4.5 Article

Genetic diversity and molecular differentiation of Chinese toad based on microsatellite markers

Journal

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS
Volume 37, Issue 5, Pages 2379-2386

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11033-009-9745-6

Keywords

Bufo gargarizans; Microsatellite; Genetic diversity; Heterozygote deficit; Genetic differentiation

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  2. Foundation for Excellent Youth in Anhui Province
  3. Key Laboratory of Biotic Environment and Ecological safety in Anhui Province

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genetic diversity and population structure of 9 populations of Bufo gargarizans with total 111 samples in China were assessed using seven microsatellite loci. The analysed microsatellite markers produced 161 alleles, varied from 9 to 38 alleles each locus. The number of alleles per population per locus ranged from 4.43 to 10.29. Polymorphic information content showed that all seven loci were highly informative (mean = 0.810 +/- A 0.071). The average observed heterozygosity was less than the expected (0.353 +/- A 0.051 and 0.828 +/- A 0.067, respectively). All tested populations gave significant departures from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Genetic differentiation among the populations was considerably high with the overall and pairwise F (ST) values (mean = 0.160 +/- A 0.039), and showed fairly high level of inbreeding (indicated by a mean F (IS) value of 0.504 +/- A 0.051) and global heterozygote deficit. In comparison to other amphibian studies; however, our results suggested that the level of genetic structuring in B. gargarizans was relatively low in the geographical scale of the study area. Interestingly, the speculated population bottleneck was found to be absent and the analyses provide only weak evidence for a recent contraction in size even though there was severe inbreeding (indicated by the F (IS) value) in the Chinese toad populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available