| Literature DB >> 34107885 |
Rong Huang1, Yu Wang1, Kuan Li1, Ying-Qiang Wang2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has always been controversy over whether clonal plants have lower genetic diversity than plants that reproduce sexually. These conflicts could be attributed to the fact that few studies have taken into account the mating system of sexually reproducing plants and their phylogenetic distance. Moreover, most clonal plants in these previous studies regularly produce sexual progeny. Here, we describe a study examining the levels of genetic diversity and differentiation within and between local populations of fully clonal Zingiber zerumbet at a microgeographical scale and compare the results with data for the closely related selfing Z. corallinum and outcrossing Z. nudicarpum. Such studies could disentangle the phylogenetic and sexually reproducing effect on genetic variation of clonal plants, and thus contribute to an improved understanding in the clonally reproducing effects on genetic diversity and population structure.Entities:
Keywords: Genetic differentiation; Reproduction mode; Spatial genetic structure; Zingiber zerumbet
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34107885 PMCID: PMC8191059 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-021-01853-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ecol Evol ISSN: 2730-7182
Attributes of ISSR primers of Zingiber zerumbet used in the present study
| Primer | Sequence 5´ to 3´ | SR (bp) | NT | NP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 810 | (GA)8 T | 44 | 220–2350 | 22 | 13 |
| 811 | (GA)8 T | 52 | 230–2050 | 22 | 20 |
| 817 | (CA)8A | 56 | 270–1750 | 21 | 20 |
| 826 | (AC)8C | 56 | 230–1800 | 27 | 21 |
| 834 | (AG)8Y*T | 46 | 320–2100 | 23 | 23 |
| 841 | (GA)8Y*C | 56 | 180–1850 | 24 | 24 |
| 847 | (CA)8R*C | 59 | 180–2200 | 38 | 35 |
| 857 | (AC)8Y*G | 48.5 | 180–1950 | 24 | 19 |
| 884 | HBH*(AG)7 | 52.5 | 220–1850 | 23 | 20 |
| 887 | DVD*(TC)7 | 52 | 370–1950 | 22 | 20 |
| 888 | BDB*(CA)7 | 56 | 270–2050 | 21 | 13 |
| 889 | DBD*(AC)7 | 59 | 270–1850 | 26 | 22 |
| Total | – | – | 180–2350 | 293 | 250 |
*B = (C, G, T), D = (A, G, T), R = (A, T), V = (A, C, G), Y = (C, G), H = (A, C, T)
Tm annealing temperature, SR size range of amplified fragments, NT total number of bands, NP number of polymorphic bands
Comparison of genetic diversity and clonal diversity parameters based on ISSR for local populations of Zingiber zerumbet at the microgeographic scale with that of selfing Z. corallinum and outcrossing Z. nudicarpum. (The data of Z. corallinum and Z. nudicarpum utilized in this study are from Huang et al. [44].)
| Local population | Sample size | NS | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS1 | 45 | 26 | 24 | 0.58 | 0.90 | 95 | 32.42 | 1.3242 | 1.1972 | 0.1140 | 0.1695 | 7 |
| DS2 | 54 | 50 | 47 | 0.93 | 0.99 | 116 | 39.59 | 1.3959 | 1.2258 | 0.1342 | 0.2024 | 5 |
| MLH | 24 | 24 | 24 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 102 | 34.81 | 1.3481 | 1.2402 | 0.1340 | 0.1955 | 5 |
| HJC | 106 | 105 | 104 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 174 | 59.39 | 1.5653 | 1.3399 | 0.1971 | 0.2955 | 21 |
| Average | 57 | 51.3 | 49.8 | 0.90 | 0.97 | 122 | 41.55 | 1.4084 | 1.2508 | 0.1448 | 0.2157 | 9.5 |
| Total | 229 | 205 | 199 | 0.90 | 1.00 | 250 | 85.32 | 1.8532 | 1.3952 | 0.2409 | 0.3713 | 38 |
| Average | 33 | 38 | 20.30 | 1.2028 | 1.1129 | 0.0662 | 0.0995 | 11.3 | ||||
| Total | 115 | 157 | 84.20 | 1.7655 | 1.4245 | 0.2490 | 0.3753 | 39.5 | ||||
| Average | 34 | 119 | 52.60 | 1.5256 | 1.2421 | 0.1464 | 0.2257 | 5 | ||||
| Total | 86 | 194 | 83.80 | 1.8384 | 1.3768 | 0.2246 | 0.3480 | 12.5 | ||||
G number of genotypes, S number of genotypes found only once, G/N the number of genotypes (G) relative to that of samples (N), D Simpson’s diversity index, PL number of polymorphic loci, PPL percentage of polymorphic loci, Na number of observed alleles, Ne number of effective alleles, h Nei's gene diversity, I Shannon’s information index, NS number of specific bands
Fig. 1Distribution of allele frequency in local populations of Zingiber zerumbet within the microgeographic area
Comparison of genetic differentiation statistics between local populations of clonal Zingiber zerumbet at the microgeographic scale with that of selfing Z. corallinum and outcrossing Z. nudicarpum. (The data of Z. corallinum and Z. nudicarpum utilized in this study are from Huang et al. [44].)
| Local populations | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS1 vs MLH | 0.1815 | 0.1242 | 0.3158 | 1.0831 |
| DS1 vs DS2 | 0.1892 | 0.1243 | 0.3427 | 0.9588 |
| DS1 vs HJC | 0.2312 | 0.1557 | 0.3264 | 1.0319 |
| MLH vs DS2 | 0.1701 | 0.1341 | 0.2117 | 1.8623 |
| MLH vs HJC | 0.2178 | 0.1655 | 0.2401 | 1.5823 |
| DS2 vs HJC | 0.2197 | 0.1657 | 0.2459 | 1.5337 |
| Average | 0.2016 | 0.1449 | 0.2804 | 1.3420 |
| Total | 0.2299 | 0.1405 | 0.4008 | 0.7476 |
| Average | 0.1920 | 0.0622 | 0.6782 | 0.3060 |
| Total | 0.2484 | 0.0721 | 0.7110 | 0.2575 |
| Average | 0.2013 | 0.1449 | 0.2680 | 1.6596 |
| Total | 0.2269 | 0.1474 | 0.3408 | 1.0311 |
HT total microgeographic diversity, HS average within local population diversity, GST local population differentiation, Nm gene flow
Comparison of summary of analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) for local populations of clonal Zingiber zerumbet at the microgeographic scale with that of selfing Z. corallinum and outcrossing Z. nudicarpum. (The data of Z. corallinum and Z. nudicarpum utilized in this study are from Huang et al. [44])
| Subpopulation | Source | df | Sums of squares | Mean squares | Variance component | Percentage of variation (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between local populations | 3 | 2647.505 | 882.502 | 16.613 | 46.0 | 0.460 | 0.001 | |
| Within local populations | 225 | 4387.936 | 19.502 | 19.502 | 54.0 | |||
| Between local populations | 6 | 23.942 | 78.4 | 0.784 | 0.001 | |||
| Within local populations | 224 | 12.152 | 21.6 | |||||
| Between local populations | 4 | 19.451 | 46.8 | 0.468 | 0.001 | |||
| Within local populations | 168 | 17.172 | 53.2 | |||||
df degrees of freedom, ФST between local populations deviations from Hardy–Weinberg expectations, p the probability of accepting the null hypothesis
Fig. 2Genetic-group-structure shown by STRUCTURE analysis for local populations of Zingiber zerumbet within the microgeographic area. Each individual vertical bar represents an individual and the black vertical bars separate the local populations, while different colors represent different gene pools
Fig. 3UPGMA dendrogram a based on the Dice coefficient and an unrooted Neighbor-Joining tree, b based on Nei’s genetic distance for individuals in local populations of Zingiber zerumbet within the microgeographic area
Fig. 4Comparison of scatterplot of the principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) based on ISSR polymorphisms for individuals in local populations of clonal Zingiber zerumbet within the microgeographic area with that of selfing Z. corallinum and outcrossing Z. nudicarpum. Different colors represent individuals from different local populations. (a minimum, maximum, and mean distance between sampled populations of the three Zingiber species, b Z. zerumbet, c, d Z. corallinum, e, f Z. nudicarpum; the figures of Z. corallinum and Z. nudicarpum utilized in this study are from Huang et al. [44])
Fig. 5Correlation between geographic distance and Nei’s genetic distance between local populations of Zingiber zerumbet within the microgeographic area
Fig. 6Correlogram showing the spatial autocorrelation coefficient (r) within four local populations of Zingiber zerumbet within the microgeographic area. (U and L represent the 95% two-tailed confidence interval, which was calculated based on 999 permutations; a-d–local populations DS1, DS2, MLH and HJC)
Fig. 7Location of the microgeographic area (GDYX) and distribution of local populations of Zingiber zerumbet within GDYX. Each dot represents a sampled individual. The map was drawn by the authors with reference to Google Maps. The map can be found at https://maps.google.com/