Open Access

Evidence to support natural hybridization between Anopheles sinensis and Anopheles kleini (Diptera: Culicidae): possibly a significant mechanism for gene introgression in sympatric populations

  • Wej Choochote1Email author,
  • Gi-Sik Min2,
  • Pewpan M Intapan3, 4,
  • Chairat Tantrawatpan3, 5,
  • Atiporn Saeung1 and
  • Viraphong Lulitanond3, 6
Contributed equally
Parasites & Vectors20147:36

https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-36

Received: 23 November 2013

Accepted: 18 January 2014

Published: 20 January 2014

Abstract

Background

Malaria caused by Plasmodium vivax is still a public health problem in the Republic of Korea (ROK), particularly regarding the recent re-emergence of this malarial species near the demilitarized zone in northwestern Paju City, Gyeonggi-do Province. Currently, at least 4 species (An. kleini, An. pullus, An. belenrae and An. lesteri) of the Hyrcanus Group are reported as possible natural vectors of vivax malaria in the ROK, and An. sinensis, which is the most dominant species, has long been incriminated as an important natural vector of this P. vivax. However, An. sinensis was ranked recently as a low potential vector. According to the discovery of natural hybrids between An. sinensis (a low potential vector for P. vivax) and An. kleini (a high potential vector for P. vivax) in Paju City, intensive investigation of this phenomenon is warranted under laboratory conditions.

Methods

Mosquitoes were collected during 2010-2012 from Paju City, ROK. Hybridization experiments used iso-female line colonies of these anophelines together with DNA analysis of ribosomal DNA [second internal transcribed spacer (ITS2)] and mitochondrial DNA [cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI)] of the parental colonies, F1-hybrids and repeated backcross progenies were performed intensively by using a PCR-based assay and pyrosequencing technology.

Results

The results from hybridization experiments and molecular investigations revealed that the mitochondrial COI gene was introgressed from An. sinensis into An. kleini. The An. sinensis progenies obtained from consecutive repeated backcrosses in both directions, i.e., F2-11 progeny [(An. sinensis x An. kleini) x An. sinensis] and F3-5 progeny [(An. kleini x An. sinensis) x An. kleini] provided good supportive evidence.

Conclusions

This study revealed introgression of the mitochondrial COI gene between An. sinensis and An. kleini through consecutive repeated backcrosses under laboratory conditions. This new body of knowledge will be emphasized in reliable promising strategies in order to replace the population of An. kleini as a high potential vector for P. vivax, with that of a low potential vector, An. sinensis, through the mechanism of gene introgression in nature.

Keywords

Anopheles sinensis An. kleini Hybridization experimentSecond internal transcribed spacerCytochrome c oxidase subunit IIntrogression

Background

Up until now, at least 26 species members of the Anopheles hyrcanus group have been reported, and their distribution has extended widely from Europe to East and Southeast Asia, including some of the off-lying islands of the Indian and Pacific Oceans [1]. Some species of the Hyrcanus Group are accepted as important vectors in transmitting human diseases, e.g., malaria (Plasmodium vivax) [214], filariae (Wuchereria bancrofti and Brugia malayi) [15, 16], and Japanese encephalitis virus [17, 18], particularly in the Oriental and contiguous parts of eastern Palaearctic regions.

At least 6 species (Anopheles sinensis, An. lesteri, An. pullus, An. sineroides, An. belenrae and An. kleini) of the Hyrcanus Group are found indigenously in the Republic of Korea (ROK). Among these, An. sinensis has long been incriminated as the most dominant and important natural vector of P. vivax, especially due to the recent re-emergence of vivax malaria near the demilitarized zone in northwestern Paju City, Gyeonggi-do Province [3, 1922]. However, the low concentration of circumsporozoite (CS) antigen obtained from wild-caught females [6], and very low sporozoite rates recovered from laboratory susceptibility tests [7, 9], have brought about the cryptic status of An. sinensis as a natural vector of vivax malaria transmission in the ROK. Consequently, the implication of other An. hyrcanus species, i.e., An. kleini, An. pullus, An. belenrae and An. lesteri as possible natural vectors of vivax malaria in the ROK has been proposed extensively [8, 9], even though the latter species is thought to have a small population [7]. Remarkably, An. sinensis strain from China has been incriminated recently as an efficient vector of P. vivax[11].

The discovery of natural hybrids has been reported from some important malaria vectors, for instance, between An. gambiae and An. arabiensis[23], An. scanloni (= dirus C) and An. baimaii (= dirus D) [24], and An. minimus and An. harrisoni[25, 26]. Regarding An. kleini (a high potential vector for P. vivax) and An. sinensis (a low potential vector for P. vivax) [7, 9], a single gravid, natural hybrid female was discovered between these 2 anopheline species from a total of 658 wild-caught females in Paju City, ROK; an endemic zone of vivax malaria from 2004 to 2008. These wild-caught females comprised 360 An. sinensis, 258 An. pullus, 20 An. belenrae, 15 An. kleini, 3 An. sineroides, 1 An. lesteri and 1 hybrid female between An. kleini and An. sinensis[27]. The results of self-crossing between F1-progenies derived from one egg-batch of an egg-laid gravid female, and molecular investigations, revealed possible natural backcrossing (introgression) between a hybrid female and male An. sinensis. There is no clear basic information on the introgression between An. sinensis and An. kleini, as proposed by [27]. Thus, systematic investigations into the role of introgressive hybridization between these two anopheline species were performed in this study. Accordingly, attempts were made to establish iso-female line colonies of An. sinensis and An. kleini, perform crossing experiments (reciprocal and back crosses), investigations of reproductive systems of hybrid and backcross progenies, and compare DNA analysis of ribosomal DNA (ITS2) and mitochondrial DNA (COI) of the parental, F1-hybrids with that of repeated backcross progenies by using a PCR-based assay and pyrosequencing technology.

Methods

Establishment of iso-female lines

Mosquitoes were collected during 2010-2012 from Paju City, Republic of Korea (ROK), by placing a light trap in cowsheds. Then, wild-caught females were transported for colonization to the insectary of the Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Four iso-female lines of both An. sinensis and An. kleini were established successfully using the methods of [28]. An F1-progeny of each iso-female line was used for species identification following the keys of [29] as well as a molecular assay [30]. Then, one iso-female line of each species, with molecular identification of both nuclear (ITS2) and mitochondrial (COI) genes, were well matched with those in the GenBank nucleotide sequence database, and selected, i.e., An. sinensis F0-1 (SF0-1) and An. kleini F0-1 (KF0-1). These iso-female lines have been maintained in colonies in the laboratory at Chiang Mai University for more than 10 consecutive generations, and used for hybridization experiments and comparative DNA sequence analyses.

Hybridization experiments

Hybridization experiments (reciprocal and back crosses, and repeated backcross progenies) between An. sinensis and An. kleini were performed by using virgin females and males and following the techniques previously reported by [31]. Post-mating reproductive isolation was recorded using the criteria of low viability (hatchability, survival, pupation, and emergence), adult sex distortion and abnormal morphology of the reproductive system.

PCR identification, dideoxy sequencing and phylogenetic analysis

DNA was extracted individually from 60 mosquitoes using the RED Extract-N-Amp™ Tissue PCR kit (Sigma-Aldrich, Spruce Street, SL) as shown in Table 1. Primers for the amplification of ITS2 and COI regions followed a previous report by [30]. The ITS2 region of the rDNA was amplified using the ITS2 Forward and ANO 28S-20 primers [30, 32]. The mitochondrial COI gene was amplified using the LCO1490 (5′-GGT CAA CAA ATC ATA AAG ATA TTG G-3′) and HCO2198 (5′-TAA ACT TCA GGG TGA CCA AAA AAT CA-3′) primers of [33]. PCR reaction was carried out in a total volume of 25 μl containing 10 pM of each primer; and 2.5 μl of 10X buffer containing 50 mM KCl, 10 mM Tris-HCI, 0.1% Triton®X 100 supplemented with 1.5 mM MgCl2 (Promega, USA), 200 μM of each dNTP (GeneCraft, Germany), 0.5 μl of Taq DNA polymerase (Promega, USA) and 10-100 pg of genomic DNA. The amplification profile comprised initial denaturation at 94°C for 3 min, with 30 cycles at 94°C for 30 sec, 55°C for 30 sec, and 72°C for 2 min, and a final extension at 72°C for 7 min. The PCR products were separated by electrophoresis on a 1.5% agarose gel stained with ethidium bromide. Finally, the purified PCR products were subjected to sequencing in an ABI PRISM 3700 DNA Analyzer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) using a Dye Terminator Cycle Sequencing Ready Reaction Kit (Applied Biosystems). The sequence data obtained were deposited in the GenBank nucleotide sequence database (Table 1). The newly determined ITS2 and COI sequences were also compared with those available in GenBank, using the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) available at http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi. The DNA sequence data were edited manually in BioEdit version 7.0.5.3 [34] and aligned using CLUSTAL W [35]. Constructions of neighbor-joining trees using distance [36], and the bootstrap test with 1,000 replications, were performed with the MEGA version 4.0 program based on COI sequences [37]. The COI sequences of An. peditaeniatus (GenBank accession number AB539069) [38] and An. pullus (GenBank accession number AB444348) [39] were included in phylogenetic analysis.
Table 1

Species identification of An. sinensis and An. kleini samples based on ITS2 and COI sequences, and their GenBank accession numbers

Samples (Female x Male)

Code of samples

Identified species name (GenBank accession number)

Reference

  

ITS2

COI

 

Parental

    

An. sinensis F0-1

SF0-1

An. sinensis (KC797396)

An. sinensis (KC797435)

This study

An. sinensis F0-2

SF0-2

An. sinensis (KC797397)

An. sinensis (KC797436)

This study

An. sinensis F0-3

SF0-3

An. sinensis (KC797398)

An. sinensis (KC797437)

This study

An. sinensis F0-4

SF0-4

An. sinensis (KC797399)

An. sinensis (KC797438)

This study

An. kleini F0-1

KF0-1

An. kleini (KC797431)

An. kleini (KC797439)

This study

An. kleini F0-2

KF0-2

An. kleini (KC797432)

An. sinensis (KC797440)

This study

An. kleini F0-3

KF0-3

An. kleini (KC797433)

An. sinensis (KC797441)

This study

An. kleini F0-4

KF0-4

An. kleini (KC797434)

An. sinensis (KC797442)

This study

Reciprocal crosses

    

An. sinensis x An.kleini F1-1

SKF1-1

Mixed

An. sinensis (KC797446)

This study

An. sinensis x An.kleini F1-2

SKF1-2

Mixed

An. sinensis (KC797447)

This study

An. sinensis x An.kleini F1-3

SKF1-3

Mixed

An. sinensis (KC797448)

This study

An. kleini x An. sinensis F1-1

KSF1-1

Mixed

An. sinensis (KC797443)

This study

An. kleini x An. sinensis F1-2

KSF1-2

Mixed

An. kleini (KC797444)

This study

An. kleini x An. sinensis F1-3

KSF1-3

Mixed

An. sinensis (KC797445)

This study

Back crosses

    

(An. sinensis x An. kleini) x An. sinensis

    

hybridF1 x sinensis-1 = > (hybridF2-1)

SKSF2-1

Mixed

An. sinensis (KC797449)

This study

hybridF1 x sinensis-2 = > (hybridF2-2)

SKSF2-2

Mixed

An. sinensis (KC797450)

This study

hybridF1 x sinensis-3 = > (hybridF2-3)

SKSF2-3

Mixed

An. sinensis (KC797451)

This study

hybridF2 x sinensis-1 = > (hybridF3-1)

SKSF3-1

An. sinensis (KC797400)

An. sinensis (KC797452)

This study

hybridF2 x sinensis-2 = > (hybridF3-2)

SKSF3-2

An. sinensis (KC797401)

An. sinensis (KC797453)

This study

hybridF2 x sinensis-3 = > (hybridF3-3)

SKSF3-3

An. sinensis (KC797402)

An. sinensis (KC797454)

This study

hybridF3 x sinensis-1 = > (hybridF4-1)

SKSF4-1

An. sinensis (KC797403)

An. sinensis (KC797455)

This study

hybridF3 x sinensis-2 = > (hybridF4-2)

SKSF4-2

An. sinensis (KC797404)

An. sinensis (KC797456)

This study

hybridF3 x sinensis-3 = > (hybridF4-3)

SKSF4-3

An. sinensis (KC797405)

An. sinensis (KC797457)

This study

hybridF4 x sinensis-1 = > (hybridF5-1)

SKSF5-1

An. sinensis (KC7974006)

An. sinensis (KC797458)

This study

hybridF4 x sinensis-2 = > (hybridF5-2)

SKSF5-2

An. sinensis (KC797407)

An. sinensis (KC797459)

This study

hybridF4 x sinensis-3 = > (hybridF5-3)

SKSF5-3

An. sinensis (KC797408)

An. sinensis (KC797460)

This study

hybridF5 x sinensis-1 = > (hybridF6-1)

SKSF6-1

An. sinensis (KC797409)

An. sinensis (KC797461)

This study

hybridF5 x sinensis-2 = > (hybridF6-2)

SKSF6-2

An. sinensis (KC797410)

An. sinensis (KC797462)

This study

hybridF5 x sinensis-3 = > (hybridF6-3)

SKSF6-3

An. sinensis (KC797411)

An. sinensis (KC797463)

This study

hybridF6 x sinensis-1 = > (hybridF7-1)

SKSF7-1

An. sinensis (KC797412)

An. sinensis (KC797464)

This study

hybridF6 x sinensis-2 = > (hybridF7-2)

SKSF7-2

An. sinensis (KC797413)

An. sinensis (KC797465)

This study

hybridF6 x sinensis-3 = > (hybridF7-3)

SKSF7-3

An. sinensis (KC797414)

An. sinensis (KC797466)

This study

hybridF7 x sinensis-1 = > (hybridF8-1)

SKSF8-1

An. sinensis (KC797415)

An. sinensis (KC797467)

This study

hybridF7 x sinensis-2 = > (hybridF8-2)

SKSF8-2

An. sinensis (KC797416)

An. sinensis (KC797468)

This study

hybridF7 x sinensis-3 = > (hybridF8-3)

SKSF8-3

An. sinensis (KC797417)

An. sinensis (KC797469)

This study

hybridF8 x sinensis-1 = > (hybridF9-1)

SKSF9-1

An. sinensis (KC797418)

An. sinensis (KC797470)

This study

hybridF8 x sinensis-2 = > (hybridF9-2)

SKSF9-2

An. sinensis (KC797419)

An. sinensis (KC797471)

This study

hybridF8 x sinensis-3 = > (hybridF9-3)

SKSF9-3

An. sinensis (KC797420)

An. sinensis (KC797472)

This study

hybridF9 x sinensis-1 = > (hybridF10-1)

SKSF10-1

An. sinensis (KC797421)

An. sinensis (KC797473)

This study

hybridF9 x sinensis-2 = > (hybridF10-2)

SKSF10-2

An. sinensis (KC797422)

An. sinensis (KC797474)

This study

hybridF9 x sinensis-3 = > (hybridF10-3)

SKSF10-3

An. sinensis (KC797423)

An. sinensis (KC797475)

This study

hybridF10 x sinensis-1 = > (hybridF11-1)

SKSF11-1

An. sinensis (KC797424)

An. sinensis (KC797476)

This study

hybridF10 x sinensis-2 = > (hybridF11-2)

SKSF11-2

An. sinensis (KC797425)

An. sinensis (KC797477)

This study

hybridF10 x sinensis-3 = > (hybridF11-3)

SKSF11-3

An. sinensis (KC797426)

An. sinensis (KC797478)

This study

hybridF11 x hybridF11-1

HF11-1

An. sinensis (KC797427)

An. sinensis (KC797479)

This study

hybridF11 x hybridF11-2

HF11-2

An. sinensis (KC797428)

An. sinensis (KC797480)

This study

hybridF11 x hybridF11-3

HF11-3

An. sinensis (KC797429)

An. sinensis (KC797481)

This study

hybridF11 x hybridF11-4

HF11-4

An. sinensis (KC797430)

An. sinensis (KC797482)

This study

Back crosses

    

(An. kleini x An. sinensis) x An. kleini

    

hybridF1 x kleini-1 = > (hybridF2-1)

KSKF2-1

An. kleini (KC890843)

An. kleini (KC797483)

This study

hybridF1 x kleini-2 = > (hybridF2-2)

KSKF2-2

An. kleini (KC890844)

An. kleini (KC797484)

This study

hybridF1 x kleini-3 = > (hybridF2-3)

KSKF2-3

An. kleini (KC890845)

An. kleini (KC797485)

This study

hybridF2 x kleini- 1 = > (hybridF3-1)

KSKF3-1

An. kleini (KC890846)

An. sinensis (KC797486)

This study

hybridF2 x kleini-2 = > (hybridF3-2)

KSKF3-2

An. kleini (KC890847)

An. sinensis (KC797487)

This study

hybridF2 x kleini-3 = > (hybridF3-3)

KSKF3-3

An. kleini (KC890848)

An. sinensis (KC797488)

This study

hybridF3 x kleini-1 = > (hybridF4-1)

KSKF4-1

An. kleini (KC890849)

An. sinensis (KC797489)

This study

hybridF3 x kleini-2 = > (hybridF4-2)

KSKF4-2

An. kleini (KC890850)

An. sinensis (KC797490)

This study

hybridF3 x kleini- 3 = > (hybridF4-3)

KSKF4-3

An. kleini (KC890851)

An. sinensis (KC797491)

This study

hybridF4 x kleini-1 = > (hybridF5-1)

KSKF5-1

An. kleini (KC890852)

An. sinensis (KC797492)

This study

hybridF4 x kleini-2 = > (hybridF5-2)

KSKF5-2

An. kleini (KC890853)

An. sinensis (KC797493)

This study

hybridF4 x kleini-3 = > (hybridF5-3)

KSKF5-3

An. kleini (KC890854)

An. sinensis (KC797494)

This study

An. sinensis

-

An. sinensis (GU384700)

-

[30]

  

-

An. sinensis (AY444351)

[39]

An. kleini

-

An. kleini (GU384713)

-

[30]

  

-

An. kleini (GQ265917)

[27]

PCR and pyrosequencing for the detection of An. sinensis and An. kleini sequences

DNA was extracted from each adult female mosquito of An. sinensis and An. kleini using a NucleoSpin tissue kit (Macherey-Nagel GmbH and Co., Duren, Germany). The procedure for the pyrosequencing assay followed that previously described by [40]. The forward primer (Anop_COI_F: 5′-GAG CCC CTG ATA TAG CTT TTC CT-3′), and biotinylated reverse primers (Anop_COI_Rb: 5′- Biotin-CCA GAT GAA AGT GGG GGA TAA -3′), were designed to amplify a 142-bp fragment of COI, and a primer Anop_COI_S (5′-ATA AGT TTT TGA ATA TTA CC -3′) for pyrosequencing. Positive-control plasmids of each species were constructed by amplification of the 142-bp PCR products using Anop_COI_F and Anop_COI_R primers. They were ligated and transformed into a pGEM®-T Easy vector (Promega, WI) and an Escherichia coli JM109, respectively. The recombinant plasmids were sequenced bidirectionally in order to confirm the correction of data. The 142 bp was amplified from genomic DNA using the Anop_COI_F and Anop_COI_Rb primers. The reactions of PCR amplification were performed in a total volume of 25 μl containing 1X PCR buffer (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) with 0.2 mM of each dNTP, 2 mM MgSO4, 0.4 μM of each primer, 0.625 U of Platinum Taq DNA polymerase high fidelity (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and 2 μl of the DNA sample. The PCR assay was conducted using a GeneAmp PCR system 9700 thermal cycler (Applied Biosystems, Singapore). The thermocycling program included: initial denaturation at 94°C for 5 min, with 40 cycles at 94°C for 30 sec, 57°C for 30 sec, and 72°C for 30 sec, and a final extension at 72°C for 7 min. PCR amplicons were detected by electrophoresis on 1.5% agarose gels. For pyrosequencing assays, 20 μl of the biotinylated PCR product of each sample was immobilized in the binding buffer with Streptavidin Sepharose™ beads (GE Healthcare BioSciences AB, Uppsala, Sweden). The beads together with the DNA were aspirated to a 96 format filter tool and passed through 70% ethanol and 0.2 M NaOH, and then washed with 10 mM Tris-acetate (pH 7.6) using a PyroMark™ Vacuum Prep Workstation (Biotage, Uppsala, Sweden). The beads were released subsequently into a PSQ™ 96 plate low (Biotage) containing 0.4 μM Anop_COI _S sequencing primer in the annealing buffer. The samples were heated to 80°C for 2 min before performing pyrosequencing reactions using PyroMark™ Gold Q96 SQA reagents and subjecting them to the PyroMark™ Q96 ID instrument (Biotage). Positive and negative controls were included in each pyrosequencing assay. Finally, the PyroMark™ Q96 ID software version 1.0 was used to analyze the results and generate a pyrogram.

Results

Hybridization experiments

The hatchability, pupation, emergence and adult sex-ratio of parental, reciprocal and back crosses, repeated backcrosses and hybrid crosses between An. sinensis and An. kleini were 88.06-92.57%, 77.96-92.97%, 94.10-96.98% and 0.81-0.89; 82.94-85.07%, 98.00-100%, 98.87-100% and 1.04-1.38; 61.10-69.01%, 100%, 97.10-100% and 1.13-1.43; 66.00-86.61%, 87.87-100%, 90.07-100% and 0.96-1.38, and 95.14%, 91.05%, 84.91% and 0.94; respectively (Table 2). All crosses yielded viable progenies, with no evidence of genetic incompatibility being observed among them, except for only sterile F1-progeny males of which the atrophy of testes and accessory glands were recovered from the reciprocal crosses in both directions (An. sinensis × An. kleini and An. kleini x An. sinensis) (Figure 1A), while normal development occurred in all males from repeated backcrosses (Figure 1B). On the other hand, all females from F1-hybrids and repeated backcrosses yielded normal development of ovarian follicles (Figures 1C and D). Regarding repeated backcross groups, the experiments of (An. sinensis x An. kleini) × An. sinensis were carried out from F1-10, whereas those of (An. kleini × An. sinensis) × An. kleini were investigated from F1-5. The reason for this was that the repeated backcross of (An. kleini × An. sinensis) × An. kleini could be carried out in only the fifth generation, which led to a lack of hybrids for further experimentation (repeated twice). Regarding hybrid crosses, the experiment was performed only on the F11 of [(An. sinensis × An. kleini) × An. sinensis] × [(An. sinensis × An. kleini) × An. sinensis].
Table 2

Hybridization experiments between isolines of An. sinensis and An. kleini

Crosses (Female x Male)

Total eggs (number) *

Embryonation rate

Hatched n (%)

Pupation n (%)

Emergence n (%)

Total emergence n (%)

      

Female

Male

Parental crosses

       

An. sinensis x An. sinensis

538 (258, 280)

96

498 (92.57)

463 (92.97)

449 (96.98)

211 (46.99)

238 (53.01)

An. kleini x An. kleini

469 (263, 206)

89

413 (88.06)

322 (77.96)

303 (94.10)

136 (44.88)

167 (55.12)

Reciprocal crosses

       

An. sinensis x An. kleini

529 (288, 241)

86

450 (85.07)

441 (98.00)

436 (98.87)

253 (58.03)

183 (41.97) ††

An. kleini x An. sinensis

422 (239, 183)

83

350 (82.94)

350 (100.00)

350 (100.00)

178 (50.86)

172 (49.14) ††

Back crosses

       

(An. sinensis x An. kleini)F1 x An. sinensis

401 (218, 183)

63

245 (61.10)

245 (100.00)

238 (97.10)

140 (58.82)

98 (41.18)

(An. sinensis x An. kleini)F2 x An. sinensis

397 (207, 190)

88

332 (83.67)

309 (93.07)

309 (100.00)

173 (55.96)

136 (44.04)

(An. sinensis x An. kleini)F3 x An. sinensis

386 (211, 175)

74

282 (73.05)

265 (93.97)

265 (100.00)

143 (53.96)

122 (46.04)

(An. sinensis x An. kleini)F4 x An. sinensis

413 (240, 173)

79

319 (77.24)

284 (89.02)

259 (91.20)

137 (52.90)

122 (47.10)

(An. sinensis x An. kleini)F5 x An. sinensis

412 (232, 180)

69

282 (68.45)

282 (100.00)

254 (90.07)

139 (54.72)

115 (45.28)

(An. sinensis x An. kleini)F6 x An. sinensis

409 (226, 183)

86

318 (77.75)

308 (96.86)

295 (95.78)

171 (57.97)

124 (42.03)

(An. sinensis x An. kleini)F7 x An. sinensis

365 (147, 218)

87

307 (84.11)

301 (98.05)

295 (98.01)

157 (53.22)

138 (46.78)

(An. sinensis x An. kleini)F8 x An. sinensis

355 (154, 201)

84

284 (80.00)

281 (98.94)

267 (95.02)

139 (52.06)

128 (47.94)

(An. sinensis x An. kleini)F9 x An. sinensis

315 (190, 125)

89

271 (86.03)

271 (100.00)

271 (100.00)

136 (50.18)

135 (49.82)

(An. sinensis x An. kleini)F10 x An. sinensis

336 (162, 174)

94

291 (86.61)

266 (91.40)

257 (96.62)

126 (49.03)

131 (50.97)

(An. kleini x An. sinensis)F1 x An. kleini

497 (239, 258)

74

343 (69.01)

343 (100.00)

343 (100.00)

182 (53.06)

161 (46.94)

(An. kleini x An. sinensis)F2 x An. kleini

427 (226, 201)

77

305 (71.43)

268 (87.87)

268 (100.00)

147 (54.85)

121 (45.15)

(An. kleini x An. sinensis)F3 x An. kleini

421 (209, 212)

70

286 (67.93)

257 (89.86)

257 (100.00)

126 (49.03)

131 (50.97)

(An. kleini x An. sinensis)F4 x An. kleini

458 (211, 247)

79

328 (66.00)

302 (92.07)

287 (95.03)

155 (54.01)

132 (45.99)

F11 hybrid crosses

       

[(An. sinensis x An. kleini)F11 x An. sinensis]

329 (171, 158)

96

313 (95.14)

285 (91.05)

242 (84.91)

117 (48.35)

125 (51.65)

x [(An. sinensis x An. kleini)F11 x An. sinensis]

       

* Two selective egg-batches of inseminated females from each cross; Dissection from 100 eggs; n = number.

†† Sterile male hybrids with atrophy testes and accessory glands.

Figure 1

Reproductive system of adult males and females. (A) F1-hybrid adult male of An. sinensis x An. kleini showing atrophy of testes and accessory glands. (B) Backcross adult male of (An. kleini x An. sinensis)F1 x An. kleini showing normal development of testes and accessory glands. (C) F1-hybrid adult female of An. sinensis x An. kleini showing normal development of ovarian follicles. (D) F1-hybrid adult female of An. kleini x An. sinensis showing normal development of ovarian follicles.

PCR species identification

For molecular identification, sequences of nuclear ITS2 and mitochondrial COI genes were determined for both the parent mosquitoes and their hybrid progenies. Sequences of An. sinensis parents (F0) were well matched in both genes with those in the GenBank nucleotide sequence database. The four specimens of an An. kleini parent (F0) were also checked, and they all matched An. kleini based on ITS2 sequences. However, their COI gene, An. kleini matched in both species, with 1 being An. kleini and 3 An. sinensis (Table 1).

The F1-hybrid progenies have mixed sequences in their nuclear ITS2 gene. They have heterogeneous ITS2 sequences because they receive ribosomal RNA genes, including ITS2 from both parents. As for a maternal, mitochondrial COI gene, the hybrids followed the trait of the mother. All the progenies of An. sinensis × An. kleini matched An. sinensis based on COI sequences. However, progenies of An. kleini × An. sinensis matched both An. kleini and An. sinensis based on COI sequences, in which two progenies matched An. sinensis and one An. kleini (Table 1).

Two backcrossing groups were checked, with one being a progeny of (An. sinensis × An. kleini) × An. sinensis and the other a progeny of (An. kleini × An. sinensis) × An. kleini. In the (An. sinensis × An. kleini) × An. sinensis back crossing group, all the progenies were well matched An. sinensis NCBI sequences in the ITS2 sequence, except for 3 of F2-hybrid progenies (mixed). Also, all sequences of the COI gene showed An. sinensis. In the (An. kleini × An. sinensis) × An. kleini backcrossing group, all sequences of the ITS2 showed An. kleini, but sequences of the COI gene matched An. kleini only in 3 of F2-hybrid progenies, and the remaining F3-5 progenies matched An. sinensis (Table 1).

Phylogenetic analysis

The neighbor-joining (NJ) tree was constructed based on COI sequences in order to determine sequence divergence among the species examined (Table 1, Figure 2). The NJ tree showed concordant results with the PCR assay in all samples, which were divided into two major clades with 67-74% bootstrap support. Clade I consisted of 55 samples of An. sinensis. It is interesting to note that among the 55 samples, 12 (KF0-2, KF0-3, KF0-4, KSKF3-1, KSKF3-2, KSKF3-3, KSKF4-1, KSKF4-2, KSKF4-3, KSKF5-1, KSKF5-2 and KSKF5-3) and 8 (SKF1-1, SKF1-2, SKF1-3, KSF1-1, KSF1-3, SKSF2-1, SKSF2-2 and SKSF2-3), were identified as An. kleini and mixed sequences of both species, respectively, based on ITS2 sequences. Furthermore, these samples were placed within the same clade as the published sequence of An. sinensis (mean genetic distances = 0.003). Clade II comprised 5 samples of An. kleini derived from parental (KF0-1), reciprocal (KSF1-2) and backcrosses (KSKF2-1, KSKF2-2 and KSKF2-3) based on COI sequences (Table 1). The mean genetic distance between these two species was 0.023.
Figure 2

Neighbor-joining tree of An. sinensis and An. kleini based on COI sequences. Numbers on branches are bootstrap values (%) of NJ analysis. Only greater than 50% bootstrap values are shown. Bars represent 0.005 substitutions per site. Detailed code of samples is shown in Table 1.

Pyrosequencing analysis

The 24-nucleotide target region of the COI gene, including positions 237-260 of An. sinensis and An. kleini, was useful in classifying the sequenced species into 2 groups, as shown in Table 3 and Figures 3 and 4. The first group consisted of Parental: An. sinensis F0 (Figure 4A), F1: An. sinensis x An. kleini -- > hybrid F1 (Figure 4B), F5: hybrid F4 x An. sinensis -- > hybrid F5 (Figure 4C), F10: hybrid F9 x An. sinensis -- > hybrid F10 (Figure 4D), and F1: An. kleini x An. sinensis -- > hybrid F1 (Figure 4F) and another group comprised Parental: An. kleini F0 (Figure 4E) and F5: hybrid F4 x An. kleini -- > hybrid F5 (Figure 4G). Both groups differed from each other in three nucleotide positions (T237C, A243G and C253T) (Table 3). The positive-control plasmids showed similar results to the seven samples in the pyrogram, whereas, a negative control did not provide the pyrogram result.
Table 3

Sample details and nucleotide positions used for discriminating between An. sinensis and An. kleini based on COI sequences

Code no.

Samples

Nucleotide at position

 

(Female x Male)

237

243

253

A1 *

Parental: An. sinensis F0

T

A

C

A2 *

F1: An. sinensis x An. kleini -- > hybrid F1

T

A

C

A3 *

F5: hybrid F4 x An. sinensis -- > hybrid F5

T

A

C

A4 *

F10: hybrid F9 x An. sinensis -- > hybrid F10

T

A

C

A5

Parental: An. kleini F0

C

G

T

A6 *

F1: An. kleini x An. sinensis -- > hybrid F1

T

A

C

A7

F5: hybrid F4 x An. kleini -- > hybrid F5

C

G

T

* group 1, COI sequence matched with An. sinensis.

group 2, COI sequence matched with An. kleini.

Figure 3

Alignment of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene derived from seven samples. Position of the forward primer (Anop_COI_F) and biotinylated reverse primer (Anop_COI_Rb) for template amplification are shown in the black boxes, while the sequencing primer (Anop_COI_S) and target region are shown in the green and red boxes, respectively. Asterisks indicate position of the target region used for species level identification.

Figure 4

Pyrograms showing sequence analysis (SQA) of 24-base fragments of the COI gene. Group 1; (A) Parental: An. sinensis F0, (B) F1: An. sinensis x An. kleini -- > hybrid F1, (C) F5: hybrid F4 x An. sinensis -- > hybrid F5, (D) F10: hybrid F9 x An. sinensis -- > hybrid F10, and (F) F1: An. kleini x An. sinensis -- > hybrid F1. Group 2; (E) Parental: An. kleini F0 and (G) F5: hybrids F4 x An. kleini -- > hybrid F5 using pyrosequencing. Theoretical pyrogram patterns (top of each panel) and representative raw data (bottom of each panel) of control DNA extracted from each An. sinensis and An. kleini by pyrosequencing are shown. Pyrosequencing was performed by addition of enzyme (E), substrate (S), and four different nucleotides. The letters under the black bars show the dispensation (Disp:) order. The actual sequence detected by pyrosequencing is indicated below the panels after “Seq”. The Y-axis represents the level of fluorescence emitted by incorporating a nucleotide base, and the X-axis represents the total number of bases added at that point in time; A, T, C, G nucleotide bases. The light gray areas show the pyrogram for identifying each of the two groups of An. sinensis and An. kleini.

Discussion

Introgression or introgressive hybridization is the movement of a gene (gene flow) between species through hybridization by repeated backcrossing of an interspecific hybrid with one of its parent species. It can have important effects on dynamics of the hybrid zone, speciation and adaptive radiation [41]. The variation of mitochondrial DNA is important and used widely for indirect studies of gene flow [42]. Thelwell et al. [43] reported evidence of mitochondrial (ND5) introgression between An. bwambae and An. gambiae. Consequently, extensive investigations of introgression between An. gambiae and An. arabiensis, and An. bwambae and An. gambiae have been documented systematically and extensively during the past decade [4446]. Additionally, Walton et al. [42] demonstrated that mitochondrial DNA introgressed from An. baimaii (= dirus D) into An. dirus (= dirus A), and Morgan et al. [47] reported evidence to support the mitochondrial introgression between An. baimaii and An. dirus by the high levels of bidirectional mitochondrial gene flow detected between these 2 species. A large number of anopheline species were reported to be capable of interspecific hybridizations under laboratory conditions [48]. However, few species have succeeded in natural hybridization, for example, between An. gambiae and An. arabiensis[23], An. bwambae and An. gambiae[43], An. scanloni (= dirus C) and An. baimaii (= dirus D) [24], and An. minimus and An. harrisoni[28, 29]. Recent discovery of the natural hybrid between An. sinensis and An. kleini[27], and successful establishment of iso-female line colonies of these 2 anopheline species has urged this study to form a reliable systematic procedure to confirm this natural event and/or perform an introgressive study. The results of sterile F1-hybrid adult males with atrophy of accessory glands and testes obtained from the reciprocal crosses between these 2 anopheline species are in keeping with “Haldane Rule”, which states that in interspecific crosses, the heterogametic sex (X, Y) will show sterility or viability problems before the homogametic sex [49]. Thus, the results of this study agree with those of Davidson [50], who reported that female and male hybrids obtained from An. gambiae and An. arabiensis were fertile and sterile, respectively. Furthermore, the results of this study are in accordance with crossing studies in the laboratory by Baimai et al. [51]. They demonstrated that F1 hybrids obtained from the cross of female An. dirus with male An. scanloni were fertile and viable, with an exception of sterile males. It was interesting to note that the repeated backcross progenies in both directions, which resulted in obtaining An. sinensis from hybrids of F2-11 progenies [(An. sinensis x An. kleini) x An. sinensis] and F3-5 progenies [(An. kleini x An. sinensis) x An. kleini], indicated the presence of introgressive hybridization between An. sinensis and An. kleini.

Regarding PCR identification of parental specimens, the exact species of An. sinensis and An. kleini were used in this study based on both the nuclear ITS2 and mitochondrial COI genes. Interestingly, 4 iso-female lines of An. kleini showed the correct gene trait in the ITS2, but their COI sequences matched both species (i.e., An. kleini: 1 iso-female line, and An. sinensis: 3 iso-female lines). Therefore, the authors assumed that the COI sequences of An. kleini had been replaced by those of An. sinensis. Subsequently, reciprocal and repeated backcrosses were performed to clarify our hypothesis. Most COI sequence results of the progenies obtained from reciprocal and repeated backcrosses revealed that the mitochondrial COI gene introgressed from An. sinensis into An. kleini. This event resulted from introgression that occurred between these two species via consecutive repeated backcrosses. Thus, the sample identification of these 2 wild-caught species should be careful only when the COI barcoding region has been applied. Also, results from phylogenetic analysis confirmed the existence of an introgression phenomenon between them. Furthermore, the results from this study are in agreement with those of Petit and Excoffier [52]. They suggested that in species with male-biased dispersal (heterogametic sex), mtDNA markers should introgress more readily than nuclear ones.

Pyrosequencing is a unique sequencing method that was developed as an alternative to classical DNA sequencing for short- to medium-read applications. It is an accurate, simple and flexible bioluminometric method, which does not need labeled nucleotides or gel electrophoresis [53]. To date, this technology has been used successfully for high throughput identification of bacteria [54, 55], virus [56, 57], protozoan parasites [53, 5860] and helminthes [40]. This study applied the pyrosequencing technology for reliable identification from seven samples of An. sinensis and An. kleini. The results were consistent with those of dideoxy sequencing and phylogentic analysis in six samples, except for the one (sample code no. A7) matched with An. kleini COI sequences. This sample possibly had a different mitochondrial haplotype from other hybrid progenies. More recently, the next-generation sequencing provided a good explanation of interspecific gene flow between An. gambiae and An. arabiensis[61] and An. gambiae M and S [62, 63].

The effectiveness of a vector control strategy, and genetically modified strains of mosquitoes in a population that is unable to transmit malarial parasites, relies upon the gene flow within species and introgression [64]. Remarkably, Rheindt and Edwards [65] mentioned concern that in the long-term introgression with newcomer species may lead to a loss of genetic integrity in native species. Detection of natural hybridization is rare but meaningful in terms of horizontal transfer of advantageous genes, such as those in malaria susceptibility, particularly when species that allow hybridization are susceptible or refractory to malarial parasites [9, 66, 67]. This event is also involved in insecticide resistant genes, e.g., the kdr gene [68, 69] and ace-1 gene [70]. In addition, Morgan et al. [71] stated that the absence or presence of gene flow between populations and species has an impact on the dynamics of malaria transmission as well as construction of effective strategies for controlling malaria vectors. Our studies presented the introgressive events through consecutive repeated backcrosses under laboratory conditions, in which the mtDNA gene could be moved from one species to another. However, natural movement of the refractory gene to vivax malaria between sympatric populations of a low potential vector (An. sinensis) and a high potential vector (An. kleini) needed intensive and systematic clarification. This new body of knowledge is anticipated to elucidate the promising strategies for replacing populations of high potential vectors with that of low potential vectors by using genetic manipulation through the gene introgression mechanism.

Conclusions

A single gravid, natural hybrid female between high (An. kleini) and low (An. sinensis) potential vectors of P. vivax was discovered in Paju City, Republic of Korea (ROK). The discovery of natural hybrids between these two anopheline species has led to systematic investigations of various aspects that clarify this event. Hybridization experiments used iso-female line colonies of these anophelines together with DNA analysis of ribosomal DNA [second internal transcribed spacer (ITS2)] and mitochondrial DNA [cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI)] of the parental colonies, F1-hybrids and repeated backcross progenies were performed intensively by using a PCR-based assay and pyrosequencing technology. The results revealed that introgression of the COI gene between An. sinensis and An. kleini was involved in this phenomenon. The pure An. sinensis obtained from hybrids of repeated backcross progenies in both directions, i.e., F2-11 progeny [(An. sinensis x An. kleini) x An. sinensis] and F3- 5 progeny [(An. kleini x An. sinensis) x An. kleini] provided obvious supportive evidence. The results emphasize a promising way to replace the population of a high potential vector (An. kleini) with that of a low potential vector (An. sinensis) through the mechanism of gene introgression.

Notes

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported financially by the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT-NRF: NRF 1/2010 and NRF 1/2012) and Faculty of Medicine Research Fund, Chiang Mai University awarded to WC and AS, and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant (NRF-2010-C00033) awarded to GSM.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University
(2)
Department of Biological Sciences, Inha University
(3)
Research and Diagnostic Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, Khon Kaen University
(4)
Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University
(5)
Division of Cell Biology, Department of Preclinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus, Pathum Thani
(6)
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University

References

  1. Harbach RE: The phylogeny and classification of Anopheles. Anopheles mosquitoes-new insights into malaria vectors. Edited by: Manguin S. 2013, Croatia: InTech, 3-55.Google Scholar
  2. Harrison BA: A lectotype designation and description for Anopheles (An.) sinensis Wiedemann 1828, with a discussion of the classification and vector status of this and some other Oriental Anopheles. Mosq Syst. 1973, 5: 1-13.Google Scholar
  3. Ree HI, Hwang UW, Lee IY, Kim TE: Daily survival and human blood index of Anopheles sinensis, the vector species of malaria in Korea. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2001, 17: 67-72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Whang IJ, Jung J, Park JK, Min GS, Kim W: Intragenomic length variation of the ribosomal DNA intergenic spacer in a malaria vector, Anopheles sinensis. Mol Cells. 2002, 14: 158-162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Ma Y, Xu J: The hyrcanus group of Anopheles (Anopheles) in China (Diptera: Culicidae): species discrimination and phylogenetic relationships inferred by ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer 2 sequences. J Med Entomol. 2005, 42: 610-619. 10.1603/0022-2585(2005)042[0610:THGOAA]2.0.CO;2.Google Scholar
  6. Lee WJ, Klein TA, Kim HC, Choi YM, Yoon SH, Chang KS, Chong ST, Lee IY, Jones JW, Jacobs JS, Sattabongkot J, Park JS: Anopheles kleini, Anopheles pullus, and Anopheles sinensis: potential vectors of Plasmodium vivax in the Republic of Korea. J Med Entomol. 2007, 44: 1086-1090. 10.1603/0022-2585(2007)44[1086:AKAPAA]2.0.CO;2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Joshi D, Choochote W, Park MH, Kim JY, Kim TS, Suwonkerd W, Min GS: The susceptibility of Anopheles lesteri to infection with Korean strain Plasmodium vivax. Malar J. 2009, 12 (8): 42-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Rueda LM, Li C, Kim HC, Klein TA, Foley DH, Wilkerson RC: Anopheles belenrae, a potential vector of Plasmodium vivax in the Republic of Korea. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2010, 26: 430-432. 10.2987/10-6057.1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Joshi D, Kim JY, Choochote W, Park MH, Min GS: Preliminary vivax malaria vector competence for three members of the Anopheles hyrcanus group in the Republic of Korea. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2011, 27: 312-314. 10.2987/10-6086.1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Sinka ME, Bangs MJ, Manguin S, Chareonviriyaphap T, Patil AP, Temperley WH, Gething PW, Elyazar IR, Kabaria CW, Harbach RE, Hay SI: The dominant Anopheles vectors of human malaria in the Asia-Pacific region: occurrence data, distribution maps and bionomic précis. Parasit Vectors. 2011, 4: 89-10.1186/1756-3305-4-89.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Zhu G, Xia H, Zhou H, Li J, Lu F, Liu Y, Cao J, Gao Q, Sattabongkot J: Susceptibility of Anopheles sinensis to Plasmodium vivax in malarial outbreak areas of central China. Parasit Vectors. 2013, 6: 176-10.1186/1756-3305-6-176.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Pan JY, Zhou SS, Zheng X, Huang F, Wang DQ, Shen YZ, Su YP, Zhou GC, Liu F, Jiang JJ: Vector capacity of Anopheles sinensis in malaria outbreak areas of central China. Parasit Vectors. 2012, 5: 136-10.1186/1756-3305-5-136.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Zhou SS, Zhang SS, Wang JJ, Zheng X, Huang F, Li WD, Xu X, Zhang HW: Spatial correlation between malaria cases and water-bodies in Anopheles sinensis dominated areas of Huang-Huai plain, China. Parasit Vectors. 2012, 5: 106-10.1186/1756-3305-5-106.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Makhawi AM, Liu XB, Yang SR, Liu QY: Genetic variations of ND5 gene of mtDNA in populations of Anopheles sinensis (Diptera: Culicidae) malaria vector in China. Parasit Vectors. 2013, 6: 290-10.1186/1756-3305-6-290.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Sasa M: Human filariasis: A global survey of epidemiology and control. 1976, Tokyo: University of Tokyo PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Saeung A, Hempolchom C, Baimai V, Thongsahuan S, Taai K, Jariyapan N, Chaithong U, Choochote W: Susceptibility of eight species members in the Anopheles hyrcanus group to nocturnally subperiodic Brugia malayi. Parasit Vectors. 2013, 6: 5-10.1186/1756-3305-6-5.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Zhang HL: The natural infection rate of mosquitoes by Japanese encephalitis B virus in Yunnan Province. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 1990, 24: 265-267.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kanojia PC, Shetty PS, Geevarghese G: A long-term study on vector abundance & seasonal prevalence in relation to the occurrence of Japanese encephalitis in Gorakhpur district, Uttar Pradesh. Indian J Med Res. 2003, 117: 104-110.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Chai JY: Re-emerging Plasmodium vivax malaria in the Republic of Korea. Korean J Parasitol. 1999, 37: 129-143. 10.3347/kjp.1999.37.3.129.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. K-NIH: Korea-National Institute of Health: Manual for malaria control. 2001, Seoul: Korea: Korea-National Institute of Health (K-NIH)Google Scholar
  21. Ree HI: Studies on Anopheles sinensis, the vector species of vivax malaria in Korea. Today’s malaria epidemiology and vector control proceedings of the 22nd seminar of tropical medicine: 21 February 2002; Seoul. Edited by: Yong TS. 2002, South Korea: Yonsei Medical Center, 33-52.Google Scholar
  22. K-CDC: Korea-Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Provisional cases of selected notifiable disease. K-CDC Communicable Disease Weekly Report (CDWR): 25-31. 2005, 1-32. December , Volume 53Google Scholar
  23. Temu EA, Hunt RH, Coetzee M, Minjas JN, Shiff CJ: Detection of hybrids in natural populations of the Anopheles gambiae complex by the rDNA-based, PCR method. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1997, 91: 963-965.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Walton C, Sharpe RG, Pritchard SJ, Thelwell NJ, Butlin RK: Molecular identification of mosquito species. Biol J Linn Soc. 1999, 68: 241-256. 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1999.tb01168.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Bortel W, Trung HD, Roelants P, Harbach RE, Backeljau T, Coosemans M: Molecular identification of Anopheles minimus s.l. beyond distinguishing the members of the species complex. Insect Mol Biol. 2000, 9: 335-340. 10.1046/j.1365-2583.2000.00192.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kengne P, Trung HD, Baimai V, Coosemans M, Manguin S: A multiplex PCR-based method derived from random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers for the identification of species of the Anopheles minimus group in Southeast Asia. Insect Mol Biol. 2001, 10: 427-435. 10.1046/j.0962-1075.2001.00281.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Joshi D, Choochote W, Min GS: Short report: natural hybrid between Anopheles kleini and Anopheles sinensis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2009, 81: 1020-1022. 10.4269/ajtmh.2009.09-0123.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Choochote W, Saeung A: Systematic techniques for the recognition of Anopheles species complexes. Anopheles mosquitoes-new insights into malaria vectors. Edited by: Manguin S. 2013, Croatia: InTech, 57-79.Google Scholar
  29. Tanaka K, Mizusawa K, Saugstad ES: A revision of the adult and larval mosquitoes of Japan (including the Ryukyu Archipelago and the Ogasawara Islands) and Korea (Diptera: Culicidae). Contrib Am Entomol Inst. 1979, 16: 1-985.Google Scholar
  30. Joshi D, Park MH, Saeung A, Choochote W, Min GS: Multiplex assay to identify Korean vectors of malaria. Mol Ecol Resour. 2010, 10: 748-750. 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02835.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Saeung A, Otsuka Y, Baimai V, Somboon P, Pitasawat B, Tuetun B, Junkum A, Takaoka H, Choochote W: Cytogenetic and molecular evidence for two species in the Anopheles barbirostris complex (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand. Parasitol Res. 2007, 101: 1337-1344. 10.1007/s00436-007-0645-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Li C, Lee JS, Groebner JL, Kim HC, Klein T, O’Guinn ML, Wilkerson RC: A newly recognized species in the Anopheles hyrcanus group and molecular identification of related species from the Republic of South Korea (Diptera: Culicidae). Zootaxa. 2005, 939: 1-8.Google Scholar
  33. Folmer O, Black M, Hoeh W, Lutz R, Vrijenhoek R: DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol. 1994, 3: 294-299.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hall TA: BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser. 1999, 41: 95-98.Google Scholar
  35. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ: CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, positions-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994, 22: 4673-4680. 10.1093/nar/22.22.4673.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Saitou N, Nei M: The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol. 1987, 4: 406-425.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Tamura K, Dudley J, Nei M, Kumar S: MEGA4: Molecular evolution genetics analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2007, 24: 1596-1599. 10.1093/molbev/msm092.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Choochote W: Evidence to support karyotypic variation of the mosquito, Anopheles peditaeniatus in Thailand. J Insect Sci. 2011, 11: 10-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Park SJ, Choochote W, Jitpakdi A, Junkum A, Kim SJ, Jariyapan N: Evidence for a conspecific relationship between two morphologically and cytologically different forms of Korean Anopheles pullus mosquito. Mol Cells. 2003, 16: 354-360.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Tantrawatpan C, Intapan PM, Janwan P, Sanpool O, Lulitanond V, Srichantaratsamee C, Anamnart W, Maleewong W: Molecular identification of Paragonimus species by DNA pyrosequencing technology. Parasitol Int. 2013, 62: 341-345. 10.1016/j.parint.2012.11.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Grant PR, Grant BR, Petren K: Hybridization in the recent past. Am Nat. 2005, 166: 56-67. 10.1086/430331.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Walton C, Handley JM, Tun-Lin W, Collins FH, Harbach RE, Baimai V, Butlin RK: Population structure and population history of Anopheles dirus mosquitoes in Southeast Asia. Mol Biol Evol. 2000, 17: 962-974. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026377.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Thelwell NJ, Huisman RA, Harbach RE, Butlin RK: Evidence for mitochondrial introgression between Anopheles bwambae and Anopheles gambiae. Insect Mol Biol. 2000, 9: 203-210. 10.1046/j.1365-2583.2000.00178.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Besansky NJ, Krzywinski J, Lehmann T, Simard F, Kern M, Mukabayire O, Fontenille D, Touré Y, Sagnon N: Semipermeable species boundaries between Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles arabiensis: evidence from multilocus DNA sequence variation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003, 100: 10818-10823. 10.1073/pnas.1434337100.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Slotman M, Della Torre A, Powell JR: Female sterility in hybrids between Anopheles gambiae and A. arabiensis, and the causes of Haldane’s rule. Evolution. 2005, 59: 1016-1026.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Slotman MA, Della Torre A, Calzetta M, Powell JR: Differential introgression of chromsomal regions between Anopheles gambiae and An. arabiensis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005, 73: 326-335.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Morgan K, Linton YM, Somboon P, Saikia P, Dev V, Socheat D, Walton C: Inter-specific gene flow dynamics during the Pleistocene-dated speciation of forest-dependent mosquitoes in Southeast Asia. Mol Ecol. 2010, 19: 2269-2285. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04635.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Presgraves DC, Orr HA: Haldane’s rule in taxa lacking a hemizygous X. Science. 1998, 282: 952-954.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Orr HA: Haldane’s rule. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 1997, 28: 195-218.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Davidson G: The five mating-types in the Anopheles gambiae complex. Riv Malariol. 1964, 43: 167-183.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Baimai V, Andre RG, Harrison BA, Kijchalao U, Panthusiri L: Crossing and chromosomal evidence for two additional sibling species within the taxon Anopheles dirus Peyton and Harrison (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand. Proc Entomol Soc Wash. 1987, 89: 157-166.Google Scholar
  52. Petit RJ, Excoffier L: Gene flow and species delimitation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009, 24: 386-393. 10.1016/j.tree.2009.02.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Sreekumar C, Hill DE, Miska KB, Vianna MC, Yan L, Myers RL, Dubey JP: Genotyping and detection of multiple infections of Toxoplasma gondii using Pyrosequencing. Int J Parasitol. 2005, 35: 991-999. 10.1016/j.ijpara.2005.03.017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Monstein H, Nikpour-Badr S, Jonasson J: Rapid molecular identification and subtyping of Helicobacter pylori by pyrosequencing of the 16S rDNA variable V1 and V3 regions. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2001, 199: 103-107. 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2001.tb10658.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Wahab T, Hjalmarsson S, Wollin R, Engstrand L: Pyrosequencing Bacillus anthracis. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005, 11: 1527-1531. 10.3201/eid1110.041316.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. O’Meara D, Wilbe K, Leitner T, Hejdeman B, Albert J, Lundeberg J: Monitoring resistance to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitors by pyrosequencing. J Clin Microbiol. 2001, 39: 464-473. 10.1128/JCM.39.2.464-473.2001.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Elahi E, Pourmand N, Chaung R, Rofoogaran A, Boisver J, Samimi-Rad K, Davis RW, Ronaghi M: Determination of hepatitis C virus genotype by Pyrosequencing. J Virol Methods. 2003, 109: 171-176. 10.1016/S0166-0934(03)00068-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Stensvold CR, Traub RJ, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Jespersgaard C, Nielsen HV, Thompson RC: Blastocystis: subtyping isolates using pyrosequencing technology. Exp Parasitol. 2007, 116: 111-119. 10.1016/j.exppara.2006.12.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Stensvold CR, Lebbad M, Verweij JJ, Jespersgaard C, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Nielsen SS, Nielsen HV: Identification and delineation of members of the Entamoeba complex by pyrosequencing. Mol Cell Probes. 2010, 24: 403-406. 10.1016/j.mcp.2010.07.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Lulitanond V, Intapan PM, Tantrawatpan C, Sankuntaw N, Sanpool O, Janwan P, Maleewong W: Molecular markers for detection and differentiation of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax in human blood samples by pyrosequencing. J Clin Microbiol. 2012, 50: 1455-1457. 10.1128/JCM.06001-11.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Neafsey DE, Lawniczak MK, Park DJ, Redmond SN, Coulibaly MB, Traoré SF, Sagnon N, Costantini C, Johnson C, Wiegand RC, Collins FH, Lander ES, Wirth DF, Kafatos FC, Besansky NJ, Christophides GK, Muskavitch MA: SNP genotyping defines complex gene-flow boundaries among African malaria vector mosquitoes. Science. 2010, 330: 514-517. 10.1126/science.1193036.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Reidenbach KR, Neafsey DE, Costantini C, Sagnon N, Simard F, Ragland GJ, Egan SP, Feder JL, Muskavitch MA, Besansky NJ: Patterns of genomic differentiation between ecologically differentiated M and S forms of Anopheles gambiae in West and Central Africa. Genome Biol Evol. 2012, 4: 1202-1212. 10.1093/gbe/evs095.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Weetman D, Wilding CS, Steen K, Pinto J, Donnelly MJ: Gene flow-dependent genomic divergence between Anopheles gambiae M and S forms. Mol Biol Evol. 2012, 29: 279-291. 10.1093/molbev/msr199.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Curtis C: The case for malaria control by genetic manipulation of its vectors. Parasitol Today. 1994, 10: 371-374. 10.1016/0169-4758(94)90222-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Rheindt FE, Edwards SV: Genetic introgression: an integral but neglected component of speciation in birds. Auk. 2011, 128: 620-632. 10.1525/auk.2011.128.4.620.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Rottschaefer SM, Riehle MM, Coulibaly B, Sacko M, Niaré O, Morlais I, Traoré SF, Vernick KD, Lazzaro BP: Exceptional diversity, maintenance of polymorphism, and recent directional selection on the APL1 malaria resistance genes of Anopheles gambiae. PLoS Biol. 2011, 9: e1000600-10.1371/journal.pbio.1000600.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. White BJ, Lawniczak MK, Cheng C, Coulibaly MB, Wilson MD, Sagnon N, Costantini C, Simard F, Christophides GK, Besansky NJ: Adaptive divergence between incipient species of Anopheles gambiae increases resistance to Plasmodium. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011, 108: 244-249. 10.1073/pnas.1013648108.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Weill M, Chandre F, Brengues C, Manguin S, Akogbeto M, Pasteur N, Guillet P, Raymond M: The kdr mutation occurs in the Mopti form of Anopheles gambiae s.s. through introgression. Insect Mol Biol. 2000, 9: 451-455. 10.1046/j.1365-2583.2000.00206.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Diabate A, Baldet T, Chandre C, Dabire KR, Kengne P, Guiguemde TR, Simard F, Guillet P, Hemingway J, Hougard JM: KDR mutation, a genetic marker to assess events of introgression between the molecular M and S forms of Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) in the tropical savannah area of West Africa. J Med Entomol. 2003, 40: 195-198. 10.1603/0022-2585-40.2.195.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Djogbenou L, Chandre F, Berthomieu A, Dabire R, Koffi A, Alout H, Weill M: Evidence of introgression of the ace-1(R) mutation and of the ace-1 duplication in West African Anopheles gambiae s.s. PLoS One. 2008, 3: e2172-10.1371/journal.pone.0002172.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Morgan K, Somboon P, Walton C: Understanding Anopheles diversity in Southeast Asia and its applications for malaria control. Anopheles mosquitoes-new insights into malaria vectors. Edited by: Manguin S. 2013, Croatia: InTech, 327-355.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Choochote et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Advertisement