4.7 Article

Cophylogeny and disparate rates of evolution in sympatric lineages of chewing lice on pocket gophers

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 997-1013

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2007.09.001

关键词

codivergence; cospeciation; Cratogeomys; evolutionary rates; Geomydoecus; phylogeny; pocket gophers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although molecular-based phylogenetic studies of hosts and parasites are increasingly common in the literature, no study to date has examined two congeneric lineages of parasites that live in sympatry on the same lineage of hosts. This study examines phylogenetic relationships among chewing lice (Phthiraptera: Trichodectidae) of the Geomydoecus coronadoi and Geomydoecus mexicanus species complexes and compares these to phylogenetic patterns in their hosts (pocket gophers of the rodent family Geomyidae). Sympatry of congeneric lice provides a natural experiment to test the hypothesis that closely related lineages of parasites will respond similarly to the same host. Sequence data from the mitochondrial COI and the nuclear EF-1 alpha genes confirm that the two louse complexes are reciprocally monophyletic and that individual clades within each species complex parasitize a different species of pocket gopher. Phylogenetic comparisons reveal that both louse complexes show a significant pattern of cophylogeny with their hosts. Comparisons of rates of nucleotide substitution at 4-fold degenerate sites in the COT gene indicate that both groups of lice have significantly higher basal mutation rates than their hosts. The two groups of lice have similar basal rates of mutation, but lice of the G. coronadoi complex show significantly elevated rates of nucleotide substitution at all sites. These rate differences are hypothesized to result from population-level phenomena, such as effective population size, founder effects, and drift, that influence rates of nucleotide substitution. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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