| Literature DB >> 26728098 |
Iresha Nilmini Harischandra1, Ranil Samantha Dassanayake2, Bambaranda Gammacharige Don Nissanka Kolitha De Silva3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The disease re-emergence threat from the major malaria vector in Sri Lanka, Anopheles culicifacies, is currently increasing. To predict malaria vector dynamics, knowledge of population genetics and gene flow is required, but this information is unavailable for Sri Lanka. This study was carried out to determine the population structure of An. culicifacies E in Sri Lanka.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26728098 PMCID: PMC4700606 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-015-1286-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Map of Sri Lanka showing climatic zones and sample collection sites
Genetic diversity at microsatellite loci of sibling species E at six sampling sites
| Locus | Locations | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anu | Mon | Tha | Kan | Kat | Nik | Pooled population | ||
| N | 29 | 33 | 32 | 26 | 31 | 42 | 193 | |
| AcA59 | A | 8 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 14 |
|
| 7.896 | 10.686 | 10.432 | 10.000 | 8.829 | 7.901 | 9.830 | |
|
| 0.232* | 0.246* | 0.085* | 0.303* | −0.040* | 0.100* | 0.177* | |
|
| 0.1204 | 0.1311 | 0.0356 | 0.1662 | −0.0273 | 0.0458 | 0.1204 | |
|
| 0.75983 | 0.88112 | 0.88641 | 0.82278 | 0.83818 | 0.76592 | 0.85555 | |
|
| 0.58621 | 0.66667 | 0.81250 | 0.57692 | 0.87097 | 0.69048 | 0.70466 | |
| AcAVIB213 | A | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 7 | 12 |
|
| 6.688 | 7.695 | 7.582 | 9.000 | 4.835 | 6.282 | 7.785 | |
|
| 0.059* | 0.202 | 0.072 | 0.332 | 0.048 | −0.026 | 0.136* | |
|
| 0.0213 | 0.1034 | 0.029 | 0.1865 | 0.0159 | −0.0187 | 0.0213 | |
|
| 0.62250 | 0.68159 | 0.57192 | 0.74359 | 0.47382 | 0.58032 | 0.62312 | |
|
| 0.58621 | 0.54545 | 0.53125 | 0.50000 | 0.45161 | 0.59524 | 0.53886 | |
| AcAIIB5 | A | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 6 |
|
| 3.999 | 3.958 | 5.000 | 5.000 | 2.000 | 4.999 | 4.963 | |
|
| −0.387* | 0.660* | 0.326* | 0.201* | −0.176 | 0.387* | 0.319* | |
|
| −0.1672 | 0.4824 | 0.1847 | 0.1001 | −0.0877 | 0.2318 | −0.1672 | |
|
| 0.65094 | 0.61678 | 0.69196 | 0.76697 | 0.27499 | 0.77281 | 0.71499 | |
|
| 0.89655 | 0.21212 | 0.46875 | 0.61538 | 0.32258 | 0.47619 | 0.48705 | |
| AcAVb93 | A | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 9 |
|
| 4.887 | 4.998 | 5.962 | 7.000 | 3.839 | 5.853 | 6.522 | |
|
| 0.345* | −0.285 | 0.120* | 0.096* | −0.426 | −0.008* | 0.047* | |
|
| 0.1972 | −0.1302 | 0.0548 | 0.04 | −0.1801 | −0.0101 | 0.1972 | |
|
| 0.62795 | 0.56830 | 0.67312 | 0.76471 | 0.56954 | 0.73207 | 0.70161 | |
|
| 0.41379 | 0.72727 | 0.59375 | 0.69231 | 0.80645 | 0.73810 | 0.66839 | |
| AcA36 | A | 6 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 8 |
|
| 5.990 | 4.000 | 4.807 | 5.000 | 2.000 | 5.217 | 5.664 | |
|
| 0.077 | 0.149 | −0.369 | 0.086 | −0.429 | −0.071 | −0.038 | |
|
| 0.0306 | 0.0718 | −0.1606 | 0.0342 | −0.181 | −0.0398 | 0.0306 | |
|
| 0.67151 | 0.67506 | 0.64286 | 0.67195 | 0.43205 | 0.46730 | 0.60402 | |
|
| 0.62069 | 0.57576 | 0.87500 | 0.61538 | 0.61290 | 0.50000 | 0.62694 | |
| All Loci | A | 6 | 6.4 | 7 | 7.2 | 4.4 | 6.6 | 9.8 |
|
| 5.892 | 6.267 | 6.756 | 7.2 | 4.299 | 6.24 | 6.953 | |
|
| 0.070 | 0.206 | 0.054 | 0.207 | −0.188 | 0.097 | 0.135 | |
|
| 0.0345 | 0.1002 | 0.0444 | 0.0825 | 0.0666 | 0.0233 | 0.0345 | |
|
| 0.66655 | 0.68457 | 0.69325 | 0.75400 | 0.51772 | 0.66368 | 0.69986 | |
|
| 0.62069 | 0.54545 | 0.65625 | 0.60000 | 0.61290 | 0.60000 | 0.60519 | |
N- number of samples, A = number of alleles, F IS – inbreeding coefficient, Rs – allele richness, r- null allele frequency, H – expected heterozygosity, H – observed heterozygosity, All loci, all samples – mean values over loci and populations. Probability test against HWE * p < 0.006 after Bonferroni correction for the pooled population and p < 0.001 for the sampling sites. Anu-Anuradhapura, Mon-Monaragala, Tha-Thanamalwila, Kan-Kandy, Kat-Kataragama, Nik-Nikaweratiya
F ST and Nm values for pairwise comparisons of An. culicifacies sibling species E
| Anu | Mon | Than | Kan | Kat | Nik | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anu | 0 | 2.66 | 2.72 | 5.67 | 0.98 | 6.97 |
| Mon | 0.08592* | 0 | 50.35 | 5.81 | 3.89 | 4.46 |
| Than | 0.08415* | 0.00494* | 0 | 7.01 | 6.40 | 5.81 |
| Kan | 0.04221* | 0.04122* | 0.03445* | 0 | 1.76 | 7.04 |
| Kat | 0.20299* | 0.06039* | 0.03759* | 0.12416* | 0 | 1.85 |
| Nik | 0.03463* | 0.05306* | 0.04125* | 0.03428* | 0.11896* | 0 |
*p < 0.0033 after Bonferroni correction, figures above diagonal are Nm values and below diagonal are F ST (Slatkin linearized F ST as t/M = F ST/(1-F ST). Anu-Anuradhapura, Mon-Monaragala, Tha-Thanamalwila, Kan-Kandy, Kat-Kataragama, Nik-Nikaweratiya
Fig. 2a Correlation between F ST/(1-F ST) of population pairs and geographical distances (km). b Correlation between population pair distances (km) and Nm values
Results of SAMOVA. The most likely groupings of populations are presented assuming the presence of 2, 3, or 4 groups
| Number of | Structure tested | Variance among groups % |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Group 1 (Kat) | 0.10180 | 0.05539 | >0.05 |
| Group 2 (Anu, Mon, Tha, Kan, Nik) | ||||
| 3 | Group 1 (Anu, Kan, Nik) | 0.09424 | 0.05252 | >0.05 |
| Group 2 (Kat) | ||||
| Group 3 (Mon, Tha) | ||||
| 4 | Group 1 (Kan) | 0.09455 | 0.05302 | >0.05 |
| Group 2 (Kat) | ||||
| Group 3 (Mon, Tha) | ||||
| Group 4 (Anu, Nik) |
Anu-Anuradhapura, Mon-Monaragala, Tha-Thanamalwila, Kan-Kandy, Kat-Kataragama, Nik-Nikaweratiya
Fig. 4Bayesian cluster analysis using STRUCTURE. Graphical representation of the data set for the most likely K (K = 3). Each color corresponds to a suggested cluster and each individual is represented by a vertical bar. X-axis – population codes, Y-axis – probability of assignment of each cluster
Effective population size (Ne) estimates based on genetic diversity (expected heterozygosity) at each collection site, assuming a stepwise mutation model
| Location |
|
| RR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anuradhapura | 0.66655 | 9992 | 2.42 |
| Monaragala | 0.68457 | 11313 | 2.74 |
| Thanamalwila | 0.69325 | 12034 | 2.92 |
| Kandy | 0.75400 | 19405 | 4.70 |
| Kataragama | 0.51772 | 4124 | 1 |
| Nikaweratiya | 0.66368 | 9801 | 2.38 |
| Pooled population | 0.69986 | 12626 | 3.06 |
He - unbiased heterozygosity, Ne - mean effective population size calculated across all loci, μ - mutation rate, RR - relative ratio of Neμ compared to the An. culicifacies population with the smallest effective population size (Kataragama)
Fig. 3Graphical representation of cluster proportions at the six collection sites. The dotted line shows the barrier to gene flow (cluster I-red, cluster II-green, cluster III-blue)
Pairwise F ST values and respective Nm values in three clusters
| Cluster I | Cluster II | Cluster III | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster I | 0 | 1.76 | 1.72 |
| Cluster II | 0.14230 | 0 | 2.80 |
| Cluster III | 0.14540 | 0.08917 | 0 |
Below diagonal – F ST values, above diagonal – Nm values, p value – 0.0000 for all pairs