4.3 Article

Genetic distance in housekeeping genes between Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium reichenowi and within P-falciparum

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR EVOLUTION
Volume 59, Issue 5, Pages 687-694

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00239-004-2662-3

Keywords

malaria parasite; Plasmodium falciparum; Plasmodium reichenowi; polymorphism; genetic distance; most recent common ancestor; sarcoplasmic and endoplasmic reticulum Ca(2+-)ATPase; lactate dehydrogenase

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The time to the most recent common ancestor of the extant populations of Plasmodium falciparum is controversial. The controversy primarily stems from the limited availability of sequences from Plasmodium reichenowi, a chimpanzee malaria parasite closely related to P. falciparum. Since the rate of nucleotide substitution differs in different loci and DNA regions, the estimation of genetic distance between P. falciparum and P. reichenowi should be performed using orthologous sequences that are evolving neutrally. Here, we obtained full-length sequences of two housekeeping genes, sarcoplasmic and endoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-ATPase (serca) and lactate dehydrogenase (ldh), from 11 isolates of P. falciparum and 1 isolate of P. reichenowi and estimate the interspecific genetic distance (divergence) between the two species and intraspecific genetic distance (polymorphism) within P. falciparum. Interspecific distance and intraspecific distance at synonymous sites of interspecies-conserved regions of serca and ldh were 0.0672 +/- 0.0088 and 0.0011 +/- 0.0007, respectively, using the Nei and Gojobori method. Based on the ratio of interspecific distance to intraspecific distance, the time to the most recent common ancestor of P. falciparum was estimated to be (8.30 +/- 5.40) x 10(4) and (11.62 +/- 7.56) x 10(4) years ago, assuming the divergence time of the two parasite species to be 5 and 7 million years ago, respectively.

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