» Articles » PMID: 22957160

A European Phylogeography of Rhinanthus Minor Compared to Rhinanthus Angustifolius: Unexpected Splits and Signs of Hybridization

Overview
Journal Ecol Evol
Date 2012 Sep 8
PMID 22957160
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Rhinanthus minor and Rhinanthus angustifolius (Orobanchaceae) are annual hemiparasites, which occur sympatrically in Europe and are known to hybridize. We studied chloroplast and nuclear (amplified fragment length polymorphism [AFLP]) diversity in R. minor and compared genetic structuring in this species with R. angustifolius by analyzing the AFLP data for both species simultaneously. The AFLP data revealed that populations in Italy, Greece, and southeast Russia initially identified as R. minor were so distant from the other R. minor populations that they probably belong to another, yet unidentified taxon, and we refer to them as Rhinanthus sp. R. minor s.s. showed a clear geographic genetic structure in both the chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) and nuclear genome. The simultaneous analysis of both species shed new light on the previously published findings for R. angustifolius, because some populations now turned out to belong to R. minor. The admixture analysis revealed very few individuals of mixed R. minor-R.angustifolius ancestry in the natural populations in the west of Europe, while admixture levels were higher in the east. The combined haplotype network showed that haplotype H1 was shared among all species and is likely to be ancestral. H2 was more abundant in R. angustifolius and H3 in R. minor, and the latter probably arose from H1 in this species in the east of Europe. The occurrence of H3 in R. angustifolius may be explained by introgression from R. minor, but without interspecific admixture, these are likely to have been old hybridization events. Our study underlines the importance of including related species in phylogeographic studies.

Citing Articles

DNA barcoding a taxonomically complex hemiparasitic genus reveals deep divergence between ploidy levels but lack of species-level resolution.

Wang X, Gussarova G, Ruhsam M, de Vere N, Metherell C, Hollingsworth P AoB Plants. 2018; 10(3):ply026.

PMID: 29765588 PMC: 5941139. DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/ply026.


The effects of locus number, genetic divergence, and genotyping error on the utility of dominant markers for hybrid identification.

Sovic M, Kubatko L, Fuerst P Ecol Evol. 2014; 4(4):462-73.

PMID: 24634730 PMC: 3936392. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.833.

References
1.
Becquet C, Przeworski M . Learning about modes of speciation by computational approaches. Evolution. 2009; 63(10):2547-62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00662.x. View

2.
Comps B, Gomory D, Letouzey J, Thiebaut B, Petit R . Diverging trends between heterozygosity and allelic richness during postglacial colonization in the European beech. Genetics. 2001; 157(1):389-97. PMC: 1461495. DOI: 10.1093/genetics/157.1.389. View

3.
Pons O, Petit R . Measuring and testing genetic differentiation with ordered versus unordered alleles. Genetics. 1996; 144(3):1237-45. PMC: 1207615. DOI: 10.1093/genetics/144.3.1237. View

4.
Heuertz M, Carnevale S, Fineschi S, Sebastiani F, Hausman J, Paule L . Chloroplast DNA phylogeography of European ashes, Fraxinus sp. (Oleaceae): roles of hybridization and life history traits. Mol Ecol. 2006; 15(8):2131-40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02897.x. View

5.
Excoffier L, Laval G, Schneider S . Arlequin (version 3.0): an integrated software package for population genetics data analysis. Evol Bioinform Online. 2009; 1:47-50. PMC: 2658868. View