| Literature DB >> 33093465 |
Laura Cristina Multini1, Ana Letícia da Silva de Souza2, Mauro Toledo Marrelli1,2, André Barretto Bruno Wilke3,4.
Abstract
Fragmentation of natural environments as a result of human interference has been associated with a decrease in species richness and increase in abundance of a few species that have adapted to these environments. The Brazilian Atlantic Forest, which has been undergoing an intense process of fragmentation and deforestation caused by human-made changes to the environment, is an important hotspot for malaria transmission. The main vector of simian and human malaria in this biome is the mosquito Anopheles cruzii. Anthropogenic processes reduce the availability of natural resources at the tree canopies, An. cruzii primary habitat. As a consequence, An. cruzii moves to the border of the Atlantic Forest nearing urban areas seeking resources, increasing their contact with humans in the process. We hypothesized that different levels of anthropogenic changes to the environment can be an important factor in driving the genetic structure and diversity in An. cruzii populations. Five different hypotheses using a cross-sectional and a longitudinal design were tested to assess genetic structure in sympatric An. cruzii populations and microevolutionary processes driving these populations. Single nucleotide polymorphisms were used to assess microgeographic genetic structure in An. cruzii populations in a low-endemicity area in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Our results show an overall weak genetic structure among the populations, indicating a high gene flow system. However, our results also pointed to the presence of significant genetic structure between sympatric An. cruzii populations collected at ground and tree-canopy habitats in the urban environment and higher genetic variation in the ground-level population. This indicates that anthropogenic modifications leading to habitat fragmentation and a higher genetic diversity and structure in ground-level populations could be driving the behavior of An. cruzii, ultimately increasing its contact with humans. Understanding how anthropogenic changes in natural areas affect An. cruzii is essential for the development of more effective mosquito control strategies and, on a broader scale, for malaria-elimination efforts in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33093465 PMCID: PMC7581522 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-74152-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Map of the Anopheles cruzii sampling locations in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. (a) Map of Brazil showing the locality of the city of São Paulo in the state of São Paulo in the southeastern region of the country. (b) Map of the city of São Paulo showing the locality of the subdistrict of Parelheiros where the An. cruzii collections occurred. (c) Satellite images of the An. cruzii sampling locations. From left to right: Urban—the Engenheiro Marsilac neighborhood; Suburban/Rural—a transition area between Atlantic Forest remnants and a cattle range; and Natural—Atlantic Forest remnants on private property. The map of vegetation remnants of the Atlantic Forest Biome in the municipality of São Paulo is
available at https://geosampa.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/PaginasPublicas/_SBC.aspx.
Anopheles cruzii sampling information.
| Collection site | Trap | Number of specimens* | Geographic coordinates | Vegetation cover (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 2017 | Latitude | Longitude | |||
| Natural | CDC canopy | 30 | 25 | 23° 56.378′S | 46° 41.659′W | 92 |
| CDC ground | 30 | – | ||||
| Shannon | 30 | 26 | ||||
| Suburban/rural | CDC canopy | 22 | 25 | 23° 54.556′S | 46° 42.167′W | 71 |
| CDC ground | 30 | – | ||||
| Shannon | 30 | 30 | ||||
| Urban | CDC canopy | 18 | 9 | 23° 54.395′S | 46° 42.486′W | 63 |
| CDC ground | 15 | – | ||||
| Shannon | 30 | 30 | ||||
*Specimens randomly selected from collections conducted once a month from February 2016 to July 2017.
Figure 2Detection of outlier SNPs. Graph of the distribution of heterozygosity values in relation to FST values of all filtered SNPs. Each locus is represented by a black dot in the graph. The red lines show 95% smoothed quantiles calculated by fsthet.
Genetic descriptors for 1235 SNPs in Anopheles cruzii populations for all tested hypotheses.
| Hypothesis | Area | Population | Ho | He | HWE (non-corrected | HWE (corrected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesis 1 | All areas | Canopy | 0.192 | 0.2647 | 0.2592 | 0.3099 |
| Ground | 0.1907 | 0.2638 | 0.2442 | 0.2888 | ||
| Hypothesis 2 | Natural | Canopy | 0.1963 | 0.269 | 0.4423 | 0.5642 |
| Ground | 0.1862 | 0.2643 | 0.4349 | 0.5367 | ||
| Suburban/rural | Canopy | 0.187 | 0.2717 | 0.4487 | 0.5562 | |
| Ground | 0.1994 | 0.2638 | 0.4855 | 0.6297 | ||
| Urban | Canopy | 0.2119 | 0.2709 | 0.618 | 0.7587 | |
| Ground | 0.2057 | 0.2872 | 0.5587 | 0.6597 | ||
| Hypothesis 3 | Natural | 0.1892 | 0.2648 | 0.133 | 0.149 | |
| Suburban/rural | 0.1889 | 0.2634 | 0.1342 | 0.1499 | ||
| Urban | 0.1897 | 0.2626 | 0.1927 | 0.2233 | ||
| Hypothesis 4 | All areas | 2016 | 0.1842 | 0.2627 | 0.122 | 0.1357 |
| 2017 | 0.1921 | 0.2645 | 0.0833 | 0.0898 | ||
| Hypothesis 5 | Natural | 2016 | 0.1853 | 0.2639 | 0.1895 | 0.2172 |
| 2017 | 0.1966 | 0.2658 | 0.3523 | 0.4389 | ||
| Suburban/rural | 2016 | 0.1853 | 0.2622 | 0.2039 | 0.2354 | |
| 2017 | 0.1946 | 0.265 | 0.3206 | 0.3938 | ||
| Urban | 2016 | 0.1853 | 0.2639 | 0.1894 | 0.2171 | |
| 2017 | 0.1966 | 0.2658 | 0.3523 | 0.4389 |
Observed heterozygosity (Ho), Expected heterozygosity (He), Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE).
Population structure statistics. Global estimates of D, FST, FIS and G”ST for all SNPs for the tests of Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2.
| Hypothesis | Area | Population structure | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistics | Estimate | Non-corrected | Corrected | ||
| Hypothesis 1 | All areas | 0.000229923 | 0.6183816 | 0.848255 | |
| − 0.000702856 | 0.8941059 | 0.895105 | |||
| − 0.000989916 | 0.8951049 | 0.895105 | |||
| 0.02421096 | 0.8941059 | 0.895105 | |||
| Hypothesis 2 | Natural | 0.000526055 | 0.7582418 | 0.863137 | |
| 3.46145E − 05 | 0.4335664 | 0.846953 | |||
| 4.7792E − 05 | 0.4335664 | 0.846953 | |||
| 0.06047334 | 0.4285714 | 0.846953 | |||
| Suburban/rural | 0.000759986 | 0.3396603 | 0.846953 | ||
| 0.000353953 | 0.3876124 | 0.846953 | |||
| 0.000509479 | 0.3876124 | 0.846953 | |||
| 0.07533064 | 0.5314685 | 0.848255 | |||
| Urban | 0.001501095 | 0.210646 | |||
| 0.004968052 | 0.210646 | ||||
| 0.007001884 | 0.210646 | ||||
| 0.1256977 | 0.065934066 | 0.296703 | |||
Statistically significant P values (> 0.05) are shown in bold. Hypothesis 1: Comparison of tree-canopy (70) and ground-level (75) Anopheles cruzii populations from all areas. Hypothesis 2: comparison of Anopheles cruzii populations from tree canopy and ground level separated by area classified according to the degree of anthropogenic modification (Natural: 30/30, suburban/rural: 22/30 and urban: 18/15).
Figure 3Genetic variation of tree-canopy and ground-level Anopheles cruzii populations using principal component analysis. (a) Hypothesis 1: comparison of tree-canopy (70) and ground-level (75) Anopheles cruzii populations from all areas. (b) Hypothesis 2: comparison of Anopheles cruzii populations from tree canopy and ground level separated by area classified according to the degree of anthropogenic modification (natural: 30/30, suburban/rural: 22/30 and urban: 18/15). Data were transformed using PCA and plotted as a function of the first two principal components. In parenthesis: number of specimens used in the analyses.
Figure 4Genetic structure of tree-canopy and ground-level Anopheles cruzii populations in São Paulo. (a) Hypothesis 1: comparison of tree-canopy (70) and ground-level (75) Anopheles cruzii populations from all areas. (b) Hypothesis 2: comparison of tree-canopy and ground-level Anopheles cruzii populations separated by area classified according to the degree of anthropogenic modification (natural: 30/30, suburban/rural: 22/30 and urban: 18/15). Each of the individuals from the two populations collected in different areas is represented by a vertical line divided into different colored segments. The length of each segment represents the probability of the individual belonging to the genetic cluster represented by that color. In parenthesis: number of specimens used in the analyses.