4.5 Article

Multiple genetic divergences and population expansions of a Mediterranean sandfly, Phlebotomus ariasi, in Europe during the Pleistocene glacial cycles

期刊

HEREDITY
卷 106, 期 5, 页码 714-726

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2010.111

关键词

phylogeography; Phlebotomus ariasi; genomic DNA; Mediterranean Europe; Pleistocene refugia; Pyrenean barrier

资金

  1. EU [GOCE-2003-010284 EDEN]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phlebotomus ariasi is one of the two sandflies transmitting the causative agent of zoonotic leishmaniasis, Leishmania infantum, in France and Iberia, and provides a rare case study of the postglacial re-colonization of France by a Mediterranean species. Four DNA sequences were analysed-mitochondrial cytochrome b (cyt b), nuclear elongation factor-1 alpha (EF-1 alpha) and two anonymous nuclear loci-for 14-15 French populations and single populations from northeast Spain, northwest Spain, Portugal and Morocco. The presence of cryptic sibling species was not revealed by phylogenetic analyses and testing for reproductive isolation between sympatric populations defined by the two most divergent cyt b haplogroups. No locus was shown to be under positive directional or balancing selection and, there-fore, molecular variation was explained demographically. Each nuclear locus showed shallow isolation by distance from Portugal to the French Pyrenees, but for both cyt b and EF-1a there was then a step change to the upland Massif Central, where leading-edge populations showed low diversity at all loci. Multiple genetic divergences and population expansions were detected by analyses of cyt b and dated to the Pleistocene. Endemicity of one cyt b sub-lineage suggested the presence of a refuge north of the Pyrenees during the last glacial period. Monopolization of the Massif Central by genetically differentiated populations of P. ariasi might possibly hinder the northwards spread of leishmaniasis. Heredity (2011) 106, 714-726; doi:10.1038/hdy.2010.111; published online 25 August 2010

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

4.5
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