| Literature DB >> 30669977 |
Song Guo1,2, Guichang Li1, Jinli Liu1, Jun Wang1, Liang Lu3, Qiyong Liu4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rattus tanezumi is a common commensal rat and an important host animal of bubonic plague in South China and Southeast Asia. The northward dispersal of this species in mainland China has been reported in recent decades, along with more recent intercontinental expansion. Population genetics of R. tanezumi in mainland China were studied to explain the relationship between dispersal history and the ancient and modern transportation networks of China.Entities:
Keywords: Dispersal; Mainland China; Population genetics; Rattus tanezumi
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30669977 PMCID: PMC6341715 DOI: 10.1186/s12863-019-0714-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genet ISSN: 1471-2156 Impact factor: 2.797
Fig. 1Sampling locations and genetic clusters of different populations used in this study (a) and the dendrogram based on microsatellites using Nei’s genetic distance (b). The map of China shows the locations of sampled rat populations, the Tea Horse Ancient Road, the Chuan-Zang Highway, and primary rivers in China. The coloured pie charts represent distinct genetic clusters found via Bayesian clustering analysis for each population, with red representing cluster I, yellow presenting cluster II and green for cluster III. The map is downloaded from the website of National Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation of China (http://bzdt.nasg.gov.cn/index.jsp)
Information of populations included in the present research
| Populations | Locality | Geographic coordinate | Altitude | Habitat | Sample size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIH | Lianghe, Yunnan | 24°53.61′N; 098°21.72′E | 1000 | Outdoor | 30 |
| RUL | Ruili, Yunnan | 24°00.77′N; 097°51.11′E | 760 | Rice field | 32 |
| BAS | Baoshan, Yunnan | 25°06.72′N; 099°09.69′E | 1650 | Rice field | 29 |
| XGL | Xianggelila, Yunnan | 28°29.17′N; 098°54.69′E | 1850 | Indoor | 16 |
| QNJ | Qujing, Yunnan | 25°29.40′N; 103°47.77′E | 1866 | Outdoor | 17 |
| Jinning, Yunnan | 24°40.18′N; 102°35.73′E | 1900 | Outdoor | 15 | |
| LOY | Longyou, Zhejiang | 29°18.41′N; 120°04.50′E | 52 | Indoor | 26 |
| LEZ | Leizhou, Guangdong | 20°54.86′N; 110°05.81′E | 20 | Indoor | 20 |
| WZS | Wuzhishan, Hainan | 18°46.51′N; 109°31.02′E | 200 | Indoor | 33 |
| QUZ | Quanzhou, Fujian | 24°52.86′N; 118°40.32′E | 20 | Indoor | 28 |
| SHH | Putuo, Shanghai | 31°14.97′N; 121°23.78′E | 8 | Indoor | 20 |
| Pudong, Shanghai | 31°11.04′N; 121°29.22′E | 8 | Indoor | 30 | |
| CHQ | Wanzhou, Chongqing | 30°48.47′N; 108°24.53′E | 200 | Indoor | 29 |
| Yubei, Chongqing | 29°43.09′N; 106°37.86′E | 200 | Indoor | 11 | |
| XIS | Xingshan, Hubei | 31°20.89′N; 110°44.81′E | 200 | Indoor | 39 |
| CHS | Changsha, Hunan | 28°13.71′N; 112°56.42′E | 50 | Indoor | 20 |
| SJZ | Shijiazhuang, Hebei | 38°02.54′N; 114°30.89′E | 160 | Indoor | 18 |
| SIC | Chengdu, Sichuan | 30°39.52′N; 104°03.89′E | 500 | Indoor | 12 |
| Qingchuan, Sichuan | 32°35.06′N; 105°14.29′E | 800 | Indoor | 10 | |
| XIY | Xingyi, Guizhou | 25°05.52’N; 104°53.71′E | 1160 | Indoor | 16 |
| NYC | Nyingchi, Tibet | 29°38.73′N; 091°08.56′E | 2970 | Indoor | 21 |
| LHS | Lhasa, Tibet | 29°38.73′N; 091°08.56′E | 3660 | Indoor | 30 |
Genetic variation in 18 populations averaged over 9 microsatellite loci: number of alleles per population (N), effective allele (N), Shannon’s information index (I), allele richness (R), observed heterozygosity (H), expected heterozygosity (He), inbreeding coefficient (F), mean values for the M-ratio test (M) and p-values for the genetic bottleneck detection using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test under Infinite Allele (IAM), Step-Wise Mutation (SMM) and Two-Phase Mutation (TPM) models
| LIH | RUL | BAS | XGL | QNJ | LOY | LEZ | WZS | QUZ | SHH | CHQ | XIS | CHS | SJZ | XIY | SIC | NYC | LHS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 14.11 | 14.67 | 12.44 | 10.00 | 12.67 | 12.44 | 11.56 | 11.33 | 9.78 | 10.56 | 12.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 8.00 | 9.33 | 8.67 | 6.56 | 7.00 |
|
| 8.39 | 9.53 | 7.69 | 6.66 | 7.86 | 7.92 | 7.37 | 6.76 | 6.13 | 5.96 | 7.28 | 6.19 | 5.35 | 4.69 | 6.22 | 5.34 | 3.96 | 3.37 |
|
| 2.33 | 2.43 | 2.23 | 2.05 | 2.23 | 2.25 | 2.16 | 2.06 | 1.94 | 1.97 | 2.13 | 1.96 | 1.89 | 1.70 | 1.94 | 1.81 | 1.52 | 1.42 |
|
| 11.68 | 12.35 | 10.66 | 10.00 | 10.64 | 10.98 | 10.74 | 9.37 | 8.73 | 8.611 | 9.76 | 8.502 | 9.202 | 7.715 | 9.33 | 8.06 | 6.21 | 6.14 |
|
| 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.88 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.824 | 0.86 | 0.831 | 0.819 | 0.782 | 0.84 | 0.80 | 0.74 | 0.67 |
|
| 0.72 | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.69 | 0.63 | 0.73 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.81 | 0.769 | 0.82 | 0.815 | 0.725 | 0.716 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.64 | 0.58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.02 | 0.067 | 0.05 | 0.019 |
| 0.084 | 0.09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.082 | 0.082 |
|
|
| 0.285 |
|
| 0.918 | 0.248 | 0.752 | 0.545 | 0.674 | 0.715 | 0.787 | 0.918 | 0.787 | 0.986 | 0.82 | 0.545 | 0.999 | 0.981 | 0.85 | 0.545 | 0.82 | 0.99 |
|
| 0.285 |
| 0.064 | 0.125 | 0.082 |
| 0.326 | 0.18 |
| 0.064 | 0.125 | 0.064 | 0.715 | 0.248 | 0.326 | 0.285 | 0.285 | 0.898 |
Bold characters denote a significant heterozygote deficiency (p < 0.05) after correction for multiple testing by the sequential Bonferroni procedure
Probability of assignment of individuals to each population cluster with Bayesian analysis in Structure
| Populations | Probability of assignment of individuals to each cluster | Number of loci in departure from HWE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | III | ||
| LIH | 0.9622 | 0.0288 | 0.0090 | 3 |
| RUL | 0.9490 | 0.0290 | 0.0220 | 6 |
| BAS | 0.9178 | 0.0542 | 0.0280 | 5 |
| XGL | 0.8650 | 0.1130 | 0.0220 | 2 |
| QNJ | 0.8715 | 0.0875 | 0.0410 | 5 |
| LOY | 0.4462 | 0.5232 | 0.0307 | 3 |
| LEZ | 0.3416 | 0.6053 | 0.0531 | 1 |
| WZS | 0.1645 | 0.7822 | 0.0533 | 2 |
| QUZ | 0.0765 | 0.8724 | 0.0512 | 0 |
| SHH | 0.0310 | 0.9418 | 0.0272 | 1 |
| CHQ | 0.0340 | 0.8588 | 0.1072 | 0 |
| XIS | 0.0150 | 0.8873 | 0.0977 | 0 |
| CHS | 0.0380 | 0.8936 | 0.0685 | 0 |
| SJZ | 0.0278 | 0.9202 | 0.0520 | 0 |
| XIY | 0.0522 | 0.9096 | 0.0382 | 0 |
| SIC | 0.0282 | 0.7016 | 0.2703 | 0 |
| NYC | 0.0130 | 0.0578 | 0.9292 | 0 |
| LHS | 0.0090 | 0.0208 | 0.9702 | 0 |
Fig. 2Rattus tanezumi population structure by nine microsatellite loci in 18 populations. (a) Bayesian assignments using STRUCTURE 2.3.4 (K = 3, with the ΔK likelihood [34]). Individuals are represented by thin vertical bars coloured according to inferred group membership, with red representing cluster I, yellow areas presenting cluster II and green for cluster III. (b) Maps of the posterior probabilitis to belong to genetic groups inferred in Geneland. Color gradient represents high (white) to low (red) posterior probabilities
Summary statistics for COI and D-loop polymorphisms in all populations
| Populations | mtDNA | N |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIH | COI | 29 | 6 | 6 | 0.719 | 1.867 | 0.00266 |
| D-loop | 30 | 18 | 8 | 0.805 | 5.421 | 0.00995 | |
| RUL | COI | 32 | 14 | 11 | 0.792 | 2.454 | 0.00350 |
| D-loop | 31 | 36 | 10 | 0.763 | 10.340 | 0.01894 | |
| BAS | COI | 30 | 8 | 6 | 0.680 | 1.561 | 0.00222 |
| D-loop | 29 | 27 | 11 | 0.884 | 6.202 | 0.01138 | |
| XGL | COI | 16 | 10 | 6 | 0.842 | 3.458 | 0.00493 |
| D-loop | 16 | 35 | 8 | 0.875 | 11.725 | 0.02147 | |
| QNJ | COI | 32 | 8 | 6 | 0.800 | 2.952 | 0.00420 |
| D-loop | 32 | 32 | 10 | 0.905 | 11.315 | 0.02076 | |
| LOY | COI | 25 | 10 | 7 | 0.707 | 2.240 | 0.00319 |
| D-loop | 26 | 25 | 5 | 0.600 | 6.689 | 0.01227 | |
| LEZ | COI | 20 | 7 | 3 | 0.484 | 1.474 | 0.00210 |
| D-loop | 20 | 19 | 3 | 0.595 | 4.005 | 0.00735 | |
| WZS | COI | 33 | 1 | 2 | 0.061 | 0.061 | 0.00009 |
| D-loop | 33 | 3 | 4 | 0.563 | 0.727 | 0.00133 | |
| QUZ | COI | 28 | 5 | 5 | 0.434 | 0.762 | 0.00011 |
| D-loop | 28 | 12 | 4 | 0.585 | 1.304 | 0.00239 | |
| SHH | COI | 50 | 4 | 3 | 0.153 | 0.310 | 0.00044 |
| D-loop | 50 | 10 | 4 | 0.424 | 0.762 | 0.00139 | |
| CHQ | COI | 40 | 2 | 2 | 0.296 | 0.592 | 0.00084 |
| D-loop | 40 | 14 | 8 | 0.669 | 3.212 | 0.00603 | |
| XIS | COI | 39 | 2 | 3 | 0.452 | 0.467 | 0.00067 |
| D-loop | 39 | 2 | 3 | 0.148 | 0.151 | 0.00028 | |
| CHS | COI | 18 | 1 | 2 | 0.366 | 0.366 | 0.00052 |
| D-loop | 20 | 2 | 3 | 0.616 | 0.711 | 0.00130 | |
| SJZ | COI | 18 | 1 | 2 | 0.523 | 0.523 | 0.00074 |
| D-loop | 18 | 5 | 5 | 0.680 | 1.379 | 0.00253 | |
| XIY | COI | 16 | 2 | 3 | 0.575 | 1.025 | 0.00146 |
| D-loop | 16 | 17 | 5 | 0.792 | 6.050 | 0.01110 | |
| SIC | COI | 22 | 4 | 4 | 0.567 | 0.961 | 0.00137 |
| D-loop | 22 | 11 | 4 | 0.455 | 3.043 | 0.00557 | |
| NYC | COI | 21 | 1 | 2 | 0.381 | 0.381 | 0.00054 |
| D-loop | 21 | 1 | 2 | 0.381 | 0.381 | 0.00070 | |
| LHS | COI | 30 | 1 | 2 | 0.331 | 0.331 | 0.00047 |
| D-loop | 30 | 1 | 2 | 0.331 | 0.331 | 0.00061 | |
| Overall | COI | 499 | 37 | 38 | 0.747 | 2.016 | 0.00287 |
| D-loop | 501 | 60 | 70 | 0.794 | 7.928 | 0.01455 |
Fig. 3Haplotype BI phylogram (a) and networks (b) based on COI sequences. The size of the pie charts represents the number of individuals who possess the haplotype, and the colours represent the regions where those individuals were collected. Each connecting line represents one mutational step between the different haplotypes