4.2 Article

Unstable environment of coastal lagoons drives genetic variation in the amphipod Quadrivisio lutzi

期刊

GENETICS AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 46, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

SOC BRASIL GENETICA
DOI: 10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2023-0094

关键词

Crustacea; Maeridae; Brazil; population genetics; mtDNA.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the genetic composition variation in freshwater/brackish amphipod populations in Brazilian coastal lagoons using genetic sequencing. The research found that geographic distance and urbanization played a significant role in the genetic isolation of these populations.
The freshwater/brackish amphipod Quadrivisio lutzi inhabits coastal lagoons, highly unstable environments subject to sudden inflow of marine water. Our aim was to evaluate how the genetic composition varies in these populations. Brazilian populations were compared by 16S rRNA and COI gene sequences. The genetic structure of four Rio de Janeiro amphipod populations was evaluated during the period of 2011-2019 by COI. Rio de Janeiro population was compared with Alagoas and S & atilde;o Paulo populations, which was genetically distinct, at species level (16S, d > 7%; COI, d >14%). The genetic structure in Rio de Janeiro showed the Imboassica subpopulation as the most divergent (Imboassica & Carapebus, F-ST = 0.238), followed by Lagamar population (Lagamar & Carapebus, F-ST = 0.049). The geographic distance and urbanization around these lagoons explain the degree of genetic isolation of these amphipod subpopulations. Paulista and Carapebus populations were not structured. Temporal variation in haplotype number and frequency were evident in both populations that were evaluated (Carapebus and Imboassica). Changes in salinity and water volume variation at these lagoons may be responsible for the observed changes in genetic composition, which may be the results of genetic drift effects over temporally fluctuating size subpopulations, without loss of genetic diversity.

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

4.2
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