| Literature DB >> 28637425 |
Ke Li1, Michael H Kohn2, Songmei Zhang1, Xinrong Wan3, Dazhao Shi1, Deng Wang4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The colonial habit of Brandt's vole (Lasiopodomys brandtii) differs from that of most other species of the genus Microtus. The demographic history of this species and the patterns shaping its current genetic structure remain unknown. Here, we explored patterns of genetic differentiation and infered the demographic history of Brandt's vole populations through analyses of nuclear microsatellite and D-loop sequences.Entities:
Keywords: Ancestral area; Genetic surfing; Lasiopodomys brandtii; Migration; Range expansion
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28637425 PMCID: PMC5480173 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-017-0995-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Fig. 1Population structure of Brandt’s vole (N = 814) from 23 sites based on nuclear microsatellite data. a Neighbor-joining (NJ) tree based on pairwise genetic distances (Da) between sampling sites depicted in b); c Bayesian structure plot for K = 2. d Analysis with K = 3. Coloring scheme of symbols reflects STRUCTURE results. Detailed sampling information is provided in Additional file 1: Table S1
Fig. 2Phylogenetic analysis of Brandt’s vole. Maximum clade credibility tree reconstructed using D-loop haplotypes. The posterior probability (≥0.85) clades are presented at nodes (black numbers). Blue bars correspond to the 95% HPD for TMRCA (blue numbers). L. mandarinus, M. oeconomus and M. arvalis are used as outgroups. Branch color denotes the geographic distribution of haplotypes (coloring scheme as in Fig. 3c)
Fig. 3Population structure and history of Brandt’s vole (N = 746) from 23 sites inferred from D-loop data. a Median-joining network of 30 haplotypes. Circle sizes indicate haplotype frequencies. The colored segments indicate the sample size of voles available for each geographic location specified by the color key (black square, mv1, represents missing or unsampled haplotypes. b Geographic distributions of haplotypes found in c. d Ancestral area reconstruction, where W, NE and SE represent western, northeastern and southeastern distributions, respectively (color coding as in c). Pie charts on each node show the posterior probability (PP) of each ancestral haplotype occurring at an inferred ancestral geographic location as inferred with the S-DIVA method. Node codes (37–65) are shown on pie charts. (c.f. Additional file 3: Table S9 for numerical results obtained using S-DIVA and DEC). Probabilities <5% were lumped together as “*”. Blue branches indicate PP > 0.69
AMOVA analysis of microsatellite and D-loop data in Brandt’s vole populations
| Microsatellite |
| D-loop |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of variation | Percentage of variation | |||
| 23 populations | 23 populations | |||
| Among populations | 9.02 | 0.000*** | 52.46 | 0.000*** |
| Within populations | 90.98 | 47.54 | ||
| 2 clusters | 2 clusters | |||
| Among clusters | 3.3 | 0.000*** | 59.7 | 0.000*** |
| Among populations within clusters | 7.33 | 0.000*** | 7.24 | 0.000*** |
| Within populations | 89.38 | 0.000*** | 33.06 | 0.000*** |
| 3 clusters | 3 clusters | |||
| Among clusters | 2.6 | 0.000*** | 50.86 | 0.000*** |
| Among populations within clusters | 7.13 | 0.000*** | 8.90 | 0.000*** |
| Within populations | 90.27 | 0.000*** | 40.25 | 0.000*** |
| 2 clusters (DR in the western) | 2 haplogroups | |||
| Among clusters/groups | 2.93 | 0.000*** | 75.99 | 0.000*** |
| Among populations within clusters /groups | 7.46 | 0.000*** | --- | --- |
| Within populations | 89.61 | 0.000*** | 24.01 |
For clusters (using microsatellite or D-loop) and haplogroup definitions see Figs. 1b, 2, 3c and Table 1, respectively. (ns: P > 0.05, *: P < 0.05, **: P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001)
Fig. 6Tests of isolation by distance (IBD) analyses for each cluster (Fig. 1b) of Brandt’s vole using microsatellite data. The genetic distance measure F ST-(1- F ST) was plotted against the geographic distance measure (Ln GD, measured in km)
Polymorphism and demographic statistics inferred from D-loop data for haplogroups in Brandt’s vole
| Haplogroup |
|
|
|
| Tajima’s D | Fu’s | SSD | Raggedness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hg1 | 418 | 18 | 0.5541 | 0.0385 | −1.7622** | −18.5179** | 0.007ns | 0.1134** |
| Hg2 | 328 | 12 | 0.3171 | 0.0318 | −1.9326** | −6.7297** | 0.0003ns | 0.2459ns |
| Overall | 746 | 30 | 0.728 | 0.0021 | −1.5135* | −18.5425** | 0.013** | 0.0531ns |
n Sample size, N number of haplotypes, Hd haplotype diversity, π nucleotide diversity, Tajima’s D Tajima’s D value, Fu’s Fu and Li’s D value, SSD goodness-of-fit to a simulated population expansion, and Raggedness Harpending’s Raggedness index estimated under demographic expansion model. (ns: P > 0.05, *: P < 0.05, **: P < 0.01). (Hg1: H2, H3, H4, H6, H7, H9, H15, H16, H17, H18, H19, H21, H24, H25, H26, H27, H28, H29; Hg2: H1, H5, H8, H10, H11, H12, H13, H14, H20, H22, H23, H30) (Figs. 2 and 3a & b)
Fig. 4Full set of migration models (model 1–12) conceived and tested using microsatellite data simulate in the program MIGRATE-N. W, West; E, East; NE, Northeast; and SE, Southeast
Marginal log-likelihoods and model probabilities for 15 migration models (Fig. 4) among two and three clusters using microsatellite data in Brandt’s vole
| Regions | Number of samplings | Model | Bezier lmL | Harmonic lmL | Raw score | Mean lmL | Model probabilities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 regions | 5 × 107 | Model 1 | −57,349.74 | −1145.72 | −316,290.09 | −124,928.52 | 1 |
| Model 2 | −63,735.82 | −1364.26 | −356,188.44 | −140,429.51 | 0 | ||
| Model 3 | −58,542.1 | −1228.6 | −335,142.1 | −131,637.6 | 0 | ||
| 3 regions | 5 × 107 | Model 4 | −49,419.84 | −1265.02 | −262,401.1 | −104,361.99 | 1 |
| Model 5 | −50,478.96 | −1223.96 | −269,783.24 | −107,162.05 | 0 | ||
| Model 6 | −54,431.6 | −993.38 | −294,577.04 | −116,667.34 | 0 | ||
| Model 7 | −104,545.89 | −1052.16 | −607,229.48 | −237,609.18 | 0 | ||
| Model 8 | −118,766.8 | −718.94 | −696,727.88 | −272,071.21 | 0 | ||
| Model 9 | −172,482.06 | −831.40 | −1,032,522.62 | −401,945.36 | 0 | ||
| Model 10 | −108,659.74 | −619.15 | −634,189.74 | −247,822.88 | 0 | ||
| Model 11 | −1,683,126.9 | −512.63 | −276,531.64 | −653,390.38 | 0 | ||
| Model 12 | −94,635.4 | −878.16 | −545,702.85 | −213,738.8 | 0 |
Model probabilities were calculated by Bezier lmL; lmL, log marginal likelihood
Fig. 5Mismatch distributions and Bayesian Skyline plots generated from D-loop data for Brandt’s voles. Mismatch distributions for the entire population (a) Hg1 (b) and Hg2 (c) (Table 1; Fig. 2). Effective population size fluctuations revealed by Bayesian Skyline plots for the entire population (d) Hg1 (e) and Hg2 (f). Middle line is the median estimate; blue shadow represents the 95% highest posterior density
Fig. 7Pairwise F ST values between each samples obtained from one site that is part of a cluster (c.f. Fig. 1b) and all samples from all sites from another cluster and estimated these values in a pairwise manner for the three clusters. The white column presents the population with the lowest average F ST within the corresponding cluster, which is considered the likely starting or arrival site of Brandt’s vole. Population abbreviations as in Fig. 1b (ns: P > 0.05, *: P < 0.05, **: P < 0.01)
Fig. 8Regression of the allelic richness (A ) and expected heterozygosity (H ) of samples obtained from one site in a cluster (for clusters c.f. Fig. 1b) against F ST values to the corresponding arrival or starting site (Fig. 7). Regressions are shown in a for each site samples in the southeastern cluster with regard to BX. b for each site samples in the northeastern cluster with BT. c for each site samples in the northeastern cluster with BO. d for each site samples in the western cluster with AL. (ns: * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01)
Allele frequencies showing spatial clines in southeast, northeast and west clusters
| Locus | allele | Southeastern (BX) | Northeastern (BT) | Northeastern (BO) | Western (AL) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| frequency | spatial correlation (R2) | frequency | spatial correlation (R2) | frequency | spatial correlation (R2) | frequency | spatial correlation (R2) | ||
| DQ886928 | 183 | 0.311 | n.s. | 0.175 | n.s. | 0.175 | n.s. | 0.303 | −0.738* |
| 185 | 0.140 | n.s. | 0.111 | 0.725* | 0.111 | n.s. | 0.118 | n.s. | |
| FJ538254 | 258 | 0.457 | 0.68* | 0.344 | n.s. | 0.344 | n.s. | 0.388 | n.s. |
| 268 | 0.067 | −0.828** | 0.105 | n.s. | 0.105 | n.s. | 0.055 | −0.889* | |
| DQ886926 | 141 | 0.397 | n.s. | 0.289 | n.s. | 0.289 | 0.589* | 0.462 | −0.893* |
| DQ886929 | 177 | 0.537 | n.s. | 0.644 | n.s. | 0.644 | n.s. | 0.526 | 0.821* |
| DQ886927 | 152 | 0.309 | n.s. | 0.416 | −0.506* | 0.416 | n.s. | 0.291 | n.s. |
| 182 | 0.081 | n.s. | 0.084 | 0.698** | 0.084 | 0.541* | 0.062 | n.s. | |
| DQ886925 | 164 | 0.633 | −0.811** | 0.246 | 0.45* | 0.246 | n.s. | 0.585 | 0.95** |
| 168 | 0.191 | 0.72* | 0.099 | n.s. | 0.099 | n.s. | 0.161 | n.s. | |
| 172 | 0.061 | n.s. | 0.011 | n.s. | 0.011 | n.s. | 0.093 | 0.729** | |
| FJ538255 | 248 | 0.016 | 0.742* | 0.047 | n.s. | 0.047 | n.s. | 0.007 | n.s. |
| DQ886933 | 162 | 0.014 | n.s. | 0.045 | n.s. | 0.045 | n.s. | 0.030 | −0.894* |
| 170 | 0.107 | 0.572* | 0.075 | n.s. | 0.075 | n.s. | 0.022 | −0.72* | |
| 172 | 0.307 | 0.85** | 0.049 | n.s. | 0.049 | n.s. | 0.186 | n.s. | |
| 174 | 0.084 | n.s. | 0.084 | −0.48* | 0.084 | n.s. | 0.145 | n.s. | |
| 186 | 0.048 | n.s. | 0.063 | n.s. | 0.063 | −0.518* | 0.089 | n.s. | |
| DQ886931 | 219 | 0.145 | n.s. | 0.124 | n.s. | 0.124 | 0.516* | 0.220 | −0.764* |
| FJ538252 | 296 | 0.439 | n.s. | 0.431 | 0.716** | 0.431 | n.s. | 0.258 | n.s. |
| 300 | 0.210 | 0.637* | 0.233 | −0.676* | 0.233 | −0.663* | 0.248 | n.s. | |
Southeast allele frequencies were correlated with F ST to the putative starting site (BX), while northeast allele frequencies were correlated with F ST to the probable arrival site (BT); northeast and west allele frequencies were correlated with F ST values to the starting site (BO) and the arrival site (AL), respectively (ns: P > 0.05, *: P < 0.05, **: P < 0.01)