| Literature DB >> 28484472 |
Xue Zhang1, Shikang Shen1, Fuqin Wu2, Yuehua Wang1.
Abstract
Michelia yunnanensis Franch., is a traditional ornamental, aromatic, and medicinal shrub that endemic to Yunnan Province in southwest China. Although the species has a large distribution pattern and is abundant in Yunnan Province, the populations are dramatically declining because of overexploitation and habitat destruction. Studies on the genetic variation and demography of endemic species are necessary to develop effective conservation and management strategies. To generate such knowledge, we used 3 pairs of universal cpDNA markers and 10 pairs of microsatellite markers to assess the genetic diversity, genetic structure, and demographic history of 7 M. yunnanensis populations. We calculated a total of 88 alleles for 10 polymorphic loci and 10 haplotypes for a combined 2,089 bp of cpDNA. M. yunnanensis populations showed high genetic diversity (Ho = 0.551 for nuclear markers and Hd = 0.471 for cpDNA markers) and low genetic differentiation (FST = 0.058). Geographical structure was not found among M. yunnanensis populations. Genetic distance and geographic distance were not correlated (P > 0.05), which indicated that geographic isolation is not the primary cause of the low genetic differentiation of M. yunnanensis. Additionally, M. yunnanensis populations contracted ~20,000-30,000 years ago, and no recent expansion occurred in current populations. Results indicated that the high genetic diversity of the species and within its populations holds promise for effective genetic resource management and sustainable utilization. Thus, we suggest that the conservation and management of M. yunnanensis should address exotic overexploitation and habitat destruction.Entities:
Keywords: endemic plant; gene flow; genetic diversity; microsatellite markers; ornamental shrub; populations contraction
Year: 2017 PMID: 28484472 PMCID: PMC5399939 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00583
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Details of sample locations, sample size (n), haplotype diversity (.
| SM | 25.274 | 103.191 | 2181 | 10 | Hap1(7) Hap2(3) | 0.467 | 0.220 |
| YL | 25.768 | 103.08 | 2374 | 16 | Hap3(6) Hap4(9) Hap5(1) | 0.575 | 1.450 |
| BY | 25.293 | 102.878 | 1714 | 10 | Hap3(10) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| JC | 24.287 | 102.754 | 1733 | 16 | Hap3(16) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| SY | 25.332 | 103.042 | 1907 | 16 | Hap3(16) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| TJ | 25.097 | 102.646 | 1968 | 16 | Hap3(11) Hap6(2) Hap7(2) Hap8(1) | 0.525 | 0.830 |
| QZ | 25.065 | 102.626 | 2172 | 16 | Hap3(13) Hap9(1) Hap10(2) | 0.342 | 0.850 |
| Total | 100 | 0.471 | 1.050 | ||||
Hd, Haplotype diversity; Pi, Nucleotide diversity.
Figure 1(A) Distribution of cpDNA haplotypes detected in 7 populations of M. yunnanensis. (B) Network of haplotypes of M. yunnanensis based on cpDNA. The size of size of the circles corresponds to the frequency of each haplotype, and the vertical molding on branches indicate mutational steps.
Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) based on cpDNA and nSSR for populations of .
| cpDNA | Among Pops | 6 | 84.755 | 0.956Va | 63.560 | 0.636 |
| within Pops | 93 | 50.975 | 0.548Vb | 36.440 | ||
| Total | 99 | 135.730 | 1.504 | |||
| nSSR | Among Pops | 6 | 44.402 | 0.165Va | 5.760 | 0.058 |
| within Pops | 93 | 522.263 | 2.706Vb | 94.240 | ||
| Total | 199 | 556.665 | 2.871 |
, P < 0.001, most significant difference;
, 0.05 < p < 0.15, significant difference.
Figure 2The Bayesian tree (A) and the Neighbor-joning consensus tree (NJ) (B) based on haplotypes of combined cpDNA sequences. The numbers on branches indicate the posterior probability and bootstraps values, respectively.
Genetic diversity of populations in .
| SM | 3.800 | 2.675 | 0.951 | 0.590 | 0.516 | −0.093 ( | 38 | 2 | 3.687 | 100.0 |
| YL | 4.100 | 2.471 | 1.005 | 0.605 | 0.560 | −0.047 ( | 41 | 6 | 3.539 | 100.0 |
| BY | 4.300 | 2.870 | 1.023 | 0.556 | 0.520 | −0.016 ( | 43 | 5 | 4.175 | 90.0 |
| JC | 4.800 | 2.955 | 1.065 | 0.544 | 0.547 | 0.038 ( | 48 | 6 | 4.009 | 100.0 |
| TJ | 4.500 | 3.312 | 1.114 | 0.556 | 0.581 | 0.075 ( | 45 | 4 | 4.033 | 90.0 |
| SY | 4.200 | 2.666 | 0.989 | 0.513 | 0.513 | 0.034 ( | 42 | 2 | 3.729 | 90.0 |
| QZ | 4.600 | 2.645 | 1.027 | 0.517 | 0.525 | 0.047 ( | 46 | 9 | 3.904 | 90.0 |
| Mean | 4.329 | 2.799 | 1.025 | 0.554 | 0.537 | 0.038 | 43.286 | 4.857 | 3.868 | 94.3 |
Na, The mean number of alleles; Ne, No. of Effective Alleles; I, Shannon's Information Index; H.
The gene flow between 7 populations of .
| SM | 0.000 | ||||||
| YL | 5.314 | 0.000 | |||||
| BY | 9.600 | 3.786 | 0.000 | ||||
| JC | 14.184 | 4.024 | 4.337 | 0.000 | |||
| TJ | 4.447 | 3.606 | 2.925 | 0.660 | 0.000 | ||
| SY | 3.434 | 3.573 | 4.792 | 3.323 | 3.628 | 0.000 | |
| QZ | 2.913 | 5.166 | 2.180 | 3.788 | 4.660 | 4.393 | 0.000 |
Figure 3An unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic averages (UPGMA) phenogram of 7 populations of .
Figure 4Bayesian inference of number of clusters (.
Bottleneck analysis for 7 populations of .
| SM | 0.367 | 0.625 | 0.178 | 0.695 | L | 0.394 |
| YL | 0.621 | 0.625 | 0.372 | 0.695 | L | 0.331 |
| BY | 0.4112 | 0.625 | 0.352 | 0.846 | L | 0.310 |
| JC | 0.363 | 0.193 | 0.369 | 0.625 | L | 0.412 |
| TJ | 0.351 | 0.275 | 0.062 | 0.557 | L | 0.378 |
| SY | 0.331 | 0.492 | 0.599 | 0.922 | L | 0.296 |
| QZ | 0.204 | 0.770 | 0.065 | 0.193 | L | 0.293 |
P is test for heterozigosity excess, ns, no significant difference.