| Literature DB >> 35729909 |
Filipe Sousa1, Joana Costa1,2, Carla Ribeiro1, Marta Varandas3, Francisco Pina-Martins1,4, Fernanda Simões3, José Matos3, Maria Glushkova5, Célia Miguel6,7, Maria Manuela Veloso3, Margarida Oliveira8, Cândido Pinto Ricardo8, Dora Batista1,9, Octávio S Paulo1.
Abstract
Quercus suber L. is a sclerophyllous tree species native to the western Mediterranean, a region that is considered highly vulnerable to increased temperatures and severe dry conditions due to environmental changes. Understanding the population structure and demographics of Q. suber is essential in order to anticipate whether populations at greater risk and the species as a whole have the genetic background and reproductive dynamics to enable rapid adaptation. The genetic diversity of Q. suber has been subject to different studies using both chloroplast and nuclear data, but population structure patterns remain unclear. Here, we perform genetic analyses on Q. suber using 13 nuclear microsatellite markers, and analysed 17 distinct locations across the entire range of the species. Structure analyses revealed that Q. suber may contain three major genetic clusters that likely result from isolation in refugia combined with posterior admixture and putative introgression from other Quercus species. Our results show a more complex structure scenario than previously inferred for Q. suber using nuclear markers and suggest that different southern populations contain high levels of genetic variation that may contribute to the resilience of Q. suber in a context of environmental change and adaptive pressure. ©2022 Sousa et al.Entities:
Keywords: Conservation; Cork oak; Glacial refugia; Population genetics; West Mediterranean
Year: 2022 PMID: 35729909 PMCID: PMC9206845 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.13565
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 3.061
Figure 1Map of sampling sites.
Map showing the distribution of Quercus suber around the western Mediterranean and the location of the 17 sampling sites.
Genetic diversity across 13 SSR loci.
| Locus | Marker | bp (range) | Na | He | Ho | Fst | fna | Fis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSQ4 | nuSSR | 192–218 | 10 | 0.677 | 0.444 | 0.246 | 0.207/0.161 | 0.14/0.19 |
| MSQ13 | nuSSR | 198–230 | 12 | 0.586 | 0.289 | 0.512 | 0.338/0.229 | 0.02/0.19 |
| QrOst1 | EST-SSR | 132–152 | 11 | 0.622 | 0.555 | 0.062 | 0.057/0.043 | 0.05/0.09 |
| QpD12 | EST-SSR | 239–252 | 5 | 0.485 | 0.4 | 0.108 | 0.096/0.061 | 0.08/0.17 |
| QpZag15 | nuSSR | 101–135 | 14 | 0.649 | 0.460 | 0.241 | 0.170/0.129 | 0.08/0.16 |
| QpZag9 | nuSSR | 223–249 | 11 | 0.187 | 0.142 | 0.013 | 0.135/0.039 | 0.23/0.24 |
| QpZag46 | nuSSR | 178–198 | 9 | 0.674 | 0.533 | 0.082 | 0.116/0.092 | 0.14/0.18 |
| QpZag110 | nuSSR | 208–258 | 24 | 0.860 | 0.777 | 0.034 | 0.050/0.046 | 0.07/0.09 |
| QpZag36 | nuSSR | 181–225 | 13 | 0.847 | 0.685 | 0.075 | 0.105/0.096 | 0.13/0.17 |
| QrZag20 | nuSSR | 145–175 | 7 | 0.540 | 0.430 | 0.046 | 0.113/0.077 | 0.17/0.20 |
| QrZag11 | nuSSR | 255–281 | 11 | 0.663 | 0.594 | 0.031 | 0.054/0.043 | 0.08/0.09 |
| QrZag7 | nuSSR | 115–133 | 10 | 0.789 | 0.701 | 0.073 | 0.058/0.051 | 0.05/0.07 |
| QmAJ1 | EST-SSR | 360–385 | 8 | 0.645 | 0.422 | 0.118 | 0.208/0.156 | 0.26/0.27 |
Notes.
The name, type of marker and fragment size range in base-pairs (bp) are indicated for each locus.
number of observed alleles
expected heterozygosity
observed heterozygosity
fixation index
frequency of null allele estimated with the methods of Chakraborty et al. (1994) (left) and Brookfield (1996) (right)
the mean inbreeding coefficient estimated from population estimates with the formula of Weir & Cockerham (1984) for the 17 populations (left) and for K = 3 (right)
Genetic diversity across 17 sampling sites.
For each of the 17 sampling sites, the corresponding country, coordinates, label and number of samples (N) are shown. The mean allelic richness (Ar), number of private alleles (Np), inbreeding coefficient (Fis), Weir & Cockerham, 1984), expected heterozygosity (He) and observed heterozygosity (Ho) for each site and 13 SSR loci are presented.
| Sampling site | Label | Country | Latitude | Longitude | N | Ar | Np | Fis | He | Ho |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estrela | EST | Portugal | 40°32′N | 7°51′W | 30 | 4.78 | 0 | 0.15 | 19.40 | 16.55 |
| Catalonia | CAT | Spain | 41°51′N | 2°32′E | 30 | 4.51 | 1 | 0.05 | 20.24 | 19.27 |
| Haza del Lino | HDL | Spain | 36°50′N | 3°18′W | 27 | 4.53 | 0 | 0.11 | 17.09 | 15.18 |
| Kenitra | KEN | Morocco | 34°05′N | 6°35′W | 30 | 4.74 | 0 | 0.05 | 18.85 | 18.00 |
| Taza | TAZ | Morocco | 34°12′N | 4°15′W | 30 | 4.76 | 1 | 0.1 | 19.89 | 17.91 |
| Arrábida | ARR | Portugal | 38°50′N | 9°03′W | 29 | 4.63 | 3 | 0.15 | 18.37 | 15.73 |
| Sintra | SIN | Portugal | 38°45′N | 9°25′W | 30 | 5.35 | 8 | 0.09 | 18.69 | 17.09 |
| Monchique | MON | Portugal | 37°19′N | 8°34′W | 29 | 5.3 | 3 | 0.14 | 18.53 | 15.91 |
| Guerbès | ARG | Algeria | 36°54′N | 7°15′E | 30 | 5.52 | 6 | 0.11 | 21.11 | 18.91 |
| Gerês | GER | Portugal | 41°40′N | 8°10′W | 29 | 4.49 | 0 | 0.13 | 18.17 | 15.91 |
| Buçaco | BUC | Portugal | 40°22′N | 8°21′W | 30 | 4.61 | 1 | 0.09 | 18.56 | 16.91 |
| Mekna | TUN | Tunisia | 36°57′N | 8°51′E | 28 | 4.77 | 3 | 0.1 | 19.73 | 17.82 |
| Apulia | PUG | Italy | 40°34′N | 17°40′E | 22 | 4.76 | 0 | 0.15 | 16.13 | 13.73 |
| Lazio | LAZ | Italy | 42°25′N | 11°57′E | 27 | 4.82 | 1 | 0.18 | 16.62 | 13.64 |
| Sicily | SIC | Italy | 37°07′N | 14°30′E | 29 | 4.43 | 2 | 0.08 | 19.34 | 17.73 |
| Sardinia | SAR | Italy | 39°05′N | 8°51′E | 28 | 4.49 | 3 | 0.17 | 17.55 | 14.64 |
| Corsica | COR | France | 41°37′N | 8°58′E | 30 | 4.51 | 2 | 0.05 | 18.40 | 17.55 |
Figure 2Clustering plots from the analyses of the full data set and the neutral data set.
Q-value plots from the STRUCTURE analysis of the 11 neutral loci for K = 2 (A), K = 3 (B) and K = 4 (C); Q-value plots from the MavericK analysis of 11 neutral loci for K = 3 (D).
Figure 3Fst distance dendrogram.
Pairwise Fst consensus dendrogram for the 11 neutral loci data set, calculated with the UPGMA method from 1,000 bootstrap replicates.
Figure 4PCA and CA of the 11 neutral SSR loci data set.
(A) Principal components analysis (PCA) showing axes 1 and 2; PC1 and PC2 explain 6. 85% of the variance (PC1:4.4%, PC2: 2.45%). (B) Correspondence analysis (CA) showing axes 1 and 2. Population labels as shown in Table 2.