| Literature DB >> 33183225 |
Tai Wang1,2, Yan-Ping Zhang2, Zhuo-Yu Yang2, Zhe Liu3, Yan-Yan Du4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The northeastern part of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (QTP) presents a high number of plateau loach species. As one of the three major groups of fishes distributed on the QTP, plateau loach has high ecological value. However, the taxonomy and systematics of these fish are still controversial, and a large number of new species have been reported. The reason for this phenomenon is that the degree of morphological variation is low, the phylogenetic information provided by morphological and anatomical features used for species identification is relatively poor, and many cryptic species are observed. Based on the high-density sampling points from the biodiversity hotspots surveyed, this study aims to evaluate the biodiversity of plateau loach in the northeastern part of the QTP and reveal the hidden diversity by comparing morphological species with molecular operational taxonomic units (MOTUs).Entities:
Keywords: Cryptic species; DNA barcode; Qinghai-Tibet; Tibetan loach
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33183225 PMCID: PMC7663858 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-020-01718-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Fig. 1Collection sites. Details of the 111 sites and collected specimens are provided in Additioanl file 1: Table S1. (Sector names of the sampling sites: 1. Jiuzhai; 2. Wenxian; 3. Wudou; 4. Kangxian; 5. Tanchang; 6. Liangdang; 7. Huixian; 8. Chengxian; 9. Xihe; 10. Lixian; 11. Zhouqu; 12. Diebu; 13. Maqu; 14. Hongyuan; 15. Henan; 16. Longyangxia; 17. Jishishan; 18. Luqu; 19. Hezuo; 20. Xiahe; 21. Linxia; 22. Zhuoni; 23. Minxian; 24. Wushan; 25. Zhangxian; 26. Weiyuan; 27. Gangu; 28. Qinzhou; 29. Maiji; 30. Qingshui; 31. Zhangjiachuan; 32. Jingning; 33. Chongxin; 34. Huating; 35. Lingtai; 36. Kongtong; 37. Xifeng; 38. Ningxian; 39. Zhenyuan; 40. Wufo; 41. Pingchuan; 42. Lanzhou; 43. Yongjing; 44. Minhe; 45. Yongdeng; 46. Zhuanglang; 47. Liangzhou; 48. Minqin; 49. Menyuan; 50. Arou; 51. Gangcha; 52. Tianjun; 53. Qilian; 54. Huangcheng; 55. Jinchang; 56. Sunan; 57. Linze; 58. Gaotai; 59. Yumen; 60. Guazhou; 61. Subei; 62. Akesai. This base map was obtained from 91 Vita Assistant software https://www.91weitu.com/index.htm and was edited in Adobe Photoshop CS5 software.)
Fig. 2Studied specimens of Triplophysa. (1. T. dalaica G003; 2. T. stoliczkai G0070; 3. T. polyfasciata G0187; 4. T. bleekeri G0195; 5. T. robusta G0531; 6. T. obscura G0822; 7. T. pappenheimi G0852; 8. T. siluroides G0873; 9. T. hsutschouensis G0915; 10. T. minxianensis GS0213; 11. T. pseudoscleroptera GS0216; 12. T. scleroptera GS0230; 13. T. strauchii GS0273; 14. T. papilloso-labiatus GS0305; 15. T. wuweiensis GS0381; 16. T. orientalis GS0400; 17. T. shiyangensis GS0432; 18. T. leptosoma GS0441; 19. T. tenuis GS0500; 20. T. sellaefer GS0560; 21. T. sp1 GS562; 22. T. sp2 GS565. Scale bars equal 1 cm.)
Sampling information number of individuals and diversity parameters for the specimens included in this study
| Species | Collection site (River) | Numbure of specimens (N) | Numbure of haplotypes (Nh) | Haplotype diversity (h) | Nucleotide diversity (π) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jialing River | 5 | 1 | – | – | |
| Jinghe River | 55 | 9 | 0.469 ± 0.083 | 0.00114 ± 0.00102 | |
| Heihe River, Shulehe River, Shiyanghe River | 46 | 8 | 0.731 ± 0.041 | 0.00440 ± 0.00125 | |
| Shulehe River | 7 | 3 | 0.667 ± 0.160 | 0.00126 ± 0.00095 | |
| Yellow River, Jinghe River | 253 | 21 | 0.385 ± 0.040 | 0.00074 ± 0.00001 | |
| Yellow River, Weihe River | 20 | 2 | 0.526 ± 0.036 | 0.00087 ± 0.00047 | |
| Jialing River, Weihe River, Taohe River | 234 | 27 | 0.877 ± 0.012 | 0.00777 ± 0.00145 | |
| Taohe River | 19 | 1 | – | – | |
| Heihe River, Shulehe River | 95 | 13 | 0.603 ± 0.036 | 0.00201 ± 0.00112 | |
| Yellow River, Weihe River | 21 | 4 | 0.610 ± 0.114 | 0.00196 ± 0.00011 | |
| Jialing River | 10 | 3 | 0.600 ± 0.131 | 0.00121 ± 0.00082 | |
| Yellow River, Xiahe River | 9 | 4 | 0.583 ± 0.183 | 0.00138 ± 0.00105 | |
| Yellow River, Jialing River, Shiyanghe River | 219 | 46 | 0.936 ± 0.006 | 0.00588 ± 0.00182 | |
| Jinghe River | 194 | 15 | 0.591 ± 0.020 | 0.00133 ± 0.00012 | |
| Yellow River, Taohe River | 44 | 3 | 0.090 ± 0.059 | 0.00015 ± 0.00005 | |
| Jinghe River | 22 | 5 | 0.338 ± 0.128 | 0.00089 ± 0.00101 | |
| Shiyang River | 25 | 11 | 0.770 ± 0.086 | 0.00367 ± 0.00180 | |
| Yellow River, Xiahe River, Taohe River | 28 | 5 | 0.529 ± 0.105 | 0.00108 ± 0.00095 | |
| Yellow River, Jialing River | 3 | 2 | 0.667 ± 0.314 | 0.00660 ± 0.00269 | |
| Jialing River | 67 | 6 | 0.172 ± 0.062 | 0.00029 ± 0.00007 | |
| Yellow River, Xiahe River, Taohe River, Jinghe River, Jialing River, Shiyanghe River | 129 | 25 | 0.812 ± 0.028 | 0.00285 ± 0.00149 | |
| Heihe River | 11 | 2 | 0.509 ± 0.101 | 0.00084 ± 0.00056 | |
| Heihe River, Shulehe River | 97 | 11 | 0.378 ± 0.061 | 0.00082 ± 0.00010 | |
| Shiyanghe River | 17 | 3 | 0.404 ± 0.130 | 0.00090 ± 0.00085 | |
| Total | 1630 | 230 | |||
Fig. 3Fifty-percent majority-rule consensus tree showing the clustering of the MOTUs obtained by the four MOTU delimitation algorithms. (The values at the node represent support values in the NJ/ML/BI analysis.) (NJ bootstrap support values below 0.50, ML bootstrap support values below 50 and Bayesian posterior probabilities below 0.50 are not shown.) The length of clade indicates the percentage of divergence. The ruler at the bottom represents a 0.02 replacement for each site. The branch colours match those in the right coloured segmented bar, whose coloured segments represent morphological species. The four black segments bar on the left relative to the species delimitation methods delineate the entities detected by each method. The finer black segments bar on the far right represents the division of the main clades
Genetic K2P distances of the Triplophysa species
| Species | MOTU | Mean intra- | Maximum intra- | NN Dist | NN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOTU-1 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0731 | ||
| MOTU-3 | 0.0069 | 0.0130 | 0.0265 | ||
| MOTU-4 | 0.0017 | 0.0020 | 0.0271 | ||
| MOTU-5 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0598 | ||
| MOTU-7 | 0.0039 | 0.0070 | 0.0613 | ||
| MOTU-8 | 0.0033 | 0.0050 | 0.0751 | ||
| MOTU-9 | 0.0028 | 0.0030 | 0.0264 | ||
| MOTU-10 | 0.0101 | 0.0200 | 0.0264 | ||
| MOTU-11 | 0.0022 | 0.0030 | 0.0857 | ||
| MOTU-12 | 0.0099 | 0.0100 | 0.0290 | ||
| MOTU-13 | 0.0022 | 0.0030 | 0.0147 | ||
| MOTU-14 | 0.0053 | 0.0130 | 0.0147 | ||
| MOTU-16 | 0.0036 | 0.0070 | 0.0440 | ||
| MOTU-18 | 0.0063 | 0.0130 | 0.0320 | ||
| MOTU-6 | 0.0030 | 0.0050 | 0.0040 | ||
| MOTU-6 | 0.0040 | 0.0070 | 0.0040 | ||
| MOTU-2 | 0.0060 | 0.0120 | 0.0130 | ||
| MOUT-2 | 0.0040 | 0.0070 | 0.0130 | ||
| 0.0310 | 0.0790 | ||||
| MOTU-19 | 0.0082 | 0.0250 | 0.0320 | ||
| MOTU-15 | 0.0077 | 0.0180 | 0.0000 | ||
| 0.0160 | 0.0740 | 0.0110 | |||
| MOTU-17 | 0.0016 | 0.0020 | 0.0430 | ||
| MOTU-15 | 0.0050 | 0.0100 | 0.0000 | ||
| MOTU-15 | 0.0030 | 0.0050 | 0.0000 | ||
| MOTU-15 | 0.0020 | 0.0030 | 0.0000 |
The mean and the maximum of intra-group distances, the nearest neighbor (NN), and the minimum distance to the NN for the Nominal species
Fig. 4Relationship between the maximum genetic distance within species and nearest neighbour genetic distance among species
Fig. 5Haplotype networks for the species group involved in mixed genealogies. (The area of circles is proportional to the haplotype frequencies, and mv1–mv12 are missing haplotypes. Lines linking haplotypes indicate the evolutionary paths among haplotypes, and vertical bars on the linking lines represent the mutation steps between haplotypes.)