| Literature DB >> 30651060 |
Ana Riesgo1, Sergi Taboada2,3, Rocío Pérez-Portela4, Paolo Melis5, Joana R Xavier6,7, Gema Blasco5, Susanna López-Legentil8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the distribution of the genetic variation of marine species is fundamental to address species conservation and management strategies, especially in scenarios with mass mortalities. In the Mediterranean Sea, Petrosia ficiformis is one of the species most affected by temperature-related diseases. Our study aimed to assess its genetic structure, connectivity, and bottleneck signatures to understand its evolutionary history and to provide information to help design conservation strategies of sessile marine invertebrates.Entities:
Keywords: Bottleneck; Dispersal; Genetic differentiation; Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium; Inbreeding; Migration; Population genetics; Porifera
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30651060 PMCID: PMC6335727 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-018-1343-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Fig. 1Sampling sites spanning the entire distribution range of Petrosia ficiformis. Maps were obtained and modified from Google maps (Map data: Google, DigitalGlobe, 2018)
Details on collection sites and number of individuals per location for Petrosia ficiformis
| Location | Code | N | Coordinates | Region |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sao Miguel Is., Azores, Portugal | SMI | 16 | 37.731764, −25.60182 | A, Az, M |
| Flores Island, Azores, Portugal | FLO | 10 | 39.503603, −31.243692 | A, Az, M |
| Madeira, Portugal | MAD | 14 | 32.701961, −16.758297 | A, M, SM |
| Tenerife,Canary Islands, Spain | CAN | 8 | 28.367267, −16.343625 | A, M, SM |
| Carboneras, Spain | CAR | 27 | 36.993139, −1.887294 | WM, PA |
| Cartagena, Cabo de Palos, Spain | CART | 7 | 37.629778, −0.688783 | WM |
| Blanes, Spain | BLA | 27 | 41.673213, 2.802638 | WM |
| Els Ullastres, Llafranç, Spain | ULL | 18 | 41.886108, 3.195997 | WM |
| Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Spain | FEL | 12 | 41.770931, 3.030411 | WM |
| L’Escala, Spain | ESC | 10 | 42.120158, 3.139733 | WM |
| Grotte à Corail, Marseille, France | MRS | 12 | 43.210339, 5.332714 | WM |
| Nice, France | NIZ | 16 | 43.682825, 7.320811 | WM |
| Portofino, Liguria, Italy | LIG | 16 | 44.305681, 9.214097 | WM |
| Bacoli, Naples, Italy | NAP | 16 | 40.780506, 14.083178 | WM |
| Trieste, Slovenia | SLO | 13 | 45.688828, 13.639978 | EM, AS |
| South Adriatic (Croatia) | SCRO | 14 | 43.547203, 15.872928 | EM, AS |
| Jelsa (Hvar Island) Croatia | JECRO | 14 | 43.176067, 16.696278 | EM, AS |
| Crete, Greece | CRE | 10 | 35.488389, 24.155528 | EM |
| Achziv, Israel | ISR | 20 | 33.051517, 35.101528 | EM |
| TOTAL | 280 |
Abbreviations: A Atlantic, AS Adriatic Sea, Az Azores, EM Eastern Mediterranean, M Macaronesia, PA Pre-Alboran, SM Southern Macaronesia, WM Western Mediterranean
Results of the bottleneck analysis and effective population size for the 19 populations of Petrosia ficiformis
| Pop. | ϴ | CI 95% | A | Ae | rA | Ho | He | FIS | HWE | Wilcoxon rank test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (2t_SMM) | (2t_TPM) | ||||||||||
| SMI | 0.003 | 0.0003–0.0048 | 30 | 1.938 | 2.567 | 0.383 | 0.403 | 0.089 | ** | 0.426 | 0.820 |
| FLO | 0.020 | 0.0054–0.0228 | 24 | 1.532 | 2.123 | 0.307 | 0.341 | 0.156 | ** | 0.301 | 0.570 |
| MAD | 0.085 | 0.0800–0.0953 | 38 | 2.322 | 3.019 | 0.393 | 0.48 | 0.217 | *** | 0.160 | 0.922 |
| CAN | 0.050 | 0.036–0.0530 | 41 | 3.016 | 3.888 | 0.636 | 0.618 | 0.045 | ** | 0.432 | 0.160 |
| CAR | 0.084 | 0.0710–0.0970 | 49 | 2.694 | 3.361 | 0.579 | 0.54 | −0.052 | ns |
| 0.625 |
| CART | 0.092 | 0.0803–0.0980 | 47 | 2.707 | 4.347 | 0.586 | 0.581 | 0.068 | ns |
| 0.105 |
| BLA | 0.093 | 0.0884–0.0980 | 81 | 3.901 | 4.847 | 0.681 | 0.718 | 0.071 | *** |
| 0.084 |
| ULL | 0.085 | 0.0800–0.0976 | 37 | 2.233 | 2.855 | 0.613 | 0.503 | −0.191 | ** | 0.625 | 0.625 |
| FEL | 0.036 | 0.0444–0.0601 | 51 | 3.262 | 3.997 | 0.658 | 0.624 | −0.01 | ns | 0.625 | 0.625 |
| ESC | 0.003 | 0.0000–0.0150 | 40 | 2.732 | 3.552 | 0.627 | 0.56 | −0.065 | ns | 1.000 | 0.625 |
| MRS | 0.036 | 0.0102–0.0174 | 50 | 2.62 | 3.922 | 0.489 | 0.56 | 0.173 | *** |
|
|
| NIZ | 0.040 | 0.0438–0.0562 | 48 | 2.478 | 3.563 | 0.551 | 0.562 | 0.057 | *** |
|
|
| LIG | 0.018 | 0.0002–0.0274 | 60 | 3.964 | 4.736 | 0.509 | 0.706 | 0.311 | *** | 0.922 | 0.193 |
| NAP | 0.061 | 0.0498–0.0845 | 53 | 3.342 | 4.145 | 0.677 | 0.682 | 0.042 | ns | 0.625 | 0.032 |
| SLO | 0.090 | 0.0832–0.1000 | 41 | 2.919 | 3.567 | 0.7 | 0.633 | −0.065 | ns | 0.322 |
|
| SCRO | 0.029 | 0.0060–0.0223 | 53 | 2.775 | 3.804 | 0.574 | 0.553 | −0.001 | ns |
| 0.105 |
| JECRO | 0.096 | 0.0854–0.1000 | 55 | 2.96 | 4.181 | 0.548 | 0.617 | 0.151 | *** |
| 0.084 |
| CRE | 0.007 | 0.0000–0.0133 | 48 | 2.822 | 3.926 | 0.627 | 0.556 | −0.075 | ns |
| 0.131 |
| ISR | 0.007 | 0.0007–0.0133 | 77 | 4.276 | 4.97 | 0.778 | 0.738 | −0.028 | ns |
| 1.000 |
Abbreviations: Pop population, ϴ, Theta; 25–75% confidence intervals for ϴ, Ns number of individuals, A number of alleles, Ae Number of effective alleles, rA number of alleles after rarefaction, Ho observed heterozygosity, He expected heterozygosity, F inbreeding coefficient, HWE deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, ns not significant; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001; TPM, two-phase model; SMM, stepwise-mutation model
Fig. 2Correlation between genetic diversity (He) of Petrosia ficiformis and geographical location. The sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies during the last glacial maximum (30,000–19,000 years ago) is plotted onto the graph. Data for SST was obtained from [79]
Fig. 3Individual genotype assignment of Petrosia ficiformis to clusters (K) as inferred by STRUCTURE for all studied sites with a–b. K = 6 and c–d. K = 10. In b and d, pie frequency charts depict the percentage of individuals assigned to each of the 5 clusters from b and c for all sites. Colors are assigned as in b and d except grey which shows the percentage of individuals for which the assignation was not clear (Q-value cutoff 60). Red lines indicate barriers detected by BARRIER ranked a to f in order of importance. Maps were modified from Wikipedia under a Creative Commons license (User Canuckguy)
Fig. 4a. FST comparisons between 19 populations of Petrosia ficiformis. All comparisons showed significant p-values except for the comparison between CRE and SCRO. Actual values for each comparison can be found in Additional file 2. b. Average values (and standard errors) of F for each sampling site across Petrosia ficiformis distribution
Fig. 5Population differentiation in Petrosia ficiformis. a. Subdivision of all sites according to DAPC analysis. b. Subdivision of the Mediterranean sites according to DAPC analysis
Results of the AMOVA performed using three different groupings for the investigated populations of Petrosia ficiformis: A. Atlantic (SMI, FLO, CAN, and MAD) vs. Mediterranean (CAR, CART, BLA, ULL, FEL, ESC, MRS, NIZ, LIG, NAP, SLO, SCRO, JECRO, CRE, and ISR); B. Atlantic (SMI, FLO, CAN, and MAD) vs. Western Mediterranean (CAR, CART, BLA, ULL, FEL, ESC, MRS, NIZ, LIG, and NAP) vs. Eastern Mediterranean (SLO, SCRO, JECRO, CRE, and ISR); and C. Atlantic (SMI and FLO) vs Macaronesia (CAN and MAD) vs. Western Mediterranean (CAR, CART, BLA, ULL, FEL, ESC, MRS, NIZ, LIG, and NAP) vs. Eastern Mediterranean (SLO, SCRO, JECRO, CRE, and ISR). Atlantic See Table 1 for full name of locations. Significant p-values appear in bold letters
| A. Atlantic vs. Mediterranean | ||||||
| Source of Variation | %var | Std.Dev. | c.i.2.5% | c.i.97.5% | ||
| Within Individuals | 0.730 | 0.270 | 0.068 | 0.134 | 0.385 | – |
| Among Individual | 0.030 | 0.039 | 0.081 | −0.122 | 0.180 |
|
| Among Populations | 0.194 | 0.204 | 0.017 | 0.169 | 0.233 |
|
| Among Groups | 0.046 | 0.046 | 0.011 | 0.026 | 0.069 |
|
| B. Atlantic vs. Western Mediterranean vs. Eastern Mediterranean | ||||||
| Source of Variation | %var | Std.Dev. | c.i.2.5% | c.i.97.5% | ||
| Within Individuals | 0.722 | 0.278 | 0.069 | 0.144 | 0.393 | – |
| Among Individuals | 0.033 | 0.043 | 0.082 | −0.112 | 0.183 |
|
| Among Populations | 0.152 | 0.167 | 0.014 | 0.140 | 0.192 |
|
| Among Groups | 0.094 | 0.094 | 0.025 | 0.052 | 0.145 |
|
| C. Azores vs. Macaronesia vs. Western Mediterranean vs. Eastern Mediterranean | ||||||
| Source of Variation | %var | Std.Dev. | c.i.2.5% | c.i.97.5% | ||
| Within Individuals | 0.714 | 0.286 | 0.069 | 0.145 | 0.402 | – |
| Among Individuals | 0.030 | 0.040 | 0.081 | −0.119 | 0.183 |
|
| Among Populations | 0.124 | 0.143 | 0.012 | 0.119 | 0.165 |
|
| Among Groups | 0.132 | 0.132 | 0.019 | 0.100 | 0.171 |
|
Fig. 6Migration patterns in Petrosia ficiformis. a. Number of last generation migrants indicated in percentage of the population for each sampling site. b. Migration estimates among the four areas considered AZO (SMI, FLO), CAN, MAD, WES (CAR, CART, BLA, ULL, FEL, ESC, MRS, NIZ, LIG, and NAP), and EAS (SLO, SCRO, JECRO, CRE, and ISR). Only values over 0.1 are shown in the graph. c. Heatmap of coalescent migration estimations. The scale refers to migration rates between 0 and 250 (actual data can be seen in Additional file 5)