| Literature DB >> 29879898 |
Max R Bangs1,2, Marlis R Douglas3, Steven M Mussmann3, Michael E Douglas3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Porous species boundaries can be a source of conflicting hypotheses, particularly when coupled with variable data and/or methodological approaches. Their impacts can often be magnified when non-model organisms with complex histories of reticulation are investigated. One such example is the genus Catostomus (Osteichthys, Catostomidae), a freshwater fish clade with conflicting morphological and mitochondrial phylogenies. The former is hypothesized as reflecting the presence of admixed genotypes within morphologically distinct lineages, whereas the latter is interpreted as the presence of distinct morphologies that emerged multiple times through convergent evolution. We tested these hypotheses using multiple methods, to including multispecies coalescent and concatenated approaches. Patterson's D-statistic was applied to resolve potential discord, examine introgression, and test the putative hybrid origin of two species. We also applied naïve binning to explore potential effects of concatenation.Entities:
Keywords: Catostomus; Hybridization; Introgression; Patterson’s D-statistic; Phylogenetic incongruence; ddRAD
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29879898 PMCID: PMC5992631 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-018-1197-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Fig. 2Phylogeny of Catostomus with branch lengths derived via RAXML. Letters at nodes correspond to columns in Fig. 3 and present support values for all analyses. Nodes are collapsed according to species and level of support. Those representing operational taxonomic units (OTUs) are discussed. Dotted lines represent significant introgression events per D-statistic tests. Numbers in parentheses represent individuals at each collapsed node
Drainage and State for Catostomus(=C), Xyrauchen(=X), Moxostoma(=M). Sites = Sample sites, N=Number of samples
| Species | Major Drainage | State | Sites | N |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Bonneville Basin | WY, UT | 2 | 4 |
|
| Upper Colorado River | WY, UT, CO, AZ, NM | 11 | 11 |
| Grand Canyon | AZ | 3 | 5 | |
| Virgin River | UT | 1 | 8 | |
|
| Little Colorado River | AZ | 3 | 8 |
|
| Lower Colorado River | AZ, NM | 5 | 7 |
|
| Missouri River | MT | 1 | 2 |
|
| Lahontan Basin | NV | 2 | 5 |
|
| Columbia River | OR | 1 | 2 |
|
| Bonneville | WY, UT | 4 | 6 |
| Upper Colorado River | WY, UT, CO | 16 | 20 | |
|
| Bonneville Basin | WY, UT | 5 | 5 |
|
| Upper Colorado River | WY, UT, CO, AZ, NM | 29 | 31 |
| Grand Canyon | AZ | 5 | 6 | |
| Little Colorado River | AZ | 8 | 13 | |
|
| Zuni River | NM | 3 | 12 |
|
| Virgin River | NV | 1 | 1 |
| Lower Colorado River | AZ, NM | 7 | 8 | |
|
| Los Angeles River | CA | 1 | 3 |
|
| Rio Grande | CO, NM | 6 | 6 |
|
| Mississippi River | ND, IL | 3 | 3 |
| Upper Colorado River | WY, CO | 2 | 2 | |
|
| Lahontan Basin | NV | 1 | 3 |
|
| Rogue River | OR | 1 | 1 |
|
| Goose Lake | OR | 1 | 1 |
|
| Donner und Blitzen River | OR | 2 | 2 |
|
| Upper Colorado River | WY | 1 | 3 |
|
| Upper Colorado River | UT, NM | 2 | 4 |
|
| Mississippi River | ND | 1 | 1 |
|
| Mississippi River | MN | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 129 | 184 |
Fig. 1Map of sampling locations colored by species. Map split into two panels with the left panel containing members of the former Pantosteus and the second containing all other Catostomus and Xyrauchen samples
Fig. 3Nodal support values for all phylogenetic methods. Numbers to right of Astral = number of loci binned for each run where s2 = filtered data. Column headers = nodes in Fig. 2. Numbers below column headers = bootstrap support. Blue boxes with no values = 100% bootstrap support (1.0 posterior probability). Cell color: Blue = higher support, red = lower support, white(−) = no support, with cell colors varying from blue to red. Trees that supported individual binned loci for each Astral run are presented as colored cells at lower right corner of table
Fig. 4Alternative phylogenetic hypotheses for taxa in ‘discobolus’ group, as derived by (a) concatenated SNP approaches (RAXML, MRBAYES), and (b) multispecies coalescent approach (SVDQUARTETS). Letters at nodes correspond with columns in Fig. 3 that contain support values for all analyzes
Results from Patterson’s D-statistic analyses
| P1 | P2 | P3 | O | D | BABA | ABBA | nloci | RangeZ | nSig/ntest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| 0.20 | 6 | 9 | 1155 | 0, 2.97 | 0/324 |
|
|
|
|
| 20 | 91 | 4655 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| 17 | 50 | 3169 | 0.21, |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| 37 | 121 | 3484 | 2.73, |
|
|
|
| 0.44 | 17 | 43 | 4293 | 1.04, | 112/336 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
| 38 | 162 | 3540 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 48 | 112 | 3449 | 2.53, |
|
|
|
|
| 0.13 | 47 | 61 | 2619 | 0.12, 2.96 | 0/200 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| 35 | 86 | 3463 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.18 | 22 | 31 | 2108 | 0.12, 2.65 | 0/132 | |
|
|
|
| 0.24 | 21 | 35 | 2879 | 0.17, 3.13 | 0/330 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| 22 | 50 | 2425 | 2.22, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 20 | 54 | 2548 | 2.32, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 24 | 57 | 2236 | 2.71, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 26 | 62 | 2567 | 2.21, |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.02 | 23 | 25 | 2898 | 0, 2.41 | 0/1980 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 | 152 | 2932 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.11 | 14 | 17 | 1772 | 0.14, 1.17 | 0/128 | |
|
|
|
| 0.09 | 17 | 21 | 2012 | 0.01, 0.91 | 0/128 | |
|
|
|
|
| 0.14 | 18 | 24 | 2280 | 0, 3.52 | 0/288 |
Taxa used in comparisons include two sister taxa (=P1, P2), one taxon outside of P1, P2 (=P3), and one outgroup (=O). Positive D-statistics (=D) represent an excess of loci supporting ABBA verses BABA topologies, thus indicating potential introgression between taxa P2 and P3. Range of Z-scores for each set of tests (=RangeZ) and the number of significant tests out of the total number of tests (=nSig/ntest) are also reported, as is the overall Z-score (=Z), average number of alternatively discordant loci (=BABA and ABBA), and the average number of loci per test (=nloci). Significant Z-scores are in bold, as are the species involved with introgression. All tests are represented by species names with the exception of Pantosteus where multiple species occur in the former genus. Some species are divided into region, with abbreviations as follows: UCR Upper Colorado River, TAM Tampico Springs, AGR Agra Remora, RNU Rio Nutria, ULC Upper Little Colorado, WAS Willow and Silver creeks, WEN Wenima Wildlife Area, VR Virgin River BW Bill Williams River, GI Gila River Basin
Fig. 5Depiction of the bias on concatenation caused by introgression. Top left phylogeny (black) represents the proposed species phylogeny from morphological [35] and mitochondrial [54] data, with a red dotted line representing significant introgression detected by D-statistic tests. Resulting topologies of non-introgressed (blue) and introgressed (red) loci are shown on top. Below represents the binned loci (solid bars) and corresponding mutations (arrows above loci) that are colored according to the topology supported. Introgressed loci carry more mutations supporting the introgressed topology (red arrows) due to the long divergence between C. platyrhynchus and C. discobolus / C. virescens. As binning increases, every binned locus that contains both introgressed and non-introgressed loci will reflect the introgressed topology, resulting in more binned loci supporting the introgressed topology as binning increases. Phylogenies to the left of the loci represent the topology supported by ASTRAL for each level of binning with colors corresponding to above
Tests for introgression in Regards to the ‘Introgression Hypothesis’
| Introgression Events (Smith et al. 2013) | D-statistic Results |
|---|---|
| Confirmed | |
| No introgression detecteda | |
| Confirmed | |
| Confirmed | |
| Confirmed in one populationb |
D-statistic results in respect to introgression events needed to explain discords with mitochondrial phylogeny detailed by [35] based on their morphology and fossil record work
aTests for C. columbianus are a result based off of two samples from nearby sample sites and does not reflect their whole range
bIntrogression of C. plebeius only detected in the Rio Nutria population of C. d. yarrowi and not in the other two populations, same result of [69, 90]
Fig. 6Map of Colorado River Basin and Bonneville Basin