| Literature DB >> 26282405 |
Yun Sun Lee1, Nickolay Markov2, Inna Voloshina3, Alexander Argunov4, Damdingiin Bayarlkhagva5, Jang Geun Oh6, Yong-Su Park7, Mi-Sook Min8, Hang Lee9, Kyung Seok Kim10,11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The roe deer, Capreolus sp., is one of the most widespread meso-mammals of Palearctic distribution, and includes two species, the European roe deer, C. capreolus inhabiting mainly Europe, and the Siberian roe deer, C. pygargus, distributed throughout continental Asia. Although there are a number of genetic studies concerning European roe deer, the Siberian roe deer has been studied less, and none of these studies use microsatellite markers. Natural processes have led to genetic structuring in wild populations. To understand how these factors have affected genetic structure and connectivity of Siberian roe deer, we investigated variability at 12 microsatellite loci for Siberian roe deer from ten localities in Asia.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26282405 PMCID: PMC4539716 DOI: 10.1186/s12863-015-0244-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genet ISSN: 1471-2156 Impact factor: 2.797
Fig. 1Sampling location and subspecies range of Siberian roe deer, C. pygargus. Pie charts of membership proportions of each sampled population inferred by structure analysis (K = 3). 1: Main Mountain ranges [2], 2: C.p.pygargus, 3: C.p.tianschanicus. SKJ: South Korea, Jeju (N = 33), SKM: South Korea Mainland (N = 31), RPR: Russia, Primorsky Krai (N = 30), RYA: Russia, Yakutia (N = 18), RSO: Russia, Sokhondinsky (N = 9), MGN: Mongolia, Northern part (N = 12), RAL: Russia, Altay (N = 5), RNO: Russia, Novosibirsk (N = 7), RUR: Russia, Ural (N = 23), RKU: Russia, Kurgan (N = 21). Base image is created by Uwe Dedering and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license (CC BY-SA). Fig. 1 is reproduced in this study under the license. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asia_laea_relief_location_map.jpg
Genetic characteristics of Siberian roe deer in each region/location across 12 microsatellite loci
| Region | N | MNA |
|
|
|
| HWE | Number of loci with null allele | NPA (Freq. rang) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| East |
| 33 | 3.75 | 2.18 | 0.386 | 0.329 | 0.150* | 0.000 (3) | 3 (RT20, CSSM41, IDVGA29) | 4 (0.016-0.106) |
|
|
| 31 | 6.58 | 3.48 | 0.596 | 0.451 | 0.247* | 0.000 (7) | 5 (RT1, RT30, Roe09, MB25, IDVGA8) | 3 (0.016-0.065) |
|
| 30 | 7.42 | 3.67 | 0.623 | 0.490 | 0.217* | 0.000 (7) | 5 (RT1, RT20, MB25, CSSM41, IDVGA8) | 4 (0.017-0.050) | |
|
| 21 | 7.00 | 5.67 | 0.598 | 0.500 | 0.169* | 0.000 (4) | 4 (RT1, MB25, BM757, IDVGA8) | 7 (0.024-0.025) | |
|
| 9 | 5.00 | 3.36 | 0.550 | 0.438 | 0.215* | 0.000 (2) | 2 (RT1, IDVGA8) | 4 (0.056) | |
|
| 12 | 5.67 | 3.66 | 0.628 | 0.544 | 0.138 NS | 0.000 (4) | 2 (MB25, IDVGA8) | 3 (0.042) | |
|
| 18 | 5.33 | 3.26 | 0.553 | 0.459 | 0.175* | 0.000 (4) | 4 (RT20, Roe09, BM757, IDVGA8) | 5 (0.031-0.094) | |
|
| 12 | 3.92 | 3.87 | 0.560 | 0.503 | 0.107 NS | 0.000 (2) | 1 (IDVGA8) | 0 | |
|
| 5 | 2.92 | 2.81 | 0.541 | 0.471 | 0.144 NS | 0.003 (4) | - | - | |
|
| 7 | 3.33 | 2.91 | 0.539 | 0.524 | 0.031 NS | 0.988 (0) | - | - | |
|
| 44 | 4.92 | 3.73 | 0.534 | 0.495 | 0.075 NS | 0.000 (7) | 3 (Roe09, CSSM41, IDVGA8) | 3 (0.011-0.012) | |
|
| 21 | 3.83 | 2.68 | 0.530 | 0.512 | 0.034 NS | 0.000 (6) | 2 (Roe09, IDVGA8) | 1 (0.025) | |
|
| 23 | 4.42 | 2.82 | 0.522 | 0.478 | 0.085 NS | 0.000 (5) | 2 (Roe09, CSSM41) | 2 (0.022-0.024) | |
| West |
| 27 | 5.56 | 3.68 | 0.550 | 0.461 | 0.163 | 0.000 (5) | - | - |
Number of individual per population (N), Allelic diversity (MNA, mean no. of alleles per locus), allelic richness (Ar), expected heterozygosity (H E) at Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, observed heterozygosity (H O), inbreeding coefficient (F IS), and the probability (P) of being in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, null alleles, number of private alleles (NPA)
a For F IS within samples based on 2400 randomizations using the FSTAT program. NS: Not significant after adjusted nominal level (5 %) = 0.004
b Probability values using the Fisher’s method implemented in the GENEPOP program. Number in parentheses indicates the no. of loci showing a significant departure (P <0.05) from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium
Not determined due to small sample size
Pairwise F ST and gene flow (N e m in parentheses) estimates between geographic populations
| SKJ | SKM | RPR | RYA | RSO | MGN | RAL | RNO | RUL | RKU | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| — | 0.277 (0.7) | 0.279 (0.7) | 0.366 (0.4) | 0.355 (0.5) | 0.295 (0.6) | 0.376 (0.4) | 0.372 (0.4) | 0.393 (0.4) | 0.387 (0.4) |
|
| 0.286*(0.6) | — | 0.011 (23.1) | 0.072 (3.3) | 0.030 (8.2) | 0.029 (8.3) | 0.092 (2.5) | 0.095 (2.4) | 0.138 (1.6) | 0.387 (2.0) |
|
| 0.290*(0.6) | 0.009NS(28.8) | — | 0.046 (5.1) | 0.007 (36.5) | 0.011 (22.9) | 0.065 (3.6) | 0.081 (2.8) | 0.115 (1.9) | 0.095 (2.4) |
|
| 0.373*(0.4) | 0.068*(3.4) | 0.044*(5.4) | — | 0.038 (6.4) | 0.056 (4.2) | 0.054 (4.4) | 0.045 (5.4) | 0.054 (4.4) | 0.055 (4.3) |
|
| 0.366*(0.4) | 0.020NS(12.1) | −0.005NS(inf) | 0.041NS(5.8) | — | 0.006 (42.4) | 0.070 (3.3) | 0.091 (2.5) | 0.134 (1.6) | 0.099 (2.3) |
|
| 0.299*(0.6) | 0.025*(10.0) | 0.002 NS(103) | 0.051NS(4.6) | 0.000NS(inf) | — | 0.087 (2.6) | 0.076 (3.0) | 0.127 (1.7) | 0.106 (2.1) |
|
| 0.386*(0.4) | 0.076NS(3.0) | 0.055 NS(4.3) | 0.045NS(5.3) | 0.058NS(4.1) | 0.076NS(3.0) | — | 0.065 (3.6) | 0.107 (2.1) | 0.116 (1.9) |
|
| 0.380*(0.4) | 0.088*(2.6) | 0.070*(3.3) | 0.039NS(6.2) | 0.091NS(2.5) | 0.070*(3.3) | 0.057NS(4.2) | — | 0.042 (5.8) | 0.048 (5.0) |
|
| 0.412*(0.4) | 0.143*(1.5) | 0.115*(1.9) | 0.050*(4.8) | 0.141*(1.5) | 0.128*(1.7) | 0.101NS(2.2) | 0.035NS(7.0) | — | 0.033 (7.4) |
|
| 0.410*(0.4) | 0.124*(1.8) | 0.101*(2.2) | 0.058*(4.1) | 0.111*(2.0) | 0.110*(2.0) | 0.123NS(1.8) | 0.045NS(5.3) | 0.032NS(7.6) | — |
F ST estimates (Weir & Cockerham 1984) are below the diagonal and F ST using the ENA correction are above the diagonal
Probability of being different than zero after corrections for multiple comparisons (*P < 0.001, NS: not significant)
Fig. 2Relationship tree of Siberian roe deer from ten geographic locations. UPGMA tree was constructed based on Nei’s D genetic distance
Fig. 3Scatter diagram of factor scores from a principal coordinate analysis of geographic locations. a: Analysis for all populations, b: Analysis after excluding roe deer from Jeju Island. The percentage of total variation attributed to each axis is indicated
Fig. 4Bar plots for population structure estimates of Siberian roe deer. Population symbol on the x-axis indicates the putative population of sample origin. See Fig. 1 for location abbreviation. Each color denotes a cluster from STRUCTURE analysis
Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) of the Siberian roe deer populations based on various geographic/genetic groupings (four geographic regions, three genetic clusters, and two geographic regions)
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | 203.555 | 67.852 | 0.615 | 15 |
| 0.148 | 0.001 |
|
| 6 | 50.962 | 8.494 | 0.142 | 3 |
| 0.040 | 0.001 |
|
| 179 | 733.874 | 4.100 | 0.710 | 17 |
| 0.182 | 0.001 |
|
| 189 | 506.500 | 2.680 | 2.680 | 65 |
| 0.209 | 0.001 |
|
| 377 | 1494.892 | 4.147 | 100 |
| 0.354 | 0.001 | |
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | 192.296 | 96.148 | 0.853 | 20 |
| 0.200 | 0.001 |
|
| 5 | 33.272 | 6.654 | 0.077 | 2 |
| 0.022 | 0.001 |
|
| 158 | 627.752 | 3.973 | 0.640 | 15 |
| 0.218 | 0.001 |
|
| 166 | 447.000 | 2.693 | 2.693 | 63 |
| 0.192 | 0.001 |
|
| 331 | 1300.319 | 4.263 | 100 |
| 0.368 | 0.001 | |
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | 53.813 | 53.813 | 0.370 | 9 |
| 0.093 | 0.001 |
|
| 5 | 33.272 | 6.654 | 0.071 | 2 |
| 0.020 | 0.001 |
|
| 126 | 524.919 | 4.166 | 0.645 | 16 |
| 0.111 | 0.001 |
|
| 133 | 382.500 | 2.876 | 2.876 | 73 |
| 0.183 | 0.001 |
|
| 265 | 994.504 | 3.962 | 100 |
| 0.274 | 0.001 | |
A: Four regions: Jeju Island (SKJ), East region (SKM, RPR), Central region (RYA, RSO, MGN) and West region (RAL, RNO, RUL, RKU). B: Three genetic clusters with two admixed populations (RYA and RAL) excluded: Jeju Island (SKJ), Eastern region (SKM, RPR, RSO, MGN) and Western region (RNO, RUL, RKU). C: Two geographic regions with SKJ and two admixed populations (RYA and RAL) excluded: Eastern region (SKM, RPR, RSO, MGN) and Western region (RNO, RUL, RKU)
df: degrees of freedom; SS: sum of squares; MS: mean squares; Est. Var.: estimated variance within and among populations
Fig. 5Areas of limited gene flow as estimated by BARRIER using Monmorier algorithm [70]. The genetic barriers are shown in bold lines, which are proportional to the intensity of the barriers
Fig. 6Regression of genetic distance on geographic distance between pairs of geographic Siberian roe deer populations. a: Analysis for all populations, b: Analysis after excluding roe deer from Jeju Island. Each diagram and color present pairs of population based on the structure result (two clusters). Mantel’s test for correlations was carried out with 999 permutations. Grey circle: within East cluster (SKM, RPR, MGN and RSO), Grey diamond: within West cluster (RNO, RUL and RKU), Black circle: between mixed populations (RAL and RYA) and East cluster, Black diamond: between mixed populations (RAL and RYA) and West cluster, Black triangle: within mixed populations (RAL and RYA), Asterisk: Between East and West cluster (opposite side of the mountains)
Results of various tests to detect a recent population bottleneck event within geographic populations
| Population | Wilcoxon sign-rank testsa | Mode shift |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| TPM | |||
|
| 0.005 | None | 0.765 (0.040) |
|
| 0.266 | None | 0.885 (0.009) |
|
| 0.519 | None | 0.929 (0.018) |
|
| 0.380 | None | 0.777 (0.058) |
|
| 0.733 | None | 0.831 (0.037) |
|
| 0.831 | None | 0.793 (0.052) |
|
| 0.850 | None | 0.753 (0.048) |
|
| 0.320 | None | 0.810 (0.057) |
|
| 0.365 | Shifted mode | 0.769 (0.103) |
|
| 0.206 | Shifted mode | 0.840 (0.055) |
|
| 0.969 | None | 0.820 (0.058) |
|
| 0.677 | None | 0.787 (0.073) |
|
| 0.151 | None | 0.826 (0.069) |
aOne-tail probability for observed heterozygosity excess relative to the expected equilibrium heterozygosity (H eq), which is computed from the observed no. of alleles under drift-mutation equilibrium. TPM, two-phase model
b M value and its variance (in parentheses) of Garza and Williamson. M = the mean ratio of the no. of alleles to the range of allele size