4.7 Article

Population genetic and evolution analysis of controversial genus Edwardsiella by multilocus sequence typing

Journal

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
Volume 127, Issue -, Pages 513-521

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2018.05.006

Keywords

Pathogen; Edwardsiella; MultiLocus; Evolution; Population

Funding

  1. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (Spain) [AGL2012-31049, BES-2010-037413]
  2. Xunta de Galicia (Spain) [GRC-2014/007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

At present, the genus Edwardsiella compiles five species: E. tarda, E. hoshinae, E. ictaluri, E. piscicida and E. anguillarum. Some species of this genus such us E. ictaluri and E. piscicida are important pathogens of numerous fish species. With the description of the two latter species, the phylogeny of Edwardsiella became more complicated. With the aim to clarify the relationships among all species in the genus, a multilocus sequence typing (MLST) approach was developed and applied to characterize 56 isolates and 6 reference strains belonging to the five Edwardsiella species. Moreover, several analyses based on the MLST scheme were performed to investigate the evolution within the genus, as well as the influence of recombination and mutation in the speciation. Edwardsiella isolates presented a high genetic variability reflected in the fourteen sequence types (ST) represented by a single isolates out of eighteen total ST. Mutation events were considerably more frequent than recombination, although both approximately equal influenced the genetic diversification. However, the speciation among species occurred mostly by recombination. Edwardsiella genus displays a non-clonal population structure with some degree of geographical isolation followed by a population expansion of E. piscicida. A database from this study was created and hosted on pubmlst.org (http://pubmlst.org/edwardsiella/).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available