| Literature DB >> 33203402 |
Huimin Hou1, Hang Ye1, Zhi Wang1, Jiahui Wu1, Yue Gao1, Wei Han1, Dongchen Na1, Genlou Sun2, Yiling Wang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ulmus lamellosa (one of the ancient species of Ulmus) is an endemic and endangered plant that has undergone climatic oscillations and geographical changes. The elucidation of its demographic history and genetic differentiation is critical for understanding the evolutionary process and ecological adaption to forests in Northern China.Entities:
Keywords: Aat; Demographic history; Genetic differentiation; ITS; Ulmus lamellosa
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33203402 PMCID: PMC7672979 DOI: 10.1186/s12870-020-02723-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Fig. 1Geographical distribution and the median-joining network of haplotypes. a Geographical distribution of 18 ITS haplotypes; b The median-joining network of 18 ITS haplotypes; c Geographical distribution of 23 Aat haplotypes; d The median-joining network of 23 Aat haplotypes
The estimated diversity indexes of Ulmus lamellosa populations
| Groups | Populations | Sample sizes | ITS sequences | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number haplotypes | Haplotype diversity (H | Nucleotide diversity ( | Number haplotypes | Haplotype diversity (H | Nucleotide diversity ( | |||
| THM | CC | 17 | H1(13), H6(2), H15(2) | 0.396 | 0.00066 | H2(3), H3(1), H4(5), H10(2), H15(4), H16(2) | 0.857 | 0.00720 |
| HS | 22 | H1(20), H2(2) | 0.318 | 0.00052 | H12(11), H13(5), H14(6) | 0.833 | 0.00808 | |
| QLY | 22 | H1(18), H6(2), H7(2) | 0.517 | 0.00140 | H3(11), H4(6), H8(5) | 0.833 | 0.00638 | |
| SGS | 15 | H1(10), H2(5) | 0.667 | 0.00103 | H14(5), H19(5), H20(5) | 1 | 0.01190 | |
| MS | 11 | H1(11) | 0 | 0 | H17(11) | 0 | 0 | |
| JM | 18 | H1(12), H2(6) | 0.667 | 0.00103 | H10(18) | 0 | 0 | |
| HHG | 15 | H1(12), H2(3) | 0.439 | 0.00073 | H15(5), H21(5), H22(5) | 1 | 0.01190 | |
| LS | 14 | H17(7), H18(7) | 1 | 0.00309 | H17(7), H23(7) | 1 | 0.00513 | |
| TGS | 14 | H1(10), H8(4) | 0.5 | 0.00155 | H4(9), H9(5) | 0.667 | 0.00680 | |
| HLS | 18 | H1(10), H3(2), H4(2), H5(4) | 0.636 | 0.00127 | H1(5), H2(2), H3(6), H4(5) | 0.81 | 0.00705 | |
| 0.359 | 0.00084 | 0.926 | 0.01506 | |||||
| YSM | SFS | 20 | H1(3), H8(2), H9(6), H10(7), H11(1), H12(1) | 0.929 | 0.00839 | H5(7), H6(7), H7(6) | 0.8 | 0.00272 |
| WLS | 18 | H1(12), H16(6) | 0.667 | 0.00309 | H5(18) | 0 | 0 | |
| 0.909 | 0.00939 | 0.714 | 0.00219 | |||||
| YM | JFS | 12 | H1(11), H5(1) | 0.275 | 0.00063 | H4(8), H18(4), | 0.667 | 0.00680 |
| MLG | 16 | H1(12), H13(3), H14(1) | 0.423 | 0.00109 | H11(5), H12(5), H13(6) | 1 | 0.00510 | |
| 0.332 | 0.00079 | 0.933 | 0.00969 | |||||
| Total | 232 | 18 | 0.424 | 0.00212 | 23 | 0.941 | 0.01601 | |
Fig. 2The chronogram for Ulmus lamellosa based on BEAST analysis of ITS sequences. Positions of the fossil calibrations were indicated by a five-pointed star. Divergence times were labeled on each node. Blue bars at nodes represented the 95% highest probability density (HPD) for the age of that node
Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) based on ITS and Aat sequences for Ulmus lamellosa
| Source of variance | d.fa | SSb | Variance components | Variance percentage (%) | Fixation indices ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Among groups | 2 | 26.684 (39.147) | 0.346 (0.981) | 40.60 (41.96) | |
| Among populations within groups | 11 | 15.287 (83.274) | 0.123 (1.621) | 14.43 (25.40) | |
| Within populations | 231 | 43.631 (55.476) | 0.383 (1.261) | 44.97 (32.64) |
In parentheses--the results based on Aat data; Outside parentheses--the results based on ITS data
a, degrees of freedom; b, sum of squares
Neutrality tests (Tajima’s D and Fu’s F tests) and mismatch distribution analyses
| Groups | ITS sequences | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neutrality tests | Mismatch distribution analyses | Neutrality tests | Mismatch distribution analyses | |||||
| Tajima’s | Fu’s | SSD ( | HRag ( | Tajima’s | Fu’s | SSD ( | HRag ( | |
| THM | −2.211 ( | −10.024 ( | 0.00028 (0.800) | 0.19533 (0.630) | −0.296 ( | −2.907 ( | 0.010 (0.250) | 0.013 (0.880) |
| YSM | 0.498 ( | 0.132 ( | 0.404 (0.350) | 0.072 (0.420) | 0.413 ( | −0.071 ( | 0.048 (0.170) | 0.286 (0.240) |
| YM | −1.751 ( | −0.999 ( | 0.009 (0.540) | 0.234 (0.560) | 1.394 ( | −0.839 ( | 0.054 (0.350) | 0.191 (0.330) |
| Total | −0.605 ( | −0.044 (N.A.) | 0.069 (0.274) | 0.336 (0.393) | 0.015 ( | 0.449 (N.A.) | 0.105 (0.258) | 0.307 (0.445) |
Fig. 3The Approximate Bayesian Computation analysis of Ulmus lamellosa assessed using DIYABC software. Time in generations was t (t2 ≥ t1). a optimal model (ITS), c, e posterior probabilities (ITS), b optimal model (Aat), d, f posterior probabilities (Aat)
Fig. 4Estimates of historical gene flow using MIGRATE, contemporary gene flow using BEYASASS and 95% confidence intervals (CI) (in parentheses) within (a) historical gene flow based on ITS, (b) contemporary gene flow based on ITS, (c) historical gene flow based on Aat, and (d) contemporary gene flow based on Aat