| Literature DB >> 26026663 |
Gerardo I Zardi1, Katy R Nicastro2, Christopher D McQuaid3, Rita Castilho4, Joana Costa5,6, Ester A Serrão7, Gareth A Pearson8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraspecific variability is seen as a central component of biodiversity. We investigated genetic differentiation, contemporary patterns of demographic connectivity and intraspecific variation of adaptive behavioural traits in two lineages of an intertidal mussel (Perna perna) across a tropical/subtropical biogeographic transition.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26026663 PMCID: PMC4449970 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-015-0366-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Figure 1Study area and genetic results. A) Map of the study area and sampling sites. Black dots: localities either mentioned in the text or used for ecologic data; blue dots: localities used for genetic data abbreviated as in Table 1. Continuous, black line: distribution of the western lineage (according to [18]); dashed, black line: distribution of the eastern lineage (according to [18]). The three biogeographic regions of southern Africa (according to [77]) are delimited by grey dotted lines. B) Results of the Bayesian approach using the Discriminant Analysis of Principal Components (DAPC) scatter plot of individuals with a priori-defined locations, to investigate genetic structure. Labels were placed at the centre of dispersion of each group, which are delineated by inertia ellipses. C) DAPC a posteriori genetic cluster assignment for K = 2. The size of each square is proportional to the percentage of individuals assigned to each cluster at each location. D) Stacked bar graph of assignment probabilities per individual within P. perna locations across the southern tip of South Africa. Assignment proportions for each individual were obtained from Structure, based on genotypes from seven nuclear microsatellite loci, for K = 2.
Genetic diversity of each population
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hermanus | HM | −34.41, 19.26 | 48 | 0.811 | 0.714 | 0.130* | 14.36 (±0.55) |
| Plettenberg Bay | PL | −34.00, 23.46 | 48 | 0.799 | 0.679 | 0.161* | 14.2 (±0.16) |
| Port Alfred | PA | −33.48, 27.15 | 47 | 0.802 | 0.637 | 0.216* | 14.74 (±0.29) |
| Port Edward | PE | −31.05, 30.23 | 48 | 0.796 | 0.740 | 0.084* | 15.7 (±0.45) |
| Durban | DU | −29.55, 31.22 | 48 | 0.829 | 0.718 | 0.145* | 16.3 (±0.17) |
| Ponta do Ouro | PO | −26.84, 32.89 | 30 | 0.777 | 0.759 | 0.045 | 15.6 (±0) |
Locations are depicted in the map of Figure 1A and are ordered from west to east. Decimal coordinates (latitude and longitude, respectively); N: sample sizes; HE and HO: expected and observed heterozygosity; FIS: inbreeding coefficient with significant values after correction for multiple test indicated with *(p < 0.05); Â (±SD): allelic richness (standardized for N = 30 by resampling) ± standard deviation.
Genetic differentiation between pairs of populations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HM | 0.002 |
|
|
|
| |
| (-0.018, 0.032) | (0.024, 0.113) | (0.216, 0.377) | (0.142, 0.262) | (0.205, 0.381) | ||
| PL | 0 |
|
|
|
| |
| (-0.007, 0.008) | (0.029, 0.132) | (0.237, 0.404) | (0.142, 0.271) | (0.228, 0.413) | ||
| PA |
|
|
|
|
| |
| (0.03, 0.068) | (0.04, 0.081) | (0.142, 0.281) | (0.064, 0.187) | (0.157, 0.355) | ||
| PE |
|
|
|
| 0.022 | |
| (0.06, 0.1) | (0.071, 0.108) | (0.033, 0.065) | (0.021, 0.127) | (-0.018, 0.08) | ||
| DU |
|
|
|
|
| |
| (0.057, 0.09) | (0.067, 0.098) | (0.016, 0.048) | (0.01, 0.033) | (0.01, 0.118) | ||
| PO |
|
|
| 0.009 |
| |
| (0.06,0.107) | (0.067, 0.114) | (0.048, 0.105) | (-0.007, 0.032) | (0.015, 0.053) |
Codes correspond to locations in Figure 1A and are ordered from west to east. Pairwise genetic differentiation (FST, below the diagonal, DST above the diagonal). 95% confidence intervals are shown in brackets and confidence intervals not enclosing 0 are represented in bold.
Bayes factors model comparison of migration models for
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Model 1 | W↔ C ↔ E and W ↔ E | *** | *** | *** | −763993 | −321213 | 0 |
| Model 2 | W → C → E and W → E | *00 | **0 | *** | −459610 | −16830 | 0 |
| Model 3 | W ← C ← E and W ← E | *** | 0** | 00* | −442780 | 0 | 1 |
| Model 4 | W ← C → E | **0 | 0*0 | 0** | −459610 | −16830 | 0 |
Model parameters code as follows: the first set of three signs indicate estimation of theta for West, migration from Centre to West, migration from East to West; the second set indicate migration from West to Centre, estimation of theta for Centre, migration from East to Centre; the third set indicates migration from West to East, migration from Centre to East and estimation of theta for East. An asterisk indicates that that particular parameter was estimated by the model, and a 0 indicates that no migration was allowed.
Figure 2Ecological results. A) Gaping behaviour of the eastern and western lineages, each trial is plotted separately, B) Strength of attachment (blocks pooled), each trial plotted separately, C) High and low intertidal limits of P. perna western and eastern lineages. Dots depict mild outliers (i.e. outliers outside the inner fences) and stars are extreme outliers (i.e. outliers outside the outer fences).