4.4 Article

Genetic structure of Anopheles gambiae populations on islands in northwestern Lake Victoria, Uganda -: art. no. 59

期刊

MALARIA JOURNAL
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-4-59

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [P01AI45123, P01 AI045123] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Alternative means of malaria control are urgently needed. Evaluating the effectiveness of measures that involve genetic manipulation of vector populations will be facilitated by identifying small, genetically isolated vector populations. The study was designed to use variation in microsatellite markers to look at genetic structure across four Lake Victoria islands and two surrounding mainland populations and for evidence of any restriction to free gene flow. Methods: Four Islands (from 20-50 km apart) and two surrounding mainland populations (96 km apart) were studied. Samples of indoor resting adult mosquitoes, collected over two consecutive years, were genotyped at microsatellite loci distributed broadly throughout the genome and analysed for genetic structure, effective migration (Nem) and effective population size (Ne). Results: Ne estimates showed island populations to consist of smaller demes compared to the mainland ones. Most populations were significantly differentiated geographically, and from one year to the other. Average geographic pair-wise FST ranged from 0.014-0.105 and several pairs of populations had Ne m <3. The loci showed broad heterogeneity at capturing or estimating population differences. Conclusion: These island populations are significantly genetically differentiated. Differences reoccurred over the study period, between the two mainland populations and between each other. This appears to be the product of their separation by water, dynamics of small populations and local adaptation. With further characterisation these islands could become possible sites for applying measures evaluating effectiveness of control by genetic manipulation.

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

4.4
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