| Literature DB >> 26026791 |
Sylvain Dubey1, Valérie Zwahlen2, Konrad Mebert3, Jean-Claude Monney4, Philippe Golay5, Thomas Ott6, Thierry Durand7, Gilles Thiery8, Laura Kaiser9, Sylvia N Geser10, Sylvain Ursenbacher11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of intraspecific color polymorphism can have multiple impacts on the ecology of a species; as a consequence, particular color morphs may be strongly selected for in a given habitat type. For example, the asp viper (Vipera aspis) shows a high level of color polymorphism. A blotched morph (cryptic) is common throughout its range (central and western Europe), while a melanistic morph is frequently found in montane populations, presumably for thermoregulatory reasons. Besides, rare atypical uniformly colored individuals are known here and there. Nevertheless, we found in a restricted treeless area of the French Alps, a population containing a high proportion (>50%) of such specimens. The aim of the study is to bring insight into the presence and function of this color morph by (i) studying the genetic structure of these populations using nine microsatellite markers, and testing for (ii) a potential local diversifying selection and (iii) differences in dispersal capacity between blotched and non-blotched vipers.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26026791 PMCID: PMC4449969 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-015-0367-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Figure 1Examples of the color polymorphism present in two male asp vipers (Vipera aspis; blotched: left, non-blotched: right).
Mean F , expected and observed heterozygosities (H and H , and number of alleles per locus
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vb-D17 | 0.05 | 0.91 | 0.87 | 32 |
| Va-P70 | −0.07 | 0.24 | 0.27 | 8 |
| Va-P91 | 0.02 | 0.55 | 0.54 | 6 |
| Va-P69 | −0.18 | 0.73 | 0.86 | 8 |
| Va-P35 | 0.06 | 0.70 | 0.66 | 7 |
| Va-P81 | 0.13 | 0.70 | 0.61 | 4 |
| Va-P25 | 0.04 | 0.58 | 0.56 | 7 |
| Va-P20 | −0.04 | 0.56 | 0.57 | 7 |
| Vb-A8 | 0.00 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 3 |
Number of analysed individuals, proportion of non-blotched individuals (%), mean F , expected and observed heterozygosity (H and H , mean F , and allele richness (AR) within populations and overall
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pop1 | 34 | 55.9 | −0.02 | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.05 | 3.60 |
| Pop2 | 18 | 55.6 | −0.068 | 0.57 | 0.61 | 0.05 | 3.44 |
| Pop3 | 12 | 58.3 | 0.042 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.05 | 3.40 |
| Pop4 | 14 | 64.3 | −0.074 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.07 | 3.18 |
| Pop5 | 15 | 26.7 | −0.059 | 0.61 | 0.64 | 0.05 | 3.70 |
| Pop6 | 6 | 0 | −0.006 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.07 | 4.33 |
| Pop7 | 8 | 0 | 0.012 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.07 | 4.12 |
| Pop8 | 18 | 27.8 | 0.072 | 0.63 | 0.59 | 0.06 | 3.66 |
| Pop9 | 18 | 5.6 | 0.038 | 0.67 | 0.64 | 0.06 | 4.00 |
| Pop10 | 12 | 8.3 | −0.009 | 0.60 | 0.61 | 0.07 | 3.86 |
| Pop11 | 8 | 0 | 0.146 | 0.63 | 0.53 | 0.05 | 3.78 |
| Pop12 | 7 | 14.3 | −0.032 | 0.50 | 0.52 | 0.18 | 3.00 |
| Overall | 170 | 33.5 | 0.0035 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.07 | 4.04 |
F (in bold: significant values; lower triangular matrix) and geographical distance (km) between pairs of populations (upper triangular matrix)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pop1 | 2.46 | 3.59 | 6.50 | 5.36 | 7.47 | 10.08 | 5.02 | 6.40 | 6.51 | 5.95 | 9.92 | |
| Pop2 | 0.02 | 2.08 | 5.29 | 2.97 | 5.03 | 7.62 | 7.40 | 8.82 | 8.97 | 8.37 | 11.16 | |
| Pop3 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 3.22 | 3.77 | 5.31 | 7.38 | 8.52 | 9.81 | 9.67 | 8.83 | 9.95 | |
| Pop4 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 6.09 | 6.75 | 7.77 | 11.05 | 12.15 | 11.71 | 10.66 | 9.14 | |
| Pop5 |
|
| 0.03 |
| 2.15 | 4.90 | 10.07 | 11.55 | 11.83 | 11.31 | 13.70 | |
| Pop6 |
|
|
|
| 0.02 | 2.81 | 12.22 | 13.69 | 13.96 | 13.40 | 15.18 | |
| Pop7 |
|
|
|
| 0.01 | 0.02 | 14.94 | 16.40 | 16.59 | 15.95 | 16.79 | |
| Pop8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.51 | 2.38 | 2.91 | 10.59 | |
| Pop9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.40 | 2.50 | 10.54 | |
| Pop10 |
|
|
|
| 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.06 |
| 0.05 | 1.28 | 9.26 | |
| Pop11 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 8.04 | |
| Pop12 |
|
|
|
|
| 0.21 | 0.24 |
|
|
|
|
Figure 2Summary plot of the individual assignment results of the Structure analyses (K = 2; Hubisz et al. [57]).
Figure 3Mean Assignment Index correction (mAIc) values for blotched and non-blotched snakes considering all (A) or strictly polymorphic populations (B).
Figure 4Distribution and proportion of non-blotched individuals of sampled populations. In red and green, populations mainly assigned to the first and second genetic cluster identified by the Structure analyses (Hubisz et al. [57]).