LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Gomes, Bruno; Sousa, Carla A; Novo, Maria T; Freitas, Ferdinando B; Alves, Ricardo; Côrte-Real, Ana R; Salgueiro, Patrícia; Donnelly, Martin J; Almeida, António PG; Pinto, João (2009)
Publisher: BioMed Central
Journal: BMC Evolutionary Biology
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: qx_530, qx_650, Research article, qx_600, qx_510, qx_505, Evolution, QH359-425

Abstract

Background

Culex pipiens L. is the most widespread mosquito vector in temperate regions. This species consists of two forms, denoted molestus and pipiens, that exhibit important behavioural and physiological differences. The evolutionary relationships and taxonomic status of these forms remain unclear. In northern European latitudes molestus and pipiens populations occupy different habitats (underground vs. aboveground), a separation that most likely promotes genetic isolation between forms. However, the same does not hold in southern Europe where both forms occur aboveground in sympatry. In these southern habitats, the extent of hybridisation and its impact on the extent of genetic divergence between forms under sympatric conditions has not been clarified. For this purpose, we have used phenotypic and genetic data to characterise Cx. pipiens collected aboveground in Portugal. Our aims were to determine levels of genetic differentiation and the degree of hybridisation between forms occurring in sympatry, and to relate these with both evolutionary and epidemiological tenets of this biological group.

Results

Autogeny and stenogamy was evaluated in the F1 progeny of 145 individual Cx. pipiens females. Bayesian clustering analysis based on the genotypes of 13 microsatellites revealed two distinct genetic clusters that were highly correlated with the alternative traits that define pipiens and molestus. Admixture analysis yielded hybrid rate estimates of 8-10%. Higher proportions of admixture were observed in pipiens individuals suggesting that more molestus genes are being introgressed into the pipiens form than the opposite.

Conclusion

Both physiological/behavioural and genetic data provide evidence for the sympatric occurrence of molestus and pipiens forms of Cx. pipiens in the study area. In spite of the significant genetic differentiation between forms, hybridisation occurs at considerable levels. The observed pattern of asymmetric introgression probably relates to the different mating strategies adopted by each form. Furthermore, the differential introgression of molestus genes into the pipiens form may induce a more opportunistic biting behaviour in the latter thus potentiating its capacity to act as a bridge-vector for the transmission of arboviral infections.

  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Clements AN: The Biology of Mosquitoes: Sensory Reception and Behaviour Volume 2. Wallingford: CABI Publishing; 1999.
    • 2. Harbach RE, Harrison BA, Gad AM: Culex (Culex) molestus Forskål (Diptera, Culicidae) - neotype designation, description, variation, and taxonomic status. Proc Entomol Soc Wash 1984, 86:521-542.
    • 3. Harbach RE, Dahl C, White GB: Culex (Culex) pipiens Linnaeus (Diptera, Culicidae) - concepts, type designations, and description. Proc Entomol Soc Wash 1985, 87:1-24.
    • 4. Byrne K, Nichols RA: Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 1999, 82:7-15.
    • 5. Vinogradova AN: Culex pipiens pipiens Mosquitoes: Taxonomy, Distribution, Ecology, Physiology, Genetics, Applied Importance and Control Sofia: Pensoft Publishers; 2000.
    • 6. Huang S, Molaei G, Andreadis TG: Genetic insights into the population structure of Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Northeastern United States by using microsatellite analysis. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2008, 79:518-527.
    • 7. Fonseca DM, Keyghobadi N, Malcolm CA, Mehmet C, Schaffner F, Mogi M, Fleischer RC, Wilkerson RC: Emerging vectors in the Culex pipiens complex. Science 2004, 303:1535-1538.
    • 8. Kent RJ, Harrington LC, Norris DE: Genetic differences between Culex pipiens f. molestus and Culex pipiens pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) in New York. J Med Entomol 2007, 44:50-59.
    • 9. Chevillon C, Eritja R, Pasteur N, Raymond M: Comensalism, adaptation and gene flow: mosquitoes of the Culex pipiens complex in different habitats. Genet Res 1995, 66:147-157.
    • 10. Kilpatrick M, Kramer LD, Jones MJ, Marra PP, Daszak P, Fonseca DM: Genetic influences on mosquito feeding behavior and the emergence of zoonotic pathogens. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2007, 77:667-671.
    • 11. Spielman A: Structure and seasonality of Nearctic Culex pipiens populations. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2001, 951:220-234.
    • 12. Hamer GL, Kitron UD, Brawn JD, Loss SR, Ruiz MO, Goldberg TL, Walker ED: Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae): a bridge vector of West Niles Virus to humans. J Med Entomol 2008, 45:125-128.
    • 13. Vinogradova EB, Shaikevich EV: Morphometric, physiological and molecular characteristics of underground populations of the urban mosquito Culex pipiens Linnaeus f. molestus Forskål (Diptera: Culicidae) from several areas of Russia. Eur Mosq Bull 2007, 22:17-24.
    • 14. Crabtree MB, Savage B, Miller BR: Development of a polymerase chain reaction assay for differentiation between Culex pipiens pipiens and Cx. p. quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) in North America based on genomic differences identified by subtractive hybridization. J Med Entomol 1997, 34:532-537.
    • 15. Bahnck CM, Fonseca DM: Rapid assay to identify the two genetic forms of Culex (Culex) pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) and hybrid populations. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2006, 75:251-255.
    • 16. Almeida APG, Galão RP, Sousa CA, Novo MT, Parreira R, Pinto J, Rodrigues JC, Piedade J, Esteves A: Potential mosquito vectors of arboviruses in Portugal: species, distribution, abundance and arboviral infection. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2008, 102:823-832.
    • 17. Rappole JH, Hubalek Z: Migratory birds and West Nile Virus. J Appl Microbiol 2003, 94:47S-58S.
    • 18. Connell J, McKeown P, Garvey P, Cotter S, Conway A, O'Flanagan D, O'Herlihy BP, Morgan D, Nicoll A, Lloyd G: Two linked cases of West Nile virus (WNV) acquired by Irish tourists in the Algarve, Portugal. Euro Surveill Weekly 2004, 8(32): [http:// www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=2517].
    • 19. Esteves A, Almeida APG, Galão RP, Parreira R, Piedade J, Rodrigues JC, Sousa CA, Novo MT: West Nile Virus in Southern Portugal, 2004. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2005, 5:410-413.
    • 20. Ribeiro H, Pires CA, Ramos HC, Capela RA: Research on the mosquitoes of Portugal (Diptera, Culicicae). VIII- On the occurrence of Culex (Culex) molestus Forskål, 1775. J Soc Cienc Med Lisb 1983, 147:185-188.
    • 21. Smith JL, Fonseca DM: Rapid assays for identification of members of the Culex (Culex) pipiens complex, their hybrids, and other sibling species (Diptera: Culicidae). Am J Trop Med Hyg 2004, 70:339-345.
    • 22. Ribeiro H, Ramos HC: Identification keys of the mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of Continental Portugal, Açores and Madeira. Eur Mosq Bull 1999, 3:1-11.
    • 23. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P: Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 2000, 155:945-959.
    • 24. Anderson EC, Thompson EA: A model-based method for identifying species hybrids using multilocus genetic data. Genetics 2002, 160:1217-29.
    • 25. Nielsen EE, Bach LA, Kotlicki P: Hybridlab (version 1.0): a programme for generating simulated hybrids from population samples. Mol Ecol Notes 2006, 6:971-973.
    • 26. Huang S, Hamer GL, Molaei G, Walker ED, Goldberg TL, Kitron UD, Andreadis TG: Genetic variation associated with mammalian feeding in Culex pipiens from a West Nile Virus epidemic region in Chicago, Illinois. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis in press.
    • 27. Noor MA: Reinforcement and other consequences of sympatry. Heredity 1999, 83:503-508.
    • 28. Via S, West J: The genetic mosaic suggests a new role for hitchhiking in ecological speciation. Mol Ecol 2008, 17:4334-4345.
    • 29. Nosil P, Funk DJ, Ortiz-Barrientos D: Divergent selection and heterogeneous genomic divergence. Mol Ecol 2009, 18:375-402.
    • 30. Machado CA, Kliman RM, Markert JA, Hey J: Inferring the history of speciation from multilocus DNA sequence data: the case of Drosophila pseudoobscura and its close relatives. Mol Biol Evol 2002, 19:472-488.
    • 31. Turner TL, Hahn MW, Nuzhdin SV: Genomic islands of speciation in Anopheles gambiae. PLoS Biol 2005, 3:e285.
    • 32. Egan SP, Nosil P, Funk DJ: Selection and genomic differentiation during ecological speciation: isolating the contributions of host association via a comparative genome scan of Neochlamisus bebbianae leaf beetles. Evolution 2008, 62:1162-1181.
    • 33. Gow JL, Peichel CL, Taylor EB: Contrasting hybridization rates between sympatric three-spined sticklebacks highlight the fragility of reproductive barriers between evolutionarily young species. Mol Ecol 2006, 15:739-752.
    • 34. Vähä JP, Primmer CR: Efficiency of model-based Bayesian methods for detecting hybrid individuals under different hybridization scenarios and with different numbers of loci. Mol Ecol 2006, 15:63-72.
    • 35. Slatkin M: A Measure of population subdivision based on microsatellite allele frequencies. Genetics 1995, 139:457-462.
    • 36. Downes JA: The swarming and mating flight of Diptera. Annu Rev Entomol 1969, 14:271-298.
    • 37. Fonseca DM, Smith JL, Kim HC, Mogi M: Population genetics of the mosquito Culex pipiens pallens reveals sex-linked asymmetric introgression by Culex quinquefasciatus. Infect Genet Evol in press.
    • 38. Lamb T, Avise JC: Directional introgression of mitochondrial DNA in a hybrid population of tree frogs: The influence of mating behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1986, 83:2526-2530.
    • 39. Bensch S, Helbig AJ, Salomon M, Seibold I: Amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis identifies hybrids between two subspecies of warblers. Mol Ecol 2002, 11:473-481.
    • 40. Gligor M, Ganzhorn JU, Rakotondravony D, Ramilijaona OR, Razafimahatratra E, Zischler H, Hapke A: Hybridization between mouse lemurs in an ecological transition zone in southern Madagascar. Mol Ecol 2009, 18:520-533.
    • 41. Bonhomme M, Cuartero S, Blancher A, Crouau-Roy B: Assessing natural introgression in 2 biomedical model species, the rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) and the long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis). J Hered 2009, 100:158-169.
    • 42. Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F: World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol Z 2006, 15:259-263.
    • 43. Collins FH, Mendez MA, Rasmussen MO, Mehaffey PC, Besansky NJ, Finnerty V: A ribosomal RNA gene probe differentiates member species of the Anopheles gambiae complex. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1987, 37:37-41.
    • 44. Fonseca DM, Atkinson CT, Fleischer RC: Microsatellite primers for Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus, the vector of avian malaria in Hawaii. Mol Ecol 1998, 7:1617-1618.
    • 45. Keyghobadi N, Matrone MA, Ebel GD, Kramer LD, Fonseca DM: Microsatellite loci from the northern house mosquito (Culex pipiens), a principal vector of West Nile Virus in North America. Mol Ecol Notes 2004, 4:20-22.
    • 46. Smith JL, Keyghobadi N, Matrone MA, Escher RL, Fonseca DM: Cross-species comparison of microsatellite loci in the Culex pipiens complex and beyond. Mol Ecol Notes 2005, 5:697-700.
    • 47. Nei M: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics New York: Colombia University Press; 1987.
    • 48. Goudet J: FSTAT (version 1.2): A computer program to calculate F-statistics. J Hered 1995, 86:485-486 [http://jhered.oxford journals.org/cgi/reprint/86/6/485].
    • 49. Kalinowski ST: HP-rare: A computer program performing rarefaction on measures of allelic diversity. Mol Ecol Notes 2005, 5:187-189.
    • 50. Excoffier L, Laval G, Schneider S: Arlequin (version 3.0): an integrated software package for population genetics data analysis. Evol Bioinform Online 2005, 1:47-50.
    • 51. Slatkin M, Excoffier L: Testing for linkage disequilibrium in genotypic data using the EM algorithm. Heredity 1996, 76:377-383.
    • 52. Cornuet JM, Luikart G: Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 1996, 144:2001-2014.
    • 53. Weir BS, Cockerham CC: Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 1984, 38:1358-1370.
    • 54. Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J: Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 2005, 14:2611-2620.
    • 55. Burgarella C, Lorenzo Z, Jabbour-Zahab R, Lumaret R, Guichoux E, Petit RJ, Soto A, Gil L: Detection of hybrids in nature: application to oaks (Quercus suber and Q. ilex). Heredity 2009, 102:442-52.
    • 56. Holm S: A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure. Scand J Statist 1979, 6:65-70.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
    73
    73%
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

  • FCT | POCI/BIA-BDE/57650/2004
  • FCT | PPCDT/BIA-BDE/57650/2004

Cite this article