| Literature DB >> 35898427 |
Shuhui Du1, Xiaoyan Hu1, Xiuyun Yang1, Wendong Yu2, Zhaoshan Wang3.
Abstract
Phylogeographic research concerning Central China has been rarely conducted. Population genetic and phylogeography of Ziziphus jujuba var. spinosa (also called sour jujube) were investigated to improve our understanding of plant phylogeographic patterns in Central China. Single-copy nuclear gene markers and complete chloroplast genome data were applied to 328 individuals collected from 21 natural populations of sour jujube in China. Nucleotide variation of sour jujube was relatively high (π = 0.00720, θ w = 0.00925), which resulted from the mating system and complex population dynamics. Analysis of molecular variation analysis revealed that most of the total variation was attributed to variation within populations, and a high level of genetic differentiation among populations was detected (F st = 0.197). Relatively low long-distance dispersal capability and vitality of pollen contributed to high genetic differentiation among populations. Differences in the environmental conditions and long distance among populations further restricted gene flow. Structure clustering analysis uncovered intraspecific divergence between central and marginal populations. Migrate analysis found a high level of gene flow between these two intraspecific groups. Bayesian skyline plot detected population expansion of these two intraspecific groups. Network and phylogeny analysis of chloroplast haplotypes also found intraspecific divergence, and the divergence time was estimated to occur at about 55.86 Ma. Haplotype native to the Loess Plateau was more ancient, and multiple glacial refugia of sour jujube were found to locate at the Loess Plateau, areas adjacent to the Qinling Mountains and Tianmu Mountains. Species distribution model analysis found a typical contraction-expansion model corresponding to the Quaternary climatic oscillations. In the future, the distribution of sour jujube may shift to high-latitude areas. This study provides new insights for phylogeographic research of temperate plant species distributed in Central China and sets a solid foundation for the application of the scientific management strategy of Z. jujuba var. spinosa.Entities:
Keywords: Ziziphus jujuba var. spinosa; chloroplast genome; genetic structure; nucleotide variation; population dynamic; single‐copy nuclear gene markers
Year: 2022 PMID: 35898427 PMCID: PMC9309028 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.9101
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 3.167
FIGURE 1Sampled populations of sour jujube in this study
Primers for the single‐copy nuclear gene markers used in this study
| Locus | Primer sequences (5′–3′) | Gene annotation | Ta (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SZ2 |
F:TGGTACAGGATCTACAATTC R:CCTGACTTTCTAATTGCTTC | myb‐like protein X | 52 |
| SZ11 |
F:ATGGCTTTTGCTTGCCTCTC R:GTGCATTCGGGTCATCAATG | UDP‐N‐acetylmuramoyl‐L‐alanyl‐D‐glutamate‐‐2,6‐diaminopimelate ligase MurE homolog | 53 |
| SZX2 |
F:GCTACTCGCTCTGGTTTCCAT R:GAAGAATCCTTGCCGGTTCAG | Trichohyalin | 54 |
| SZX12 |
F:GCCCTTTCGCAAAGCTTTCTT R:CCCAACACTGAGATTACTGGAG | Transcription termination factor MTEF18 | 54 |
| SZX13 |
F:AAATGGAAGCGGCCTAGTGA R:TCCAGGAGTTTCCTCAGAGTC | DNA repair endonuclease UVH1 | 54 |
Result of nucleotide variation of five single‐copy nuclear gene markers and neutrality tests
| Locus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SZ2 | 309 | 24 | 0.611 | 0.00619 | 0.01164 | −1.16927 | −4.95722 | −4.07025 | 3 | 1.16 |
| SZ11 | 846 | 82 | 0.940 | 0.00750 | d0.01694 | −1.59189 | 2.18531 | 0.28719 | 17 | 0.67 |
| SZX2 | 190 | 28 | 0.704 | 0.00746 | 0.02347 | −1.75806 | −0.27874 | −1.13229 | 3 | 1.93d |
| SZX12 | 648 | 43 | 0.923 | 0.00503 | 0.01124 | −1.50814 | −4.08123 | −3.46958 | 9 | 1.09 |
| SZX13 | 730 | 60 | 0.929 | 0.00765 | 0.01321 | −1.17321 | −3.45451 | −2.81122 | 8 | 0.84 |
| Mean | — | 37 | 0.857 | 0.00720 | 0.00925 | — | 8 | 1.33 |
p < .05.
p < .01.
AMOVA and F st analysis of Ziziphus jujuba var. spinosa populations in China
| Locus | SZ2 | SZ11 | SZX2 | SZX12 | SZX13 | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Among populations (%) | 24.37 | 27.96 | 9.06 | 15.84 | 21.28 | 19.70 |
| Within populations (%) | 75.63 | 72.04 | 90.94 | 84.16 | 78.72 | 80.30 |
|
| 0.243 | 0.279 | 0.090 | 0.158 | 0.212 | 0.197 |
FIGURE 2Result of structure analysis (a: result of ΔK, b: genetic composition of Ziziphus jujuba var. spinosa individuals)
Result of historical gene flow between population clusters
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CP → MP | MP → CP | ||
| Central population (CP) | 0.01497 (0.00940–0.02160) | 1696.7 (1432–1978.7) | |
| Marginal population (MP) | 0.00943 (0.00113–0.02) | 499.3 (64–301.3) | |
FIGURE 3Result of barrier analysis and geographic location of the genetic barrier was indicated by thick red lines (a) Bayesian skyline plots for the three groups, showing effective population size as a function of time. The upper and lower limits of light blue trend represented the 95% confidence intervals of HPD analysis. (b) Total sour jujube populations; (c) central populations; (d) marginal populations
Detailed information about the chloroplast genome of 21 sour jujube individuals
| Individual | Length (bp) | GC content (%) | LSC (bp)/GC(%) | SSC (bp)/GC(%) | IR (bp)/GC(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HBCD19 | 160,876 | 36.92 | 88,526/34.7 | 19,392/30.9 | 26,479/42.6 |
| HBQHD5 | 160,730 | 36.69 | 88,690/34.5 | 19,364/30.8 | 26,338/42.7 |
| HBXT5 | 160,691 | 36.86 | 88,411/34.7 | 19,358/30.9 | 26,461/42.7 |
| CZCZ1 | 160,750 | 36.86 | 88,378/34.7 | 19,378/30.9 | 26,497/42.6 |
| DTYG9 | 160,795 | 36.84 | 88,481/34.7 | 19,356/30.8 | 26,479/42.6 |
| JZTG11 | 160,764 | 36.69 | 88,737/34.5 | 19,353/30.8 | 26,337/42.7 |
| LLXY7 | 159,754 | 36.89 | 87,701/34.8 | 19,107/30.8 | 26,470/42.9 |
| YCRC14 | 161,259 | 36.74 | 88,945/34.5 | 19,356/30.9 | 26,479/42.6 |
| SDLS10 | 161,211 | 36.75 | 88,897/34.6 | 19,356/30.9 | 26,478/42.6 |
| LYMY19 | 160,705 | 36.70 | 88,674/34.5 | 19,359/32.4 | 26,336/43.0 |
| SDTA10 | 161,278 | 36.77 | 88,964/34.6 | 19,356/30.9 | 26,479/42.6 |
| TJWQ2 | 161,100 | 36.98 | 88,862/34.6 | 19,366/30.9 | 26,436/42.6 |
| NXYC4 | 161,062 | 36.80 | 88,746/34.6 | 19,358/30.9 | 26,479/42.6 |
| SXHZ9 | 161,279 | 36.76 | 88,888/34.6 | 19,361/30.9 | 26,515/42.6 |
| SXWN9 | 160,918 | 36.79 | 88,640/34.6 | 19,356/30.9 | 26,461/42.7 |
| HNNY2 | 159,994 | 36.99 | 87,751/34.9 | 19,259/31.0 | 26,492/42.6 |
| HNSMX5 | 160,347 | 36.93 | 87,995/34.8 | 19,368/30.9 | 26,492/42.6 |
| HNLY9 | 159,399 | 37.30 | 87,244/35.5 | 19,127/31.1 | 26,514/42.6 |
| HNZZ14 | 161,100 | 37.01 | 88,862/34.6 | 19,361/30.9 | 26,436/42.6 |
| AHLA1 | 160,668 | 36.51 | 88,573/34.2 | 19,339/30.5 | 26,378/42.7 |
| HBXY14 | 161,080 | 36.85 | 88,751/34.6 | 19,361/30.9 | 26,484/42.7 |
Abbreviations: LSC, long single‐copy region; SSC, short single‐copy region; IR, inverted repeat sequence; LGM, Last glaciation maximum.
FIGURE 4Network and BEAST analysis of sour jujube chloroplast genome sequences (a: network analysis; b: BEAST result. Number next to nodes indicated divergence time, and dark bar indicated 95% HPD)
FIGURE 5Distribution dynamic of Ziziphus jujuba var. spinosa in different periods (a: present; b: last glacial maximum; c: middle holocene; d: last interglacial; e: 2050s, RCP2.6; f: 2050s, RCP4.5; g: 2050s, RCP8.5; h: 2070s, RCP2.6; i: 2070s, RCP4.5; j: 2070s, RCP8.5)