4.7 Article

Spiroplasma in Drosophila melanogaster Populations: Prevalence, Male-Killing, Molecular Identification, and No Association with Wolbachia

期刊

MICROBIAL ECOLOGY
卷 64, 期 3, 页码 794-801

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00248-012-0054-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo
  4. Fundo de Apoio ao Ensino, a Pesquisa e a Extensao-Unicamp

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spiroplasma endosymbionts are maternally transmitted bacteria that may kill infected sons resulting in the production of female-biased broods. The prevalence of male killers varies considerably both between and within species. Here, we evaluate the spatial and temporal status of male-killing and non-male-killing Spiroplasma infection in three Brazilian populations of Drosophila melanogaster, nearly a decade after the first occurrence report for this species. The incidence of the male-killing Spiroplasma ranged from close to 0 to 17.7 % (so far the highest estimate for a Drosophila species) with a suggestion of temporal decline in a population. We also found non-male-killing Spiroplasma coexisting in one population at lower prevalence (3-5 %), and we did not detect it in the other two. This may be taken as a suggestion of a spreading advantage conferred by the male-killing strategy. Sequencing two loci, we identified the phylogenetic position of Spiroplasma strains from the three localities, showing that all strains group closely in the poulsonii clade. Due to intensive sampling effort, we were able to test the association between Spiroplasma infections and another widespread endosymbiont, Wolbachia, whose prevalence ranged from 81.8 to 100 %. The prevalence of Wolbachia did not differ between Spiroplasma-infected and uninfected strains in our largest sample nor were the prevalences of the two endosymbionts associated across localities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据