Journals / Turkish Journal of Zoology / 2021 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 2

Inferring phylogenetic relationships in the common vole (Microtus arvalis) based on mitochondrial and nuclear sequence diversities

Pages
117–130
Publication Date
2021-03-24
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Our results indicate that the arvalis and obscurus forms are not sufficiently differentiated to be considered different species, while the Anatolian population has only recently split from the Asian population.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The common vole Microtus arvalis (Pallas, 1778) is the most widespread Microtus species.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It has two forms - the European arvalis form (2n: 46, NF: 84) and the Asian obscurus form (2n: 46, NF: 72).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Our results indicate that the arvalis and obscurus forms are not sufficiently differentiated to be considered different species, while the Anatolian population has only recently split from the Asian population.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Common vole · Microtus arvalis · Anatolia

Abstract

The common vole Microtus arvalis (Pallas, 1778) is the most widespread Microtus species. It has two forms - the European arvalis form (2n: 46, NF: 84) and the Asian obscurus form (2n: 46, NF: 72). The present study aimed to clarify the taxonomic status of M. arvalis populations distributed in Eastern Turkey, Europe and Asia by analysing two mitochondrial (CYTB and COX1) and one nuclear (IRBP) markers. Phylogenetic dendrograms (median-joining networks and Bayesian trees) constructed using the mitochondrial markers clearly separated the Anatolian population from the European and Asian populations. Contrarily, any explicit differentiation was not shown in IRBP analyses. Mean and net genetic distance values (d) were found to be notably low for three markers. Species delimitation test (Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery Method) supported these results. Our results indicate that the arvalis and obscurus forms are not sufficiently differentiated to be considered different species, while the Anatolian population has only recently split from the Asian population. Together, these findings demonstrate that the speciation process is ongoing.

🔖

Cite This Article

CETİNTURK, D., YİGİT, N., COLAK, E., MARKOV, G., CİROVİC, D., MARTON, M. (2021). Inferring phylogenetic relationships in the common vole (Microtus arvalis) based on mitochondrial and nuclear sequence diversities. Turkish Journal of Zoology, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 2, 117–130. https://ajindex.com/articles/197282

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Akhverdyan M.R., 1999, Genetika, V35, P1687 Baker RJ, 2006, J MAMMAL, V87, P643, DOI 10.1644/06-MAMM-F-038R2.1 Bandelt HJ, 1999, MOL BIOL EVOL, V16, P37, DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026036 Barbosa S, 2013, MOL ECOL RESOUR, V13, P43, DOI 10.1111/1755-0998.12024 Barbosa S, 2018, MOL PHYLOGENET EVOL, V125, P85, DOI 10.1016/j.ympev.2018.03.017 Borkowska A, 2008, ANN ZOOL FENN, V45, P255, DOI 10.5735/086.045.0403 Bradley RD, 2001, J MAMMAL, V82, P960, DOI 10.1644/1545-1542(2001)082 2.0.CO;2 Bulatova NS, 2010, RUSS J GENET+, V46, P443, DOI 10.1134/S1022795410040095 Bulatova N, 2007,
  2. HYSTRIX, V18, P99. Buzan EV, 2010, BIOL J LINN SOC, V100, P788, DOI 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01451.x Cam P, 2015, MARMARA FEN BILIMLER, V27, P93, DOI [10.7240/mufbed.01631, DOI 10.7240/MUFBED.01631] Chaval Yannick, 2010, Kasetsart Journal Natural Sciences, V44, P590 Chen JT, 2019, INFECT GENET EVOL, V75, DOI 10.1016/j.meegid.2019.104012 Conroy CJ, 2000, MOL ECOL, V9, P165, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00846.x DeBry RW, 2001, MOL PHYLOGENET EVOL, V19, P290, DOI 10.1006/mpev.2001.0945 Dianat M, 2017, J ZOOL SYST EVOL RES, V55, P29, DOI 10.1111/jzs.12145 Drummond AJ, 2007, BMC EVOL BIOL, V7, DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-7-214 Fink S, 2004, MOL ECOL, V13, P3501, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02351.x Galewski T, 2006, BMC EVOL BIOL, V6, DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-6-80 Golenishchev Fedor N., 2006, Russian Journal of Theriology, V5, P17 HASEGAWA M, 1985, J MOL EVOL, V22, P160, DOI 10.1007/BF02101694 Haynes S, 2003, MOL ECOL, V12, P951, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01795.x Heckel G, 2005,
  3. EVOLUTION, V59, P2231. Huchon D, 2002, MOL BIOL EVOL, V19, P1053, DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004164 Jaarola M, 2004, MOL PHYLOGENET EVOL, V33, P647, DOI 10.1016/j.ympev.2004.07.015 Jaarola M, 2002, MOL ECOL, V11, P2613, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01639.x Jansa Sharon A., 2000, Journal of Mammalian Evolution, V7, P43, DOI 10.1023/A:1009465716811 JUKES T H, 1969, P21. Kefelioglu Haluk, 1995, Turkish Journal of Zoology, V19, P35 Kohli BA, 2014, MOL PHYLOGENET EVOL, V76, P18, DOI 10.1016/j.ympev.2014.02.019 KRAL B, 1975, Zoologicke Listy, V24, P1. Krystufek B, 2005, MAMMALS TURKEY CYPRU, P292 Kumar S, 2018, MOL BIOL EVOL, V35, P1547, DOI 10.1093/molbev/msy096 Lavrenchenko L A, 2009, Dokl Biol Sci, V426, P222 Lemskaya NA, 2010, CHROMOSOME RES, V18, P459, DOI 10.1007/s10577-010-9124-0 Mahmoudi A, 2017,
  4. MAMMALIA, V81, P583, DOI 10.1515/mammalia-2016-0001 MALYGIN V M, 1974, Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, V53, P616