| Literature DB >> 35885893 |
Kuan Zhao1,2, Gregory A Korfanty1, Jianping Xu1, R Greg Thorn3.
Abstract
The wild edible mushroom Cantharellus enelensis is a recently described species of the golden chanterelles found in eastern North America. At present, the genetic diversity and population structure of C. enelensis are not known. In this study, we analyzed a total of 230 fruiting bodies of C. enelensis that were collected from three regions of Canada: near the east and west coasts of Newfoundland (NFLD), with 110 fruiting bodies each, and around Hamilton, Ontario (10 fruiting bodies). Among the 110 fruiting bodies from each coast in NFLD, 10 from 2009 were without specific site information, while 100 sampled in 2010 were from each of five patches separated by at least 100 m from each other. Each fruiting body was genotyped at three microsatellite loci. Among the total 28 multilocus genotypes (MLGs) identified, 2 were shared among all three regions, 4 were shared between 2 of the 3 regions, and the remaining 22 were each found in only 1 region. Minimal spanning network analyses revealed several region-specific MLG clusters, consistent with geographic specific mutation and expansion. Though the most frequently observed MLGs were shared among local (patch) and regional populations, population genetic analyses revealed that both local and regional geographic separations contributed significantly to the observed genetic variation in the total sample. All three regional populations showed excess heterozygosity; for the eastern NFLD population, we reject the null hypothesis of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) at all three loci. However, the analyses of clone-corrected samples revealed that most loci were in HWE. Together, our results suggest that the three discrete regional populations of C. enelensis were likely colonized from a common refugium since the last ice age. However, the local and regional populations are diverging from each other through mutation, drift, and selection at least partly due to heterozygous advantage.Entities:
Keywords: Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium; edible mushroom; excess heterozygotes; microsatellite genotyping; population genetics; range expansion
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35885893 PMCID: PMC9319088 DOI: 10.3390/genes13071110
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genes (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4425 Impact factor: 4.141
Figure 1Geographical distribution of 28 MLGs of C. enelensis. The frequencies of the MLGs in each site are indicated by the pie diagrams.
Number of alleles and allelic diversity at the three microsatellite loci for the three regional populations of C. enelensis in Canada.
| Population | Locus |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eastern NFLD | Cf113 | 110 | 4 | 1.78 | 0.44 |
| Cf126 | 110 | 3 | 2.19 | 0.55 | |
| Cf642 | 110 | 2 | 1.54 | 0.35 | |
| Mean | 110 | 3 | 1.84 | 0.45 | |
| Standard Error | 0 | 0.58 | 0.19 | 0.06 | |
| Western NFLD | Cf113 | 110 | 3 | 1.96 | 0.49 |
| Cf126 | 110 | 3 | 1.55 | 0.36 | |
| Cf642 | 110 | 2 | 1.07 | 0.06 | |
| Mean | 110 | 2.67 | 1.53 | 0.30 | |
| Standard Error | 0 | 0.33 | 0.26 | 0.13 | |
| Hamilton, Ontario | Cf113 | 10 | 3 | 2.25 | 0.58 |
| Cf126 | 10 | 2 | 1.98 | 0.52 | |
| Cf642 | 10 | 2 | 1.73 | 0.44 | |
| Mean | 10 | 2.33 | 1.98 | 0.52 | |
| Standard Error | 0 | 0.33 | 0.15 | 0.04 |
N = sample size; Na = number of unique alleles; Ne = effective number of alleles; uh = unbiased diversity.
Figure 2Minimum-spanning network for C. enelensis showing the genetic relationship between MLGs. Each circle represents one MLG, where node size corresponds to the number of fruiting bodies for each MLG. The genetic distance between MLGs was calculated using Bruvo’s genetic distance. The MSN for the relationship between all the MLGs from eastern and western NFLD and the mainland (ON) is displayed on the left, whereas the two MSN trees on the right are for the eastern and western NFLD regions.
Chi-square tests for Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium within the three regional populations of C. enelensis in Canada.
| Region | Locus | Nonclone-Corrected | Clone-Corrected | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observed Heterozygotes | Expected Heterozygotes | Chi-Square Value | Observed Heterozygotes | Expected Heterozygotes | Chi-Square Value | ||
| Eastern NFLD | Cf113 | 52 | 20.7 | 28.504 *** | 12 | 12.8 | 8.214 |
| Cf126 | 103 | 59.7 | 85.250 *** | 21 | 13.8 | 11.931 ** | |
| Cf642 | 50 | 38.6 | 9.516 ** | 14 | 10.2 | 3.529 | |
| Western NFLD | Cf113 | 71 | 51.0 | 19.395 *** | 18 | 14.8 | 2.725 |
| Cf126 | 42 | 38.9 | 0.984 | 12 | 13.4 | 0.964 | |
| Cf642 | 7 | 6.8 | 0.119 | 3 | 2.8 | 0.086 | |
| Hamilton, Ontario | Cf113 | 8 | 4.8 | 4.444 | 5 | 1.7 | 2.160 |
| Cf126 | 9 | 5.4 | 6.694 ** | 6 | 3.4 | 3.938 * | |
| Cf642 | 4 | 4.2 | 0.023 | 3 | 3.2 | 0.031 | |
Bold chi-square values indicate that the assuming hypothesis of random mating can be rejected; p < 0.05 (*), < 0.01 (**), and < 0.001 (***).
Two-level hierarchical AMOVA of C. enelensis in NFLD.
| Data | Source | df | SS | MS | Est. Var. | % | Value |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonclone-corrected | Among Regions | 1 | 351.580 | 351.580 | 2.462 | 16% | 0.160 | 0.001 *** |
| Among Local Pops | 8 | 843.160 | 105.395 | 4.865 | 32% | 0.375 | 0.001 *** | |
| Within Local Pops | 190 | 1539.000 | 8.100 | 8.100 | 53% | 0.475 | 0.001 *** | |
| Total | 199 | 2733.740 | 15.427 | 100% | ||||
| Clone-corrected | Among Regions | 1 | 98.587 | 98.587 | 3.505 | 19% | 0.195 | 0.001 *** |
| Among Local Pops | 7 | 93.576 | 13.368 | 0.000 | 0% | −0.018 | 0.583 | |
| Within Local Pops | 40 | 587.143 | 14.679 | 14.679 | 81% | 0.181 | 0.004 ** | |
| Total | 48 | 779.306 | 18.183 | 100% |
Bold p-values indicate that the assuming hypothesis of no differentiation can be rejected; p < 0.01 (**), and < 0.001 (***).
Comparison of the three microsatellite loci between the two chanterelle species.
| Locus | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allele No. | Repeat Motif | Fragment Length * | Allele No. | Repeat Motif | Fragment Length | |
| Cf113 | 4 | (ggt)5 | 96, –, 117, 120 | 4 | (gac)4N38(acc)5 | 111, 113, 116, 119 |
| Cf126 | 3 | (ggt)6 | 221, 228, 231 | 4 | (ggt)7 | 213, 216, 219, 222 |
| Cf642 | 4 | (gaca)9 | 275, 276, 277, 279 | 3 | (gtct)4N9(tgtt)3 | 267, 290, 294 |
*, “–“, allele not reported in paper.