| Literature DB >> 25608511 |
Matthew W Mitchell1, Sabrina Locatelli, Paul R Sesink Clee, Henri A Thomassen, Mary Katherine Gonder.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mechanisms that underlie the diversification of tropical animals remain poorly understood, but new approaches that combine geo-spatial modeling with spatially explicit genetic data are providing fresh insights on this topic. Data about the diversification of tropical mammals remain particularly sparse, and vanishingly few opportunities exist to study endangered large mammals that increasingly exist only in isolated pockets. The chimpanzees of Cameroon represent a unique opportunity to examine the mechanisms that promote genetic differentiation in tropical mammals because the region is home to two chimpanzee subspecies: Pan troglodytes ellioti and P. t. trogolodytes. Their ranges converge in central Cameroon, which is a geographically, climatically and environmentally complex region that presents an unparalleled opportunity to examine the roles of rivers and/or environmental variation in influencing the evolution of chimpanzee populations.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25608511 PMCID: PMC4314796 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-014-0274-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Figure 1Overview of the study area. Important biogeographic features of the lanscape are shown along with the approximate distributions of P.t. ellioti (purple) and P. t. troglodytes (orange).
Models to explain the partitioning of chimpanzee genetic variability across the study region, and associated predictions
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| Highest on opposite banks of Sanaga and Mbam Rivers | Significant correlations between the distribution of allelic diversity and variation in one or more environmental variables. |
|
| Broad spectrum of time intervals | Broad spectrum of time intervals |
|
| At the Sanaga, with highest resistance at the Sanaga Delta and decreasing towards headwaters | At or near ecotone boundaries, but not at adjacent Guinean-Congolian rainforest boundary in western Cameroon |
|
| Demographic stability, other scenarios possible | Demographic stability, other scenarios possible |
Figure 2Sample locations of chimpanzees included in the study. Locations spanned Cameroon and eastern Nigeria. Approximate distributions of P. t. ellioti (purple) and P. t. troglodytes (orange) ranges are shown. White circles denote both mtDNA and microsatellite data were available at the location. Black circles denote only mtDNA data was available.
Region wide gene-environment relations
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Autosomal Microsatellites ( | 4 | 10 | 11 | 13 |
| mtDNA – Pairwise Differences | 6 | 22 | - | 56 |
| mtDNA – Tamura and Nei | 11 | 32 | - | 72 |
aModel includes only geographic distance between sample locations as a predictor variable.
bModel includes environmental data layers as well as resistance matrices, which incorporate river barriers and habitat suitability, as predictor variables. For all models, resistance matrices were not included, as they had no significant contribution.
cEntries are blank because geographic distance was not a significant contributor to the final model.
Figure 3Spatial predictions of, and contributing variables to, microsatellite differentiation using GDM. Spatial predictions of genetic differentiation based on microsatellite diversity (F ) using environmental variables and distance (A and C) and environmental variables, distance and rivers (B and D). Colors between maps are not comparable. Within maps, areas with similar colors along color gradients are predicted to be more similar genetically. Panels C and D represent the relative importance of the selected variables that significantly contribute to the models. Each panel explains the map directly above it.
Figure 4Spatial predictions of, and contributing variables to, mtDNA differentiation using GDM. Spatial predictions of genetic differentiation based on mtDNA diversity (pairwise differences) using environmental variables and distance (A and C) and environmental variables, distance and rivers (B and D). Colors between maps are not comparable. Within maps, areas with similar colors along color gradients are predicted to be more similar genetically. Panels C and D represent the relative importance of the selected variables that significantly contribute to the models. Each panel explains the map directly above it.
Percent of genetic variation within chimpanzee populations explained by GDM
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6 | 20 | - |
|
| 12 | 42 | 48 |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2 | 91 | - |
|
| 1 | 37 | - |
|
| 12 | 42 | 48 |
aIn order to examine genetic diversity within populations, only microsatellite data (F ) was used.
bSub-groupings of chimpanzee populations correspond to distinct genetic populations as determined by Mitchell et al. [23]. The P. t. troglodytes group was included in both the two- and three-population model, as only the P. t. ellioti group is sub-divided in the three-population model.
cModel includes only geographic distance between sample locations as a predictor variable.
dModel only includes environmental data layers as predictor variables.
eEntries are blank because geographic distance was not a significant contributor to the final model.
fA least cost path layer for the Mbam River was included when running the P. t. ellioti two-population model, but as it was not a significant contributor, was not included in this table.
Figure 5Intra-population spatial predictions of, and contributing variables to, microsatellite differentiation using GDM for two populations. Spatial predictions of genetic differentiation based on microsatellite diversity (F ) using environmental variables, distance, and river layers for P. t. ellioti (A and C) and P. t. troglodytes (B and D). Colors between maps are not comparable. Within maps, areas with similar colors along color gradients are predicted to be more similar genetically. Panels C and D represent the relative importance of the selected variables that significantly contribute to the models. Each panel explains the map directly above it.
Figure 6Intra-population spatial predictions of, and contributing variables to, microsatellite differentiation using GDM for three populations. Spatial predictions of genetic differentiation based on microsatellite diversity (F ) using environmental variables and distance for P. t. ellioti (Rainforest) (A and D), P. t. ellioti (Ecotone) (B and E) and P. t. troglodytes (C and F). Colors between maps are not comparable. Within maps, areas with similar colors along color gradients are predicted to be more similar genetically. Panels D-F represent the relative importance of the selected variables that significantly contribute to the models. Each panel explains the map directly above it.