4.6 Article

Genetic analysis ofCryptozona siamensis(Stylommatophora, Ariophantidae) populations in Thailand using the mitochondrial 16S rRNA and COI sequences

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 15, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239264

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Research Council of Thailand through the Annual Research Fund Naresuan University [R2562B079, R2562B078]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cryptozona siamensis, one of the most widespread land snails, is native to Thailand, and plays a key role as an agricultural pest and intermediate host forAngiostrongylusspp. However, its genetic diversity and population structure has not yet been investigated, and are poorly understood. Therefore, a genetic analysis of theC.siamensispopulation in Thailand was conducted, based mitochondrial 16S rRNA (402 bp) and COI (602 bp) gene fragment sequences.Cryptozona siamensisrandomly collected from 17 locations in four populations across Thailand, between May 2017 and July 2018. Fifty-eight snails were used to examine the phylogeny, genetic diversity, and genetic structure. The maximum likelihood tree based on the 16S rRNA and COI fragment sequences revealed two main clades. A total of 14 haplotypes with 44 nucleotide variable sites were found in the 16S rRNA sequences, while 14 haplotypes with 57 nucleotide variable sites were found in the COI sequences. The genetic diversity ofC.siamensisin term of the number of haplotypes and haplotype diversity, was found to be high but the nucleotide diversity showed low levels of genetic differentiation for the COI sequence as also noted with the 16S rRNA sequence. The population genetic structure ofC.siamensisrevealed genetic difference in most populations in Thailand. However, low genetic difference in some populations may be due to high gene flow. This study provides novel insights into the basic molecular genetics ofC.siamensis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available