4.3 Article

The validity of the subspecies, Teinopalpus aureus wuyiensis Lee, from complete mitochondrial genome

Journal

MITOCHONDRIAL DNA PART B-RESOURCES
Volume 6, Issue 9, Pages 2589-2591

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/23802359.2021.1960214

Keywords

Subspecies validity; molecular evidence; noninvasive sampling; maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree; intraspecific taxonomy

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31160430, 31760640]
  2. Biodiversity Survey and Assessment [2019HJ2096001006]
  3. Open Fund of PYHKF Key Laboratory [PYHKF-2020-03]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study revealed distinct genetic differences among different geographical populations of Teinopalpus aureus, supporting the classification of T. aureus wuyiensis and indicating a close genetic relationship between T. a. guangxiensis and T. a. aureus, suggesting they could be combined into one subspecies.
The complete mitochondrial genome (mtgenome) was determined from the emerged-pupa shell (Noninvasive sampling) of T. aureus wuyiensis Lee. It was 15,234 base pairs in length and contained 13 protein-coding genes (PCGs), 2 rRNA genes, 22 tRNA genes, and a control region. By taking Meandrusa sciron and Teinopalpus imperialis as outgroups, a maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree was constructed among five geographical populations of Teinopalpus aureus based on 13 PCGs and two rRNA genes. Our results showed that the WYS, MHS and PS populations, locating at or closing to Wuyishan Mountain-range, were in one cluster; while the JLS (locating at Nanling Mountain-range) and DYS (locating at Dayaoshan Mountain closing to Nanling Mountain-range) populations belonged to another cluster. It supported well the subspecies of T. aureus wuyiensis, and suggested that the genetic relationship between T. a. guangxiensis and the nominal subspecies of T. a. aureus were closer enough to combine into one subspecies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available