Evolution and homoplasy at the Bem6 microsatellite locus in three sweetpotato whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) cryptic species

Joint analysis of microsatellites and flanking sequences enlightens complex demographic history of interspecific gene flow and vicariance in rear-edge oak populations

Inference of recent population divergence requires fast evolving markers and necessitates to differentiate shared genetic variation caused by ancestral polymorphism and gene flow. Theoretical research shows that the use of compound marker systems integrating linked polymorphisms with different mutational dynamics, such as a microsatellite and its flanking sequences, can improve estimation of population structure and inference of demographic history, especially in the case of complex population dynamics. However, empirical application in natural populations has so far been limited by lack of suitable methods for data collection. A solution comes from the development of sequence-based microsatellite genotyping which we used to study molecular variation at 36 sequenced nuclear microsatellites in seven Quercus canariensis and four Q. faginea rear-edge populations across Algeria. We aim to decipher their taxonomic relationship, past evolutionary history and recent demographic trajectory. First, we compare the estimation of population genetics parameters and simulation-based inference of demographic history from microsatellite sequence alone, flanking sequence alone or the combination of linked microsatellite and flanking sequence variation. Second, we apply random forest approximate Bayesian computation to identify which of these sequence types is most informative. Whereas analysing microsatellite variation alone indicates recent interspecific gene flow, additional information gained by integrating nucleotide variation in flanking sequences, by reducing homoplasy, suggests ancient interspecific gene flow followed by drift in isolation instead. The weight of each polymorphism in the inference also demonstrates the value of linked variations with contrasted mutation dynamic to improve estimation of both demographic and mutational parameters.

Reply to the comment by Morales et al. on “Population genetics reveal Myotis keenii (Keen’s myotis) and Myotis evotis (long-eared myotis) to be a single species”

A.E. Morales et al. (2021. Can. J. Zool. 99(5): 415–422) provided no new evidence to alter the conclusions of C.L. Lausen et al. (2019. Can. J. Zool. 97(3): 267–279). We present background information, relevant comparisons, and clarification of analyses to further strengthen our conclusions. The genesis of the original “evotis–keenii” study in British Columbia (Canada) was to differentiate Myotis keenii (Merriam, 1895) (Keen’s myotis), with one of the smallest North American bat distributions, from sympatric Myotis evotis (H. Allen, 1864) (long-eared myotis), using something other than the suggested post-mortem skull size comparison, but no differentiating trait could be found, leading to the molecular genetics examination of C.L. Lausen et al. (2019). We present cumulative data that rejects the 1979 hypothesis of M. keenii as a distinct species. A.E. Morales et al. (2021) inaccurately portray C.L. Lausen et al.’s (2019) question and results; present inaccurate morphological and outdated distribution data; overstate the impact of homoplasy without supporting evidence; and misinterpret evidence of population structure.

Comment on “Population genetics reveal Myotis keenii (Keen’s myotis) and Myotis evotis (long-eared myotis) to be a single species”

Genetic exchange and hybridization appear common among the western long-eared bats from North America. Multiple sources of evidence indicate that lineages within this group are evolving independently, despite genetic exchange. However, evidence of gene flow raises questions about the species-level status of some lineages. C.L. Lausen et al. (2019. Can. J. Zool. 97(3): 267–279) proposed that Myotis evotis (H. Allen, 1864) (long-eared myotis) and Myotis keenii (Merriam, 1895) (Keen’s myotis) are one species, not two. This conclusion is based on analyses of cytochrome b and microsatellite data suggesting gene flow between these taxa. Microsatellites are not reliable markers for identifying species because homoplasy can be a major confounding factor, which appears to be true in this case. We reanalyzed the dataset of C.L. Lausen et al. (2019) and show that it is not reliable to distinguish between gene flow or homoplasy, and that these data do not support the conclusion that M. evotis and M. keenii represent a single species. Previous morphological and genomic studies indicate that these are separate species despite previous genetic exchange between them. Failing to recognize that gene flow can occur between independently evolving lineages is counterproductive for conservation because it can lead to neglect of important independent lineages, and likewise failing to use proper tools to delimit species is counterproductive to efforts to quantify biodiversity and design conservation strategies.