4.6 Article

Population expansions shared among coexisting bacterial lineages are revealed by genetic evidence

期刊

PEERJ
卷 2, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PEERJ INC
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.696

关键词

Historical demography; Coalescence; Cuatro cienegas; Bacterial population genetics; MLST

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACyT) [210335]
  2. WWF-Alianza Crloas Slim

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comparative population studies can help elucidate the influence of historical events upon current patterns of biodiversity among taxa that coexist in a given geographic area. In particular, comparative assessments derived from population genetics and coalescent theory have been used to investigate population dynamics of bacterial pathogens in order to understand disease epidemics. In contrast, and despite the ecological relevance of non-host associated and naturally occurring bacteria, there is little understanding of the processes determining their diversity. Here we analyzed the patterns of genetic diversity in coexisting populations of three genera of bacteria (Bacillus, Exiguobacterium, and Pseudomonas) that are abundant in the aquatic systems of the Cuatro Cienegas Basin, Mexico. We tested the hypothesis that a common habitat leaves a signature upon the genetic variation present in bacterial populations, independent of phylogenetic relationships. We used multilocus markers to assess genetic diversity and (1) performed comparative phylogenetic analyses, (2) described the genetic structure of bacterial populations, (3) calculated descriptive parameters of genetic diversity, (4) performed neutrality tests, and (5) conducted coalescent-based historical reconstructions. Our results show a trend of synchronic expansions across most populations independent of both lineage and sampling site. Thus, we provide empirical evidence supporting the analysis of coexisting bacterial lineages in natural environments to advance our understanding of bacterial evolution beyond medical or health-related microbes.

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

4.6
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