4.3 Article

Population structure of Anopheles gambiae in Africa

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEREDITY
卷 94, 期 2, 页码 133-147

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jhered/esg024

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The population structure of Anopheles gambiae in Africa was studied using 11 microsatellite loci in 16 samples from 10 countries. All loci are located outside polymorphic inversions. Heterogeneity among loci was detected and two putative outlier loci were removed from analyses aimed at capturing genome-wide patterns. Two main divisions of the gene pool were separated by high differentiation (F-ST > 0.1). The northwestern (NW) division included populations from Senegal, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and western Kenya. The southeastern (SE) division included populations from eastern Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, and Zambia. Inhospitable environments for A. gambiae along the Rift Valley partly separate these divisions. Reduced genetic diversity in the SE division and results of an analysis based on private alleles support the hypothesis that a recent bottleneck, followed by colonization from the NW populations shaped this structure. In the NW division, populations possessing the M rDNA genotype appeared to form a monophyletic clade. Although genetic distance increased with geographic distance, discontinuities were suggested between certain sets of populations. The absence of heterozygotes between sympatric M and S populations in the DRC and the high differentiation in locus 678 (F-ST > 0.28) contrasted with low differentiation in all other loci (-0.02 < F-ST < 0.09) and with the persistence of departures from Hardy-Weinberg expectations within each form in the DRC. Neither recent reproductive isolation alone nor selection alone can explain these results, a situation that is compatible with incipient speciation. Because it is possible that the molecular forms play different roles in malaria transmission, future studies should treat them separately.

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

4.3
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