| Literature DB >> 30567486 |
Belinda Kahnt1,2, Panagiotis Theodorou3, Antonella Soro3, Hilke Hollens-Kuhr4, Michael Kuhlmann5,6, Anton Pauw7, Robert J Paxton8,9.
Abstract
Adaptation to local host plants may impact a pollinator's population genetic structure by reducing gene flow and driving population genetic differentiation, representing an early stage of ecological speciation. South African Rediviva longimanus bees exhibit elongated forelegs, a bizarre adaptation for collecting oil from floral spurs of their Diascia hosts. Furthermore, R. longimanus foreleg length (FLL) differs significantly among populations, which has been hypothesised to result from selection imposed by inter-population variation in Diascia floral spur length. Here, we used a pooled restriction site-associated DNA sequencing (pooled RAD-seq) approach to investigate the population genetic structure of R. longimanus and to test if phenotypic differences in FLL translate into increased genetic differentiation (i) between R. longimanus populations and (ii) between phenotypes across populations. We also inferred the effects of demographic processes on population genetic structure and tested for genetic markers underpinning local adaptation.Entities:
Keywords: Ecological adaptation; Pollinators; Pool-Seq; Population genetic structure; Population genomics; Selection; South Africa
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30567486 PMCID: PMC6300007 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-018-1313-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Fig. 1Sampling locations of R. longimanus populations in South Africa. Population labels with an asterisk correspond to the four population pools (AP, LC, LI, LF) used for population genetic analysis in this study. For the two leg pools, we included individuals from LC, LI and LF as well as from three other populations (LA, LB, LG) to obtain two pools comprising either individuals with the longest or the shortest foreleg length (FLL), irrespective of population of origin. Sample sizes and mean relative FLL are given in brackets
Sampling locations of Rediviva longimanus populations
| Code | Location | Latitude | Longitude | N | x̄ abs. FLL | SD | x̄ rel. FLL | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AP* | Biedouw Valley | 32° 14′ 76.7” | 19°18′ 47.0” | 11 | 20.62 | 0.86 | 7.36 | 0.20 |
| LC* | Keiskie-Mountain | 31° 45′ 45.6” | 19° 50′ 21.4” | 24 | 18.02 | 0.52 | 6.56 | 0.20 |
| LF* | Farm Papkuilsfontain | 31° 33′ 32.0’ | 19° 10′ 46.5” | 22 | 18.95 | 0.43 | 6.87 | 0.25 |
| LI* | Farm Avontuur | 31° 16′ 14.3” | 19° 02′ 53.9” | 28 | 18.82 | 0.63 | 6.80 | 0.22 |
| LA | Flower Reserve | 31° 21′ 55.9” | 19° 08′ 34.9” | 29 | 18.45 | 0.52 | 6.73 | 0.18 |
| LB | Hantam Botanical Garden | 31° 24′ 23.7” | 19° 09′ 03.8” | 23 | 18.81 | 0.50 | 6.81 | 0.18 |
| LG | Nieuwoudtville Waterfall | 31° 19′ 28.1’ | 19° 07′ 50.8” | 33 | 18.55 | 0.61 | 6.78 | 0.19 |
Population labels indicated with an asterisk correspond to the population pools used for analyses of population genetic structure and FLL outlier identification. Samples from these and additional populations were used to generate the leg pools to test for differentiation with respect to leg morphology as well as to identify candidate loci for leg length. For each sampled population, the geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude), sample size (N of females) and the mean absolute (x̄ abs. FLL) and relative (x̄ rel. FLL, see text for definition of relative) FLL with their corresponding standard deviations (SD) are given
Geographic distances [km] (above diagonal) and pairwise FST values (below diagonal) at SNPs with a minimum count of the minor allele = 2, minimum coverage = 10, maximum coverage ≤ 98% for four population pools of Rediviva longimanus; lower and upper 95% CI’s of the FST values are given in brackets
| AP | LC | LF | LI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AP | 76.39 | 66.24 | 99.53 | |
| LC | 0.172 (0.169, 0.174) | 66.40 | 92.82 | |
| LF | 0.159 (0.157, 0.161) | 0.157 (0.155, 0.160) | 34.40 | |
| LI | 0.176 (0.174, 0.179) | 0.164 (0.161, 0.166) | 0.163 (0.161, 0.166) |
Genetic diversity estimates for Rediviva longimanus population pools based on SNPs with a minor allele count of 2, minimum coverage of 10, maximum coverage ≤ 98%
| Population | Number of segregating sites | Watterson’s | Tajima’s |
|---|---|---|---|
| AP | 9912 | 0.0007 | 0.0008 |
| LC | 8196 | 0.0007 | 0.0008 |
| LF | 8779 | 0.0007 | 0.0008 |
| LI | 7362 | 0.0007 | 0.0008 |
| Mean | 8562 | 0.0007 | 0.0008 |
Fig. 2Population genetic structure of Rediviva longimanus according to principal component analysis (PCA). (a) PCA, performed in PCADAPT, suggested that three principal components explained most of the population genetic structure and revealed a clear separation into four population clusters. (b) Analysing more than three components did not contribute to disentangle further population genetic structure and revealed additional variance within rather than between clusters
Fig. 3Regression of genetic differentiation of Rediviva longimanus population pools upon (a) foreleg length (FLL) and (b) geographic distance (log10). Although we failed to detect a significant pattern of isolation by adaptation (IBA) or isolation by distance (IBD) for the R. longimanus populations, there was a positive trend in both
Comparisons of three demographic models: bottleneck, constant size and population expansion, according to the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Akaike’s weight of evidence (w)
| Population | Model |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| AP | |||
| Bottleneck | 180.643 | 1.00 | |
| Constant | 182.808 | 0.00 | |
| Expansion | 182.807 | 0.00 | |
| LC | |||
| Bottleneck | 289.859 | 1.00 | |
| Constant | 308.174 | 0.00 | |
| Expansion | 388.800 | 0.00 | |
| LF | |||
| Bottleneck | 255.909 | 1.00 | |
| Constant | 268.570 | 0.00 | |
| Expansion | 407.161 | 0.00 | |
| LI | |||
| Bottleneck | 298.631 | 1.00 | |
| Constant | 317.317 | 0.00 | |
| Expansion | 352.877 | 0.00 | |
Tails of the FST distributions in the population pools and leg pools datasets and number of outliers identified in those tails or by PCADAPAT. Note that we identified 1,133 outliers overall, with 14 shared between approaches or datasets, i.e. 1,119 unique outliers in total
| Method | Dataset |
| Outlier RAD-tags |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCADAPT |
| - | 309 |
|
| 0.547 - 0.833 | 86 | |
|
| 0.001 - 0.014 | 86 | |
| PCADAPT |
| - | - |
|
| 1.000 | 592 | |
|
| 0 - 0.002 | 60 | |
|
| 1133 (14 shared) |
Fig. 4Overall we identified 1119 unique outlier RAD-tag loci. Shown is the overlap between (a) the different methods for the population pools and between (b) the population pools and leg pools datasets. Diagrams were created with http://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/Venn