4.7 Article

DNA analysis of transferred sperm reveals significant levels of gene flow between molecular forms of Anopheles gambiae

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 10, 期 7, 页码 1725-1732

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1046/j.0962-1083.2001.01301.x

关键词

Anopheles gambiae; gene flow; population genetics

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI40306] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anopheles gambiae populations in west Africa are complex, being composed of multiple, sympatric subpopulations. Recent studies have failed to reveal significant genetic differences among subpopulations, stimulating a debate regarding the levels of gene flow among them. The observed homogeneity may be the consequence of substantial contemporary gene flow or it may be that reproductive isolation is complete, but too recent for the accumulation of significant levels of genic divergence. Here, we report the results of a study estimating contemporary levels of gene flow between An. gambiae subpopulations by analysing females and transferred sperm removed from their reproductive systems. A total of 251 female and associated sperm extracts was analysed from a single site in Mall. Two molecular forms of An. gambiae, the M- and S-forms, occurred in sympatry at this site. Overall, we found very strong positive assortative mating within forms, however, we did observe significant hybridization between forms. In the M subpopulation 2/195 females (1.03%) contained sperm from S-form males and in 55 S-form females we found one female containing M-form sperm (1.82%). We also identified a mated M x S hybrid adult female. From mating frequencies, we estimate the N(e)m between the M- and S-form at 16.8, and from the adult hybrid frequency at 5.6. These values are consistent with our earlier estimate, based on F-ST for 21 microsatellite loci in which N(e)m = 5.8. We conclude that the general lack of genetic divergence between the M and S subpopulations of An. gambiae can be explained entirely by contemporary gene flow.

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