4.7 Article

Reconstructing the post-glacial spread of the sand fly Phlebotomus mascittii Grassi, 1908 (Diptera: Psychodidae) in Europe

期刊

COMMUNICATIONS BIOLOGY
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s42003-023-05616-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reveals the post-glacial spread routes and glacial refugia of Ph. mascittii using genetic diversity and environmental modeling analysis. The sand flies mainly originated from a single refuge area along the Mediterranean coasts of South France, and may have spread through two routes, northern France and the Ligurian coast.
Phlebotomine sand flies (Diptera: Phlebotominae) are the principal vectors of Leishmania spp. (Kinetoplastida: Trypanosomatidae). In Central Europe, Phlebotomus mascittii is the predominant species, but largely understudied. To better understand factors driving its current distribution, we infer patterns of genetic diversity by testing for signals of population expansion based on two mitochondrial genes and model current and past climate and habitat suitability for seven post-glacial maximum periods, taking 19 climatic variables into account. Consequently, we elucidate their connections by environmental-geographical network analysis. Most analyzed populations share a main haplotype tracing back to a single glacial maximum refuge area on the Mediterranean coasts of South France, which is supported by network analysis. The rapid range expansion of Ph. mascittii likely started in the early mid-Holocene epoch until today and its spread possibly followed two routes. The first one was through northern France to Germany and then Belgium, and the second across the Ligurian coast through present-day Slovenia to Austria, toward the northern Balkans. Here we present a combined approach to reveal glacial refugia and post-glacial spread of Ph. mascittii and observed discrepancies between the modelled and the current known distribution might reveal yet overlooked populations and potential further spread.

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