| Literature DB >> 35178292 |
Hai Rui Liu1,2,3, Gulzar Khan4, Qingbo Gao3, Faqi Zhang3, Wenhui Liu5, Yingfang Wang1, Jie Fang2, Shilong Chen3, Sahib Gul Afridi6.
Abstract
Triosteum pinnatifidum Maxim., an alpine plant, is traditionally used for several medicinal purposes. Here, both chloroplast DNA sequences and nuclear low copy sequence markers were used to investigate the genetic diversity and population structure of T. pinnatifidum. Materials were collected from thirteen localities in the northeast Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (QTP) and adjacent highlands and advanced analytical toolkits were used to access their origin and range shifts. The results revealed a higher level of population differentiation based on chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) concatenated sequences compared with the nuclear DNA sequences (F ST = 0.654 for cpDNA, F ST = 0.398 for AT103), indicating that pollen flow was still extensive in T. pinnatifidum. A decline in haplotype variation was observed from the plateau edge and adjoining highlands toward the platform of the QTP. The hypothesis "dispersal into the QTP," proposing that T. pinnatifidum experienced migration from the plateau edge and adjacent highlands to the platform, was supported. These results were in line with the hypothesis that multiple refugia exist on the plateau edge and adjacent highlands rather than on the plateau platform. Our unimodal mismatch distribution, star-like network supported a recent expansion in T. pinnatifidum. ©2022 Liu et al.Entities:
Keywords: Alpine plants; Genetic diversity; Palaeodistributional modelling; Range shifts
Year: 2022 PMID: 35178292 PMCID: PMC8815373 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.12754
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Sample data and haplotypes of Triosteum pinnatifidum.
For each locality, haplotype composition (H1–H7 for cpDNA, S1–S5 for AT103) is indicated. SC, Sichuan; QH, Qinghai.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Luhuo, SC | Chensl1890 | N31°37′29.0″ | E100°43′12.0″ | 3,470 | 14 | H2(14) | S2(14) |
| P2 | Hongyuan, SC | Chensl1842 | N31°50′15.3″ | E102°41′11.4″ | 3,370 | 3 | H7(3) | S1(3) |
| P3 | Rangtang, SC | Chensl-1162 | N32°19′16″ | E100°49′50″ | 3,430 | 6 | H2(6) | S2(6) |
| P4 | Aba, SC | Chensl-1178 | N32°35′55″ | E101°14′26″ | 3,090 | 4 | H2(4) | S2(4) |
| P5 | Banma, QH | Chensl-0335 | N32°48′46″ | E100°49′08″ | 3,600 | 6 | H2(6) | S2(5) S4(1) |
| P6 | Ruoergai, SC | Chen2012028 | N33°40′50.6″ | E103°27′49.1″ | 3,150 | 14 | H2(14) | S2(14) |
| P7 | Taibaishan, Shaanxi | Zhang2015005 | N34°00′40″ | E107°48′34″ | 2,863 | 3 | H3(1) H6(2) | S2(1) S3(2) |
| P8 | Lishan, Shanxi | Zhang2015032 | N35°30′46″ | E111°56′02″ | 1,792 | 3 | H2(1) H4(2) | S2(2) S3(1) |
| P9 | Pingan, QH | Chensl-1759 | N36°20′24.0″ | E101°54′58.5″ | 2,690 | 5 | H1(3) H2(2) | S2(5) |
| P10 | Ledu, QH | Chensl-1820 | N36°41′16.9″ | E102°24′09.3″ | 2,650 | 3 | H2(3) | S2(3) |
| P11 | Huzhu, QH | Chensl-1725 | N36°55′07.5″ | E102°22′01.1″ | 2,690 | 11 | H2(11) | S2(11) |
| P12 | Datong, QH | Liu2017001 | N37°50′45″ | E111°28′02″ | 2,750 | 8 | H1(4) H2(2) H5(2) | S2(3) S3(5) |
| P13 | Jiaocheng,Shanxi | Zhang2015051 | N37°50′45″ | E111°28′02″ | 1,823 | 6 | H4(6) | S2(4) S3(1) S5(1) |
Figure 1Geographic distribution of cpDNA and AT103 haplotypes detected among 13 populations of Triosteum pinnatifidum, (A) cpDNA, (B) AT103.
Pie charts show the proportions of haplotypes within each population.
Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) of AT103 haplotypes for localities of Triosteum pinnatifidum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole distribution | Among localities | 12 | 7.80 | 0.08 | 39.77 | |
| Within localities | 73 | 9.04 | 0.12 | 60.23 | ||
| Total | 85 | 16.84 | 0.20 | 0.397 | ||
| Edge group | Among localities | 6 | 3.30 | 0.06 | 24.11 | |
| Within localities | 32 | 6.54 | 0.20 | 75.89 | ||
| Total | 38 | 9.84 | 0.26 | 0.24* | ||
| Platform group | Among localities | 5 | 3.10 | 0.08 | 66.06 | |
| Within localities | 41 | 1.67 | 0.04 | 33.94 | ||
| Total | 46 | 4.77 | 0.12 | 0.66* | ||
| Edge group versus Platform group | Among groups | 1 | 1.24 | 0.01 | 5.67 | |
| Among localities within groups | 11 | 6.40 | 0.08 | 37.84 | ||
| Within localities | 73 | 8.21 | 0.11 | 56.49 | ||
| Total | 85 | 15.85 | 0.20 | 0.44* |
Notes.
degree of freedom
sum of squares
variance component
Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) of cpDNA haplotypes for localities of Triosteum pinnatifidum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole distribution | Among localities | 12 | 15.92 | 0.19 | 65.40 | |
| Within localities | 73 | 7.37 | 0.10 | 34.60 | ||
| Total | 85 | 23.29 | 0.29 | 0.65* | ||
| Edge group | Among localities | 6 | 11.40 | 0.31 | 57.63 | |
| Within localities | 32 | 7.37 | 0.23 | 42.37 | ||
| Total | 38 | 18.77 | 0.54 | 0.58* | ||
| Platform group | Among localities | 5 | 2.81 | 0.08 | 100 | |
| Within localities | 41 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | ||
| Total | 46 | 2.81 | 0.08 | 1.00* | ||
| Edge group versus Platform group | Among groups | 1 | 1.71 | −0.00046 | −0.16 | |
| Among localities within groups | 11 | 14.21 | 0.19 | 65.53 | ||
| Within localities | 73 | 7.37 | 0.10 | 34.63 | ||
| Total | 85 | 23.29 | 0.29 | 0.65* |
Notes.
degree of freedom
sum of squares
variance component
Estimates of H, H, G, N for cpDNA and AT103 haplotypes of Triosteum pinnatifidum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cpDNA | Overall localities | 0.204 | 0.626 | 0.675 | 0.601 |
| Edge group | 0.378 | 0.798 | 0.526 | 0.511 | |
| Platform group | 0.000 | 0.333 | NC | NC | |
| AT103 | Overall localities | 0.216 | 0.417 | 0.483 | 0.416 |
| Edge group | 0.362 | 0.590 | 0.386 | 0.403 | |
| Platform group | 0.056 | 0.378 | 0.853 | 0.750 |
Notes.
average gene diversity within localities
total gene diversity
interlocality differentiation
number of substitution types
not calculated
Results of neutrality tests and mismatch distribution analysis for the whole gene pool of Triosteum pinnatifidum based on cpDNA and AT103 sequence datasets.
|
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| cp DNA | Overall | −1.25 | 0.10 | −3.58 | 0.047 | 0.002 | 0.38 | 0.12 | 0.32 |
| Edge group | −0.82 | 0.26 | −1.35 | 0.22 | 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.09 | |
| Platform group | −0.63 | 0.21 | −0.36 | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.59 | 0.43 | |
| AT103 | Overall | −0.77 | 0.27 | −2.38 | 0.07 | 0.003 | 0.41 | 0.31 | 0.56 |
| Edge group | −0.23 | 0.37 | 0.30 | 0.50 | 0.009 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.42 | |
| Platform group | 0 | 1 | −1.33 | 0.11 | 0.0006 | 0.36 | 0.52 | 0.65 | |
Notes.
sum of squared deviation under expansion model
Harpending’s raggedness index
Figure 2(A) Mismatch distribution for chloroplast DNA sequence data of Triosteum pinnatifidum. (B) Mismatch distribution for nuclear DNA sequence data of T. pinnatifidum.
Solid lines represent expected differences among sequences, whereas dashed lines are drawn from the observed differences.
Figure 3Estimated climatic niche models for Triosteum pinnatifidum.
Maps are shown for each of the four periods tested. (A) Suitable areas for LIG. (B) Suitable areas for LGM. (C) Suitable areas for the Mid-Holocene. (D) Current suitable areas.