Main page Contacts Preview papers   Contents   Themes Subscription Information to authors Editorial board Standard version

The features of the genetic structure of the amphimictic earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae) populations within Ukraine

Mezhzherin S.V., Chayka Yu.Yu., Vlasenko R.P., Zhalay O.I., Garbar O.V.

SUMMARY. Genetic differentiation of the amphimictic earthworm A. caliginosa populations was investigated in the territory of Ukraine by analyzing the variability of the polyallelic locus Es-4. It was established that the settlements of this species are characterized as Fst = 0.13, which means genetic heterogeneity above the average level. The values of this index depend on the size of the population groups. Moreover, these changes can be represented as a leap from insignificant interdeme differences to statistically significant ones, obtained in the analysis of geographically remote populations, with the stabilization of the Fst index values on the macroscale. This situation is reasonable for the model of a genetically homogeneous settlement that arose once over a large area, the secondary differentiation of which was caused by internal migrations and the founder effect, which is in agreement with the regularities observed for populations of this species in North America. The comparison of the spatial differentiation of A. caliginosa populations with the
genetically, ecologically and arealogically close parthe-nogenetic A. trapezoides species within Ukraine sho-wed that the apomictic species has a different type of geographical differentiation of populations. It is characterized by a vicarious structure of settlements, in which one clonal form replaces another and the genotypes of clones of distant populations differ the most. It means that there are no migrations between remote settlements of earthworms within Ukraine and the reasons for the alternative nature of the genetic subdivision of amphimictic and apomictic species sett-lements are associated with the mechanisms of forming genetic diversity. In amphimictic species populations the maximum genotypic diversity is achieved through recombinations and is realized at the individual level within populations and in clonal species it is due to mutations and appears as intergroup variability.

Key words: Aporrectodea, earthworms, populations, amphimixis, parthenogenesis, F-statistics

Tsitologiya i Genetika 2021, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 20-27

1. I.I. Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Кyiv, vul. B. Khmelnytskogo, 15, Ukraine, 01030
2. Zhytomyr Ivan Franko Stste University, 40, Velyka Berdychivska Str. Zhytomyr, Ukraine, 10008

E-mail: smezhzherin gmail.сom, juli.7110308 gmail.com

Mezhzherin S.V., Chayka Yu.Yu., Vlasenko R.P., Zhalay O.I., Garbar O.V. The features of the genetic structure of the amphimictic earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae) populations within Ukraine, Tsitol Genet., 2021, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 20-27.

In "Cytology and Genetics":
S. V. Mezhzherin, Yu. Yu. Chayka, R. P. Vlasenko, O. I. Zhalay & O. V. Garbar The Genetic Structure Features of the Amphimictic Earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae) Populations within Ukraine, Cytol Genet., 2021, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 420–426
DOI: 10.3103/S009545272105008X

References

1. Altukhov, Yu.P., Genetic Processes in Populations, Moscow: Academperiodic, 2003.

2. Avise, J.C. and Felley, I., Population structure of freshwater fishes I. Genetic variation of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) population in man-made reservoirs, Evolution, 1979, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1979.tb04658.x

3. Barton, N.H. and Charlesworth, B., Why sex and recombination, Science, 1998, vol. 281, pp. 1986–1990. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.281.5385.1986

4. Cavali-Sforza, L.L. and Bodmer, W.F., The Genetics of Human Populations, San Francisco: Freeman, 1971.

5. Ciwinska, A. and Hebert, P.D.W., Origins of clonal diversity in the hypervariable asexual ostaracod Cyprodopsis vidua, J. Evol. Biol., 2002, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00362.x

6. Diaz Cosin, D.J., Novo, M., and Femandy, R., Reproduction of earthworms: sexual selection and parthenogenesis, in Biology of Earthworms, Caraca, A., Ed., Heidelberg: Springer, 2011, vol 24, pp. 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14636-7_5

7. Eanes, W.F. and Koehn, R.K., An analysis of genetic structure in the monarch bitterfly, Danaus plexippus L., Evolution, 1978, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 784–797. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1978.tb04633.x

8. Gandon, S. and Otto, S.P., The evolution of sex and recombination in response to abiotic or coevolutionary fluctuations in epistasis, Genetics, 2007, vol. 175, no. 4, pp. 1835–1853. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.106.066399

9. Hendrix, P.F., Mac Callaham, A., Drake, J.M., Huang, Ch.Y., James, S.W., Snyde, B.A., and Zhang, W., Pandora’s Box contained bait: the global problem of introduced earthworms, Ann. Rev. Ecol., Evol., Syst., 2008, vol. 39, pp. 593–613. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173426

10. Jaenike, J. and Selander, R.K., Evolution and ecology of parthenogenesis in earthworms, Am. Zool., 1979, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 729–737. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/19.3.729

11. Maynard Smith, J., The Evolution of Sex, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1978.

12. Mezhzherin, S.V., Vlasenko, R.P., and Garbar, A.V., Features of genetic structure of the earthworm Aporrectodea (superspecies) caliginosa (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae) complex in Ukraine, Cytol. Genet., 2008, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 256–262.

13. Mezhzherin, S.V., Harbar, A.V., Vlasenko, R.P., Onishchuk, I.P., Kotsyuba, I.Yu., and Zhalay, E.I., Evolutionary Paradox of Parthenogenetic Earthworms, Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 2018.

14. Nei, M., F-statistics and the analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations, Ann. Hum. Genet., 1977, vol. 41, pp. 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1809.1977.tb01918.x

15. Peacock, F.C., Bunting, S.L., and Queen, K.G., Serum protein electrophoresis in acrylamyde gel patterns from normal human subjects, Science, 1965, vol. 147, pp. 1451–1455.

16. Perez-Losada, M., Ricoy, M., Marshall, J.C., and Dominguez, J., Phylogenetic assessment of the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa species complex (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae) based on mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 2009, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2009.04.003

17. Perez-Losada, M., Bloch, R., Breinholt, J.W., Pfenninger, M., and Domнnguez, J., Taxonomic assessment of Lumbricidae (Oligochaeta) earthworm genera using DNA barcodes, Eur. J. Soil Biol., 2012, vol. 48, рр. 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2011.10.003

18. Ramm, S.A., Schlatter, A., Poirier, M., and Schärer, L., Hypodermic self-insemination as reproductive assurance strategy, Proc., Biol. Sci., 2015, vol. 282, no. 1811, p. 20150660. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0660

19. Selander, R.K. and Kaufman, D.W., Genetic structure of populations of the brown snail (Helix aspersa), Evolution, 1975, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1975.tb00829.x

20. Shekhovtsov, S.V., Derzhinsky, Ye.A., Golovanova, E.V., and Peltek, S.E., Phylogeography and genetic lineages of Aporrectodea rosea (Lumbricidae, Annelida), Eur. J. Soil Biol., 2020, vol. 99, p. 103191.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2020.103191

21. Stearns, S.C., Why sex evolved and the differences it makes, in The Evolution of Sex and its Consequences, Basel: Birkhouser, 1987, pp. 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-6273-8

22. Stille, B., Ochman, H., and Selander, R.K., Genetic structure of populations of the earthworm Aporrectodea tuberculata, Oikos, 1980, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 195–201. doi 10.2307/3544182

23. Terhivuo, J. and Saura, A., Dispersal and clonal diversity of North-European parthenogenetic earthworms, Biol. Invasions, 2006, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 1205–1218. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5429-7_2

24. Wright, S., The interpretation of population structure by F‑statistics with special regards to system of mating, Evolution, 1965, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 395–420. https://doi.org/10.2307/2406450