | 1.39 (0.797) | 0.347 (0.000) | 0.254 (0.975) |
| Nanhua | −0.03 (0.529) | −2.36 (0.101) | 0.036 (0.112) | 0.116 (0.064) |
| Ninglang | −0.56 (0.313) | −7.08 (0.001) | 0.001 (0.906) | 0.028 (0.762) |
| Shilin | −0.03 (0.517) | 0.60 (0.650) | 0.070 (0.327) | 0.132 (0.370) |
| Xichang | −0.71 (0.273) | −1.54 (0.217) | 0.051 (0.330) | 0.131 (0.275) |
| Xiangyun | −0.21 (0.467) | −6.00 (0.004) | 0.003 (0.727) | 0.018 (0.863) |
| Yanshan | −1.74 (0.019) | 0.48 (0.559) | 0.039 (0.276) | 0.285 (0.570) |
| Yuxi | 0.11 (0.596) | 0.31 (0.574) | 0.046 (0.133) | 0.094 (0.130) |
| Zhanyi | −0.08 (0.524) | 1.61 (0.803) | 0.140 (0.081) | 0.322 (0.209) |
| Group 1 | −0.41 (0.404) | −4.02 (0.113) | 0.020 (0.225) | 0.051 (0.127) |
| Group 2 | −0.93 (0.184) | −25.70 (0.000) | 0.005 (0.570) | 0.016 (0.634) |
| Global | −0.68 (0.259) | −25.05 (0.000) | 0.004 (0.536) | 0.015 (0.438) |
Figure 4The mismatch distribution of the 12 populations of T. yunnanensis, the populations in Group 1, the populations in Group 2, and the global dataset.
The blue lines indicated observed mismatch and the red lines indicated the simulation.
Effective population size (θ) and migration rate (M) between the two population groups of T. yunnanensis based on Bayesian inference and maximum likelihood methods.
| Parameter | Bayesian Inference | Maximum Likelihood | |||||
| 2.5% | Mode | 97.5% | Mean | 2.5% | MLE | 97.5% | |
|
| 0.003 | 0.006 | 0.011 | 0.007 | 0.004 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
|
| 0.014 | 0.023 | 0.043 | 0.027 | 0.017 | 0.026 | 0.034 |
|
| 241.3 | 644.3 | 990.0 | 555.6 | 269.5 | 814.4 | 1101.8 |
|
| 0.0 | 279.0 | 841.3 | 415.8 | 19.0 | 316.3 | 706.4 |
Figure 5Plots of the isolation-by-distance (IBD) analysis of the 12 population of T. yunnanensis, (A) regression between Fst and geographic distance (r = 0.5403, P<0.001, with 10,000 iterations), and (B) regression between Fst and logarithm transformed geographic distance (r = 0.5283, P<0.001, with 10,000 iterations).