| Literature DB >> 27497422 |
Błażej Wójkiewicz1, Monika Litkowiec2, Witold Wachowiak3.
Abstract
Gene flow tends to have a homogenising effect on a species' background genetic variation over large geographical areas. However, it is usually unknown to what extent the genetic structure of populations is influenced by gene exchange between core and peripheral populations that may represent stands of different evolutionary and demographic history. In this study, we looked at the patterns of population differentiation in Scots pine-a highly outcrossing and wind pollinated conifer species that forms large ecosystems of great ecological and economic importance in Europe and Asia. A set of 13 polymorphic nuclear microsatellite loci was analysed to infer the genetic relationships among 24 populations (676 individuals) from Europe and Asia Minor. The study included specimens from the primary continuous range and from isolated, marginal stands that are considered to be autochthonous populations representative of the species' putative refugial areas. Despite their presumably different histories, a similar level of genetic variation and no evidence of a population bottleneck was found across the populations. Differentiation among populations was relatively low (average FST = 0.035); however, the population structure was not homogenous, which was clearly evident from the allelic frequency spectra and Bayesian assignment analysis. Significant differentiation over short geographical distances was observed between isolated populations within the Iberian and Anatolian Peninsulas (Asia Minor), which contrasted with the absence of genetic differentiation observed between distant populations e.g., between central and northern Europe. The analysed populations were assigned to several groups that corresponded to the geographical regions of their occurrence. These results will be useful in genetics studies in Scots pine that aim to link nucleotide and phenotypic variation across the species distribution range and for development of sustainable breeding and management programs.Entities:
Keywords: Demographic history; Pinus sylvestris; genetic structure; glacial refugia; phylogeography; population history; recolonization
Year: 2016 PMID: 27497422 PMCID: PMC5018396 DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/plw054
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AoB Plants Impact factor: 3.276
Figure 1.Geographic location of Scots pine populations included in this study. Acronyms and geographic coordinates of the populations are listed in .
Genetic variation of Scots pine populations based on thirteen polymorphic nSSR loci. Nr and pop, population number and acronyms with reference to Fig. 1 and , N, number of analyzed individuals; Np, the mean number of alleles per population; Ne, mean number of effective alleles per population; AR22, allelic richness for a minimum sample size of 22 individuals; Pa, mean number of private alleles per population; Gd, gene diversity; Ho, observed heterozygosity; He, unbiased expected heterozygosity; Fis, inbreeding coefficient (*P < 0.001); FisNull, inbreeding coefficient with null allele correction.
| Nr. | Pop | Np | Ne | AR22 | Pa | Gd | Ho | He | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | T1 | 25 | 5.46 | 3.39 | 5.19 | 0.00 | 0.53 | 0.477 | 0.515 | 0.09* | 0.04 (0–0.12) |
| 2. | T2 | 25 | 5.77 | 3.31 | 5.37 | 0.00 | 0.51 | 0.423 | 0.500 | 0.17* | 0.07 (0–0.15) |
| 3. | T3 | 25 | 5.54 | 2.91 | 5.33 | 0.08 | 0.52 | 0.456 | 0.507 | 0.12* | 0.07 (0–0.17) |
| 4. | T4 | 25 | 5.77 | 3.16 | 5.47 | 0.08 | 0.52 | 0.418 | 0.502 | 0.19* | 0.08 (0–0.15) |
| 5. | T5 | 25 | 6.23 | 3.41 | 5.83 | 0.23 | 0.53 | 0.483 | 0.521 | 0.09* | 0.08 (0–0.15) |
| 6. | U | 25 | 4.69 | 3.10 | 5.59 | 0.15 | 0.50 | 0.377 | 0.516 | 0.28* | 0.07 (0–0.13) |
| 7. | G | 31 | 6.62 | 3.45 | 5.85 | 0.00 | 0.54 | 0.494 | 0.536 | 0.09* | 0.06 (0–0.06) |
| 8. | B | 25 | 6.31 | 3.62 | 5.87 | 0.00 | 0.54 | 0.490 | 0.530 | 0.09* | 0.02 (0–0.08) |
| 9. | S | 26 | 6.15 | 3.49 | 5.68 | 0.00 | 0.53 | 0.481 | 0.515 | 0.08* | 0.03 (0–0.13) |
| 10. | H1 | 29 | 7.15 | 3.50 | 5.84 | 0.15 | 0.55 | 0.434 | 0.505 | 0.15* | 0.06 (0–0.17) |
| 11. | H2 | 31 | 7.00 | 3.25 | 5.27 | 0.15 | 0.49 | 0.370 | 0.439 | 0.18* | 0.07 (0–0.15) |
| 12. | H3 | 29 | 6.31 | 3.36 | 5.52 | 0.08 | 0.51 | 0.418 | 0.489 | 0.16* | 0.07 (0–0.10) |
| 13. | A | 32 | 5.92 | 3.23 | 5.26 | 0.08 | 0.50 | 0.440 | 0.487 | 0.12* | 0.05 (0–0.08) |
| 14. | H4 | 32 | 5.92 | 3.25 | 5.31 | 0.00 | 0.49 | 0.456 | 0.481 | 0.07* | 0.03 (0–0.06) |
| 15. | FR | 25 | 6.31 | 3.51 | 5.93 | 0.08 | 0.50 | 0.444 | 0.487 | 0.11* | 0.02 (0–0.12) |
| 16. | SC | 39 | 6.31 | 3.01 | 5.34 | 0.23 | 0.50 | 0.437 | 0.491 | 0.12* | 0.04 (0–0.10) |
| 17. | PL1 | 33 | 6.54 | 3.84 | 6.21 | 0.00 | 0.52 | 0.467 | 0.496 | 0.07* | 0.04 (0–0.10) |
| 18. | PL2 | 45 | 5.85 | 3.70 | 5.66 | 0.00 | 0.51 | 0.456 | 0.536 | 0.12* | 0.03 (0–0.08) |
| 19. | PL3 | 22 | 5.46 | 3.22 | 5.28 | 0.08 | 0.45 | 0.425 | 0.483 | 0.14* | 0.03 (0–0.08) |
| 20. | PL4 | 28 | 6.23 | 3.59 | 5.65 | 0.00 | 0.48 | 0.409 | 0.475 | 0.13* | 0.04 (0–0.07) |
| 21. | F1 | 25 | 6.38 | 3.47 | 5.79 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.471 | 0.489 | 0.08* | 0.02 (0–0.06) |
| 22. | F2 | 25 | 6.38 | 3.69 | 5.85 | 0.08 | 0.50 | 0.491 | 0.490 | 0.02* | 0.02 (0–0.05) |
| 23. | F3 | 25 | 5.77 | 3.12 | 5.43 | 0.08 | 0.49 | 0.452 | 0.500 | 0.11* | 0.03 (0–0.08) |
| 24. | F4 | 24 | 5.77 | 3.16 | 5.42 | 0.00 | 0.48 | 0.458 | 0.470 | 0.06* | 0.02 (0–0.07) |
| 28.2 | 6.08 | 3.36 | 5.58 | 0.06 | 0.51 | 0.447 | 0.498 | 0.12* | 0.04 (0–0.07) | ||
Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) at 13 nSSR loci. (a) Assuming no population structure; (b) among populations within geographical regions; (c) assuming population structure as defined by allelic frequency spectra and Bayesian assignment tests (Table 3).
| Source of variation | d.f. | Sum of squares | Variance components | Percentage of variation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (a) | ||||||
| Among populations | FST | 23 | 240.861 | 0.12172 | 3.55 | < 0.0001 |
| RST | 48 995.78 | 25.16 | 3.50 | < 0.0001 | ||
| Within populations | FST | 652 | 4318.50 | 3.31 | 96.45 | < 0.0001 |
| RST | 903 431.90 | 693.43 | 96.50 | < 0.0001 | ||
| (b) | ||||||
| Turkey | FST | 5 | 46.48 | 0.11 | 3.25 | < 0.0001 |
| 100 | 954.49 | 3.37 | 96.75 | < 0.0001 | ||
| Spain | FST | 4 | 34.31 | 0.08 | 2.38 | < 0.0001 |
| 124 | 977.59 | 3.29 | 97.62 | < 0.0001 | ||
| Balkans | FST | 2 | 8.47 | 0.01 | 0.22 | 0.9984 |
| 51 | 556.43 | 3.49 | 99.78 | < 0.0001 | ||
| Poland | FST | 3 | 18.59 | 0.03 | 1.13 | 0.2424 |
| 95 | 812.06 | 3.24 | 98.87 | < 0.0001 | ||
| Finland | FST | 3 | 12.60 | 0.01 | 0.49 | 0.9918 |
| 74 | 622.43 | 3.21 | 99.51 | < 0.0001 | ||
| (c) | ||||||
| Among groups | FST | 5 | 120.93 | 0.08 | 2.51 | < 0.0001 |
| Among populations within groups | 18 | 109.37 | 0.04 | 1.36 | < 0.0001 | |
| Among individuals within populations | 652 | 2327.52 | 0.35 | 10.64 | < 0.0001 | |
| Within individuals | 676 | 1932.00 | 2.85 | 85.48 | < 0.0001 | |
Genetic differentiation (FST) between groups of Scots pine populations according to population grouping analysis and geographical location of populations (*P < 0.001).
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Turkey and Ukraine | 0.000 | ||||
| 2. Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria | 0.021* | 0.000 | |||
| 3. Southern Spain (H1, H2 and H3) | 0.063* | 0.039* | 0.000 | ||
| 4. Northern Spain (H4), Andorra and France | 0.035* | 0.017* | 0.025* | 0.000 | |
| 5. Scotland | 0.041* | 0.021* | 0.029* | 0.010* | 0.000 |
| 6. Poland and Finland | 0.035* | 0.009* | 0.042* | 0.014* | 0.016* |
Figure 2.Principal Coordinate Analysis (PCoA) based on pairwise population FSTENA values. Acronyms of Scots pine populations are listed in .
Figure 3.The STRUCTURE assignment of each individual to inferred genetic clusters (marked in different colours). The study populations are separated by thick black lines. Population numbers (1–24) are listed in Table 1 and .