4.7 Article

Marked genetic structuring and extreme dispersal limitation in the Pyrenean brook newt Calotriton asper (Amphibia: Salamandridae) revealed by genome-wide AFLP but not mtDNA

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 108-120

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04441.x

关键词

AFLP; amphibian; dispersal; genetic structure; genome scan; phylogeograph

资金

  1. CNRS
  2. Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia, Spain [CGL2005-06876/BOS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Direct estimation of dispersal rates at large geographic scales can be technically and logistically challenging, especially in small animals of low vagility like amphibians. The use of molecular markers to reveal patterns of genetic structure provides an indirect way to infer dispersal rates and patterns of recent and historical gene flow among populations. Here, we use mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence data and genome-wide amplified fragment length polymorphism markers to examine population structure in the Pyrenean brook newt (Calotriton asper) across four main drainages in the French Pyrenees. mtDNA sequence data (2040 bp) revealed three phylogroups shallowly differentiated and with low genetic diversity. In sharp contrast, variation in 382 amplified fragment length polymorphism loci was high and revealed a clear pattern of isolation by distance consistent with long-term restriction of gene flow at three spatial scales: (i) among all four main drainages, (ii) between sites within drainages, and (iii) even between adjacent populations separated by less than 4 km. The high pairwise F-ST values between localities across numerous loci, together with the high frequency of fixed alleles in several populations, suggests a combination of marked geographic isolation, small population sizes and very limited dispersal in C. asper. The contrasting lack of variation detected in mtDNA sequence data is intriguing and underscores the importance of multilocus approaches to detect true patterns of gene flow in natural populations of amphibians.

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