Russian Journal of Genetics

, Volume 40, Issue 10, pp 1134–1143 | Cite as

Genetic and Taxonomic Diversity of the House Mouse Mus musculus from the Asian Part of the Former Soviet Union

  • L. N. Spiridonova
  • G. N. Chelomina
  • K. Moriwaki
  • H. Yonekawa
  • A. S. Bogdanov
Article

Abstract

Genetic diversity of the house mouse Mus musculus from 12 local populations (n = 65) of the central and eastern parts of the former Soviet Union was examined using RAPD–PCR. About 400 loci were identified, encompassing approximately 500 kb of the mouse genome. Genetic diversity was assessed using NTSYS, POPGENE, TFPGA, and TREECON software programs. In general, the house mouse sample from the regions examined was characterized by moderate genetic variation: polymorphism P = 95.6%, P99 = 60.7%, P95 = 24.2%; heterozygosity H = 0.089; the mean observed number of alleles na = 1.97; effective number of alleles ne = 1.13; intrapopulation differentiation δS = 0.387; gene diversity h = 0.09. Individual local populations displayed different levels of genetic isolation: the genetic subdivision index Gst varied from 0.086 to 0.324 at gene flow Nm varying from 5.3 to 1.05, while the interpopulation genetic distance DN ranged from 0.059 to 0.186. Most of the genetic diversity of the total sample resided within the local populations: HS = 0.06, total gene diversity HT = 0.09. The exact test for differentiation, however, did not confirm the affiliation of all the mice examined to one population: χ2 = 1446, d.f. = 724, P = 0.000. Molecular markers specific to four subspecies (musculus, castaneus, gansuensis, and wagneri) were identified. Moreover, in some cases the populations and individual animals exhibited traits of different subspecies, suggesting their introgressive hybridization. It was demonstrated that the house mouse fauna on the territories investigated was characterized by the prevalence of musculus-specific markers, while gansuensis-specific markers ranked second. The castaneus-specific markers were highly frequent in the Far East, but almost absent in Central Asia, where wagneri-specific markers were detected. It was suggested that house mice from Turkmenistan could belong to one of the southern subspecies, which had not deeply penetrated into the Asian fauna of the former Soviet Union. In phenogenetic (UPGMA) and phylogenetic (NJ) reconstructions this form with the high bootstrap support was placed at the tree base, while the isolation of other clusters was not statistically significant. It is thus likely that the house mice from Turkmenistan are closest to the ancestral form of the genus Mus on the territory of the former Soviet Union.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Argiropulo, A.I., The Family Muridae: Mice, in Fauna SSSR. Mlekopitayushchie (The Fauna of the Soviet Union: Mammals), Moscow: Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1940, vol. 3, issue 5.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vinogradov, B.S. and Argiropulo, A.I., Opredelitel' gryzunov (A Manual on Rodent Identification), Leningrad: Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1941.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vinogradov, B.S. and Gromov, I.M., Rodents of the Fauna of the Soviet Union, in Opredelitel' po faune SSSR (A Manual on Species Identification for the Fauna of the Soviet Union), Moscow: Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1952.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Britton, J., Pasteur, N., and Thaler, L., FrLes souris du midi de la France: Characterisation genetique de deux groupes de populations sympatriques, C. R. Acad. Sci. D, 1976, vol. 283, pp. 515–518.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Britton, J. and Thaler, L., Evidence for the Presence of Two Sympatric Species of Mice (Genus Mus L.) in Southern France Based on Biochemical Genetics, Bio-chem. Genet., 1978, vol. 16, pp. 213–225.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonhomme, F., Catalan, J., Gerassimov, S., et al., FrLe complexe d'especes du genre Mus en Europe centrale et orientale: 1. Genetique, Ztschr. Säugetierk, 1983, vol. 48, pp. 78–85.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moriwaki, K., Wild Mouse from a Geneticist's View-point, Genetics in Wild Mice, Moriwaki, K., et al., Eds., Tokio: Japan Sci. Soc., Basel: Karger, 1994, pp. XI–XIII.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mezhzherin, S.V., A Historical View on the Systematics of House Mouse from the Fauna of Russia and Adjacent Countries, Domovaya mysh' (The House Mouse), Kotenkova, E.V. and Bulatova, N.Sh., Eds., Moscow: Nauka, 1994, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Selander, R.K., Hunt, W.G., and Yang, S.Y., Protein Polymorphism and Genetic Heterozygosity in Two European Subspecies of the House Mouse, Evolution, 1969, vol. 23, pp. 379–390.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Selander, R.K., Biochemical Polymorphism in Populations of the House Mouse and Old-Field Mouse, Symp. Zool. Soc. London, 1970, vol. 26, pp. 73–91.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mezhzherin, S.V. and Kotenkova, E.V., Genetic Markers of House Mouse Subspecies of the Fauna of the Soviet Union, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1989, vol. 304, no. 5, pp. 1271–1275.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frisman, L.V., Korobitsyna, K.V., Yakimenko, L.V., and Vorontsov, N.N., Biochemical Groups of House Mice Inhabiting the Soviet Union, in Evolyutsionnye geneticheskie issledovaniya mlekopitayushchikh: Tezisy dokladov (Evolutionary Genetic Studies in Mammals: Proc. Conf.), Vladivostok: Dal'nevost. Otd. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1990, vol. 1, pp. 35–54.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Korobitsyna, K.V., Yakimenko, L.V., and Frisman, L.V., To the Systematics of the House Mouse of the Fauna of the Soviet Union (Cytogenetic Data), in Evolyutsionnye geneticheskie issledovaniya mlekopitayushchikh: Tezisy dokladov (Evolutionary Genetic Studies in Mammals: Proc. Conf.), Vladivostok: Dal'nevost. Otd. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1990, vol. 1, pp. 55–78.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Minezawa, M., Moriwaki, K., and Kondo, K., The Third Allele of Supernatant Isocitrate Dehydrogenase of House Mouse, Id-Ic, Originates from Asian Continent, Jpn. J. Genet., 1980, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 389–396.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yonekawa, H., Takahama, S., Gotoh, O., et al., Genetic Diversity and Geographic Distribution of Mus musculus Subspecies Based on the Polymorphism of Mitochondrial DNA, Genetics in Wild Mice, Moriwaki, K., et al., Eds., Tokyo: Japan Sci. Soc., Basel: Karger, 1994, pp. 25–40.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yakimenko, L.V., Korobitsyna, K.V., Frisman, L.V., et al., Cytogenetics and Systematics of House Mouse from Russia and Adjacent Countries, Problemy evolyutsii (Problems of Evolution), Kryukova, A.P. and Yaki-menko, L.V., Eds., Vladivostok: Dal'nauka, 2003, vol. 5, pp. 62–89.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miyashita, N., Kawashima, T., Wang, C.H., et al., Genetic Polymorphisms of Hbb Haplotypes in Wild Mice, Genetic in Wild Mice, Moriwaki, K., et al., Eds., Tokyo: Japan Sci. Soc., Basel: Karger, 1994, pp. 85–93.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chelomina, G.N., Spiridonova, L.N., Yanekava, Kh., and Moriwaki, K., RAPD-PCR Analysis of Genetic Diver-sity in the House Mouse: Taxonoprinting and Evidence for musculus ??domesticus Hybridization in the Russian Far East, Sistematika i filogeniya gryzunov i zaitseo-braznykh (Systematics and Phylogeny of Rodents and Hares), Agadzhanyan, A.K. and Orlova, V.N., Eds., Moscow, 2000, pp. 182–184.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chelomina, G.N., Spiridonova, L.N., and Moriwaki, K., Genetic Variation of the House Mouse from the Russian Far East as Revealed by RAPD-PCR Analysis, in VI s”ezd Teriologicheskogo obshchestva (VI Meeting of the Theriological Society), Moscow, 1999, p. 274.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maniatis, T., Fritsch, E.F., and Sambrook, J., Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, Cold Spring Harbor, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Lab., 1982.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rohlf, F.J., Numerical Taxonomy System of Multivariate Statistical Programs (NTSYS-pc), 1992.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yeh, F.C. and Boyle, T.J.B., Population Genetic Analysis of Co-Dominant and Dominant Markers and Quantitative Traits, Belgian J. Bot., 1997, vol. 129, p. 157.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller, M.P., Tools for Population Genetic Analysis (TFPGA) 1.3: A Windows Program for the Analysis of Allozyme and Molecular Population Genetic Data, 1997, Computer software distributed by author.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gregorius, H.-R., The Concept of Genetic Diversity and Its Formal Relationship to Heterozygosity and Genetic Distances, Math. Biosci., 1978, vol. 41, pp. 253–271.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raymond, M.L. and Rousset, F., An Exact Test for Pop-ulation Differentiation, Evolution, 1995, vol. 49, pp. 1280–1283.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van de Peer, Y. and De Wacher, R., TREECON for Windows: A Software Package for the Construction and Drawing of Evolutionary Trees for the Microsoft Windows Environment, Comput. Appl. Biosci., 1994, vol. 10, pp. 569–570.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Milishnikov, A.N., Comparative Protein Variation in Populations, Domovaya mysh' (The House Mouse), Kotenkova, E.V. and Bulatova, N.Sh., Eds., Moscow: Nauka, 1994, pp. 116–140.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yakovlev, I.A. and Kleinschmidt, J., Genetic Differenti-ation of Pedunculate Oak Quercus robur L. in the Euro-pean Part of Russia Based on RAPD Markers, Genetika (Moscow), 2002, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 207–215.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gostimsky, S.A., Kokaeva, Z.G., and Bobrova, V.K., Use of Molecular Markers for the Analysis of Plant Genome, Russ. J. Genet., 1999, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1326–1335.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morozova, E.V., Ryskov, A.P., and Semyenova, S.K., RAPD Variation in Two Trematode Species (Fasciola hepatica and Dicrocoelium dendriticum) from a Single Cattle Population, Russ. J. Genet., 2002, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 977–983.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kulikova, I.V., Chelomina, G.N., and Zhuravlev, Yu.N., RAPD-PCR Analysis of Genetic Diversity in the Man-churian Pheasant, Russ. J. Genet., 2002, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 699–703.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kozlovskii, A.I., Bulatova, N.Sh., and Orlov, V.N., Inad-equate Interpretation of the Results of Cytogenetic and Biochemical Analyses of House Mice from Turkmenistan, Dokl. Akad. Nauk, 1997, vol. 353, no. 3, pp. 418–422.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gündü, I., Kuntez, C., Malikov, W., et al., Mitochondrial DNA and Chromosomal Studies of Wild Mice (Mus) from Turkey and Iran, Heredity, 2000, vol. 84, pp. 458–467.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Suzuki, H. and Kurihara, Y., Genetic Variation of Ribosomal RNA in the House Mouse, Mus musculus, Genetics in Wild Mice, Moriwaki, K., et al., Eds., Tokyo: Japan Sci. Soc., Basel: Karger, 1994, pp. 107–119.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yonekawa, H., Tsuda, K., Tsuchiya, K., et al., Mitochondrial DNA Variation and Distribution of Mus musculus Subspecies in Russia: Recent Invasion of M. m. domesti-cus in the Far-Eastern Russia, Proc. Int. Symp. “Species and Genetic Diversity of Wild Animals in East Asia,” Hayama, Japan, 2000, p. 21.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Marshall, J.T., A Synopsis of Asian Species of Mus (Rodentia, Muridae), Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 1977, vol. 158, pp. 173–220.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Marshall, J.T. and Sage, R.D., Taxonomy of the House Mouse, Symp. Zool. Soc. London, 1981, vol. 47, pp. 15–25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© MAIK “Nauka/Interperiodica” 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. N. Spiridonova
  • G. N. Chelomina
  • K. Moriwaki
  • H. Yonekawa
  • A. S. Bogdanov

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations