• View in gallery

    Map of the Caribbean region showing the approximate locations of Anopheles albimanus collections (see Table 1 for site and country names); mountains higher than 300 meters are indicated in gray.

  • View in gallery

    Frequencies of microsatellite (MS) alleles by size and geographic region for loci 1-90 (A), 2-14 (B), 2-25 (C), and 6-41 (D). Alleles with frequencies <0.01 are not shown. The repeat number (R) for sequenced alleles is indicated. bp = basepairs.

  • View in gallery

    Unweighted pair group method using averages cluster analysis of pairwise FST/(1 − FST) relationships between collections for (A) microsatellite loci and (B) NADH dehydrogenase subunit 5 (ND5) mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).

  • View in gallery

    Regression analysis of pairwise FST/(1 − FST) estimates against pairwise geographic distance or against natural logarithms of geographic distances among collections in Central America using (A and B) microsatelllite (MS) loci or (C) NADH dehydrogenase subunit 5 (ND5) mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Pairwise estimates between Panamanian collections and collections from other countries (○) and between collections from Central American countries other from Panama (•) are indicated. Regression analysis of ND5 pairwise estimates excluding Panamanian collections (C-1) and including Panamanian collections (C-2) are indicated. Prob. = probability.

  • View in gallery

    Frequencies of the 50 NADH dehydrogenase subunit 5 (ND5) haplotypes in Anopheles albimanus populations grouped by country.

  • View in gallery

    Maximum likelihood tree showing phylogenetic relationships among individual NADH dehydrogenase subunit 5 haplotypes. Bootstrap support using maximum parsimony analysis appears above each branch, while bootstrap support using Tamura-Nei genetic distance/neighbor joining appears below each branch. An. = Anopheles; CA = Central America; Guat. = Guatemala; SA = South America; Mex. = Mexico; Pan. = Panama; Colomb. = Colombia.

  • View in gallery

    Inferred gene flow (arrows) and its partial natural barriers (blocks) for Anopheles albimanus populations in the Americas. The current distribution of An. albimanus is shown in gray.

  • 1

    Rubio-Palis Y, Zimmerman RH, 1997. Ecoregional classification of malaria vectors in the neotropics. J Med Entomol 34 :499–510.

  • 2

    Frederickson EC, 1993. Bionomics and Control of Anopheles albimanus. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization, Pan American Sanitary Bureau Regional Office of the World Health Organization.

  • 3

    Keppler WJJ, Kitzmiller JB, Rabbani MG, 1973. The salivary gland chromosomes of Anopheles albimanus.Mosq News 33 :42–49.

  • 4

    Faran ME, 1980. Mosquito studies (Diptera, Culicidae) XXXIV. A revision of the Albimanus section of the subgenus Nysorhynchus of Anopheles. Contrib Am Entomol Inst Ann Arbor 15 :1–215.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Tabachnick WJ, Black WC IV, 1995. Making a case for molecular population genetic studies of arthropod vectors. Parasitol Today 11 :27–30.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Donnelly MJ, Simard F, Lehmann T, 2002. Evolutionary studies of malaria vectors. Trends Parasitol 18 :75–80.

  • 7

    Collins FH, Besansky NJ, 1994. Vector biology and the control of malaria in Africa. Science 264 :1874–1875.

  • 8

    de Merida AM, Palmieri M, Yurrita M, Molina A, Molina E, Black WC IV, 1999. Mitochondrial DNA variation among Anopheles albimanus populations. Am J Trop Med Hyg 61 :230–239.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    de Merida AM, De Mata MP, Molina E, Porter CH, Black WC IV, 1995. Variation in ribosomal DNA intergenic spacers among populations of Anopheles albimanus in South and Central America. Am J Trop Med Hyg 53 :469–477.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Black WCI, DuTeau NM, 1997. RAPD-PCR and SSCP analysis for insect population genetic studies. Crampton JM, Beard CB, Louis C, eds. The Molecular Biology of Insect Disease Vectors: A Methods Manual.New York: Chapman and Hall, 361–373.

  • 11

    Schaffer HE, Sederoff RR, 1981. Improved estimation of DNA fragment lengths from agarose gels. Anal Biochem 115 :113–122.

  • 12

    Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM, 1992. Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131 :479–491.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Weir BS, 1996. Genetic Data Analysis II: Methods for Discrete Population Genetic Data. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

  • 14

    Slatkin M, 1993. Isolation by distance in equilibrium and non equilibrium populations. Evolution 47 :264–279.

  • 15

    Rousset F, 1997. Genetic differentiation and estimation of gene flow from F-statistics under isolation by distance. Genetics 145 :1219–1228.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Mantel N, 1967. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27 :209–220.

  • 17

    Sohkal RR, Sneath PHA, 1963. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.

  • 18

    Felsenstein J, 1993. PHYLIP: Phylogeny Inference Package. Version 3.5C. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

  • 19

    Hasegawa M, Kishino H, Yano T, 1985. Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J Mol Evol 22 :160–174.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Tamura K, Nei M, 1993. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol Biol Evol 10 :512–526.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Saitou N, Nei M, 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 4 :406–425.

  • 22

    Nei M, 1987. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • 23

    Watterson GA, 1975. On the number of segregating sites in genetical models without recombination. Theor Popul Biol 7 :256–276.

  • 24

    Nei M, 1978. Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89 :583–590.

  • 25

    Narang SK, Seawright JA, Suarez MF, 1991. Genetic structure of natural populations of Anopheles albimanus in Colombia. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 7 :437–445.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Nauta MJ, Weissing FJ, 1996. Constraints on allele size at microsatellite loci: implications for genetic differentiation. Genetics 143 :1021–1032.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Estoup A, Jarne P, Cornuet JM, 2002. Homoplasy and mutation model at microsatellite loci and their consequences for population genetics analysis. Mol Ecol 11 :1591–1604.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Donnelly MJ, Townson H, 2000. Evidence for extensive genetic differentiation among populations of the malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis in Eastern Africa. Insect Mol Biol 9 :357–367.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Walton C, Thelwell NJ, Priestman A, Butlin RK, 1998. The use of microsatellites to study gene flow in natural populations of Anopheles malaria vectors in Africa: potential and pitfalls. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 14 :266–272.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Lehmann T, Licht M, Elissa N, Maega BT, Chimumbwa JM, Watsenga FT, Wondji CS, Simard F, Hawley WA, 2003. Population Structure of Anopheles gambiae in Africa. J Hered 94 :133–147.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Lehmann T, Hawley WA, Grebert H, Danga M, Atieli F, Collins FH, 1999. The Rift Valley complex as a barrier to gene flow for Anopheles gambiae in Kenya. J Hered 90 :613–621.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Carnahan J, Zheng L, Taylor CE, Toure YT, Norris DE, Dolo G, Diuk-Wasser M, Lanzaro GC, 2002. Genetic differentiation of Anopheles gambiae s.s. populations in Mali, west Africa, using microsatellite loci. J Hered 93 :249–253.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Krzywinski J, Besansky NJ, 2003. Molecular systematics of Anopheles: from subgenera to subpopulations. Annu Rev Entomol 48 :111–139.

 

 

 

 

 

GENE FLOW AMONG ANOPHELES ALBIMANUS POPULATIONS IN CENTRAL AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA, AND THE CARIBBEAN ASSESSED BY MICROSATELLITES AND MITOCHONDRIAL DNA

View More View Less
  • 1 Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala; Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

Gene flow was examined among Anopheles albimanus populations from Cuba, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, and Venezuela by examining variation at four microsatellite (MS) loci and a mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) marker. There was little variation among Central American populations and weak isolation by distance was only observed with the MS loci. There was moderate to large variation between Central and South American populations, suggesting a barrier to gene flow between Central and South America. However, Panamanian and Pacific Costa Rican populations differed with respect to western Central America, suggesting that there may be another barrier within Central America. There was small to moderate variation among Caribbean and continental populations. Phylogenetic and diversity analyses of mtDNA indicate that more ancestral and diverse haplotypes were present in the Caribbean population, suggesting that current continental An. albimanus populations may have originated from the Caribbean.

INTRODUCTION

Anopheles albimanus Wied. is the primary coastal vector of malaria from southern Mexico to northern Peru, and in the Greater Antilles.1 The species is found mainly at an altitude < 100 meters in a wide range of larval habitats that vary from hoof prints to lakes and brackish water.2 Anopheles albimanus populations vary considerably in their vector competence for human malarias, their biting behavior, and host preference,2 even though the species is cytologically3 and morphologically4 constant throughout its range. Knowledge of population structure can help make predictions of migration among vector populations, give insights into the epidemiology and transmission of malaria, and help in the design of more effective vector control,5,6 including the possible release of genetically modified vectors.7

In a previous study,8 we examined the distribution of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes among An. albimanus collections in Guatemala, to test for gene flow barriers using a 390-basepair region of the mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase subunit 5 (ND5) gene. Phylogenetic analysis among the 15 most common haplotypes did not detect clades associated with geographic regions. Collections from different regions of Guatemala were genetically similar, as were collections from the same locations across three seasons. These results suggested that an earlier study of the An. albimanus ribosomal DNA intergenic spacer (IGS)9 had overestimated genetic differences between Atlantic and Pacific populations, possibly due to concerted evolution.8 Evidence from independent nuclear markers was therefore required to support the results obtained with the ND5 marker. The earlier ND5 study8 also suggested barriers to gene flow in Costa Rica and Panama with respect to western Central America, and that ND5 haplotype frequencies in South America differed significantly with respect to Central America.

The present study expands on our previous findings on the population structure and phylogenetic relationships among An. albimanus populations of Central and South America. In this study, four microsatellite (MS) markers have been used, in addition to the ND5 mitochondrial marker, to characterize larger An. albimanus collections from throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mosquito collections and extraction of DNA.

The locations, collectors, and sample sizes of An. albimanus collections in Central and South America and the Caribbean are listed in Table 1, and the geographic locations of all sampling sites are shown in Figure 1. Some of the collections from Guatemala and one from Costa Rica were used in a previous study.8 Mosquitoes were collected in cattle corrals and kept alive for 24 hours in cardboard cartons with sugared water. Afterwards, they were frozen and placed in 70% ethanol awaiting extraction of DNA.8 The DNA samples of An. bellator and An. cruzi individuals collected on the island of Trinidad and in Sao Paulo State, Brazil, respectively, were kindly provided by Dr. Richard Wilkerson (Museum Support Center, Smithsonian Institution, Suitland, MD).

Microsatellite loci isolation, amplification, and identification.

Anopheles albimanus genomic DNA was digested with Mbo I and subjected to electrophoresis on a 1.5% agarose gel. DNA between 300 and 1,000 basepairs was separated and purified from the gel. Digested DNA was ligated to Bam HI-digested pBluescript plasmid (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA). Recombinant colonies containing MS loci were identified by hybridization with 32P-labeled (AG)20 and (AC)20 probes. Selected MS clones were sequenced and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primers were designed and tested with An. albimanus DNA from different geographic regions. The MS loci selected contained mostly AG repeats except for MS 1-90 and 6-41, which were composite microsatellites containing both AC and AG repeats.

Microsatellite locus 1-90 was amplified in single mosquitoes using primers 1-90+ (5′-GCA TAA ATA ATA GCC AA CA-3′) and 1-90- (5′-GTC ACA CTT CCG ACT ACA AA-3′). Microsatellite locus 2-14 was amplified with primers 2-14+ (5′-GCC CTT GCC AAG ATA AAA TGG AAA-3′) and 2-14- (5′-TCA AAT AAT CCT AAA ACA CCG TCC-3′). Microsatellite locus 2-25 was amplified using primers 2-25+ (5′-GGT TTC CAG CCT CCA TTC TC-3′) and 2-25- (5′-CCT TAC TGT GCT GGA ACA CG-3′). Microsatellite locus 6-41 was amplified using primers 6-41+ (5′-CGG CAT CCA TCC TTT CTC TG-3′) and 6-41- (5′-GAC CTC GCG CCT TGT CAT AA-3′).

Amplified MS alleles were size fractionated by electrophoresis on denaturing DNA sequencing gels and visualized by silver staining.10 On each gel, the reciprocal of the length of markers in a DNA ladder were regressed on the reciprocal of their mobility.11 The mobility of An. albimanus MS alleles was then entered into the regression equation to estimate size. In addition, the identity of the MS alleles was confirmed by sequencing, in triplicate, two of the most frequent alleles for each MS locus. Sequenced alleles served as references to estimate the number of repeats in other alleles.

Mitochondrial gene amplification and haplotype identification.

The ND5 gene was amplified in individual mosquitoes using primers ND5P1 (5′-TWG CSC CTA ATC CKG CTA TA-3′) and ND5M2 (5′-YTW GGA TGA GAT GGS TTA GG-3′), where Y = pyrimidine, R = purine, S = C or G, K = G or T, and W = A or T. The amplified regions correspond with nucleotides 7,282–7,671 in An. quadrimaculatus (GenBank #L04272) and nucleotides 7,169–7,558 in An. gambiae (GenBank # L20934). Amplification was done in an MJ Research (Watertown, MA) thermocycler with the following conditions: 95°C for five minutes, min, 80°C on hold while one unit of Taq polymerase was added to each tube, then 10 cycles of 92°C for one minute, 48°C for one minute, and 72° for 1.5 minutes; this was followed by 32 cycles of 92°C for one minute, 54°C for 35 seconds, and 72°C for 1.5 minutes; a final extension was done at 72°C for seven minutes. The PCR products were analyzed by single-strand conformational polymorphism (SSCP) analysis.10 The ND5 PCR products of the 26 most common ND5 haplotypes were sequenced along both strands and 390 basepairs, primers excluded, were used in the analysis.

Statistical analysis of haplotype and allele frequencies.

Variation in mtDNA haplotype and MS allele frequencies was examined using the analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) procedure on Arlequin version 1.1.12 The AMOVA was initially performed on collections from Central American countries and then among South American countries. The AMOVA next partitioned variation between Central and South America, and lastly between Cuba and continental populations. The significance of the variance components associated with each level of partitioning was tested using non-parametric permutation tests.12 Arlequin version 1.1 was also used to compute FST and RST, standardized measures of variation in haplotype frequencies,13 among all collections and pairwise between all possible pairs of collection. Effective migration rates (Nm) were estimated from FST or RST.14

Pairwise FST values were transformed to FST/(1 − FST) and regressed on pairwise geographic distances among collections to determine if geographic distance serves as a barrier to gene flow.14 Geographic distances were obtained by the GIS system using program ATLAS-GIS 3.0 (Environmental System Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, CA). This regression was repeated using a natural logarithm of geographic distance.15 Transformations, regression analyses, and Mantel’s test16 were performed with Arlequin version 1.1.12 The reciprocal of the estimated slope provides an estimate of the average effective population size (Ne).15 Pairwise transformed FST values were entered into a distance matrix and used to construct a dendrogram among all collections by cluster analysis using unweighted pair group method using averages (UPGMA) analysis17 in the NEIGHBOR procedure in PHYLIP3.5C.18

Phylogenetic and nucleotide diversity analysis of ND5 haplotype sequences.

Haplotypes of the ND5 gene were manually aligned without gaps according to codon. Phylogenetic relationships among haplotypes were estimated with PAUP4.0b10 using maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood,19 and distance/neighbor joining.20,21

For each collection, the nucleotide sequences and the frequency of each haplotype were entered into Arlequin version 1.1. This analysis could not be completed for all individuals because we sequenced only the 26 most common haplotypes. For each collection, we estimated nucleotide diversity (π), the average number of nucleotide differences per site between two sequences (equation 10.5),22 and the number of differences between two randomly chosen alleles, theta (𝛉) (equation 1.4a).23

RESULTS

Microsatellite allele frequencies among collections.

The MS loci had an average of 10.9 alleles with a range of 4–19 alleles per locus per collection. The average unbiased heterozygosity24 was 0.78 with a range of 0.33–0.90 (Table 2). The number of individuals in which amplification failed (presumably due to mutations in the primer annealing sites) was small (17, 20, 12, and 2 of a total of 1,411 mosquitoes for MS 1-90, 2-14, 2-25, and 6-41, respectively). Of a total of 112 tests of goodness-of-fit to Hardy-Weinberg proportions (4 genotypes × 28 collections), only 20 were not in equilibrium, with most of them due to heterozygote deficiency (Table 2).

The MS loci 1-90, MS 2-14, MS 2-25, and MS 6-41 loci, respectively, contained 23, 25, 39, and 13 alleles. Most alleles obtained for each of the four MS loci differed from each other by a multiple of two basepairs, but at least two low-frequency alleles differed by one basepair. Sequencing the most frequent alleles at each MS locus confirmed the identity of the MS and the differences in repeat number (Figure 2). Allele frequency profiles at the four MS loci are shown in Figure 2.

The countries in Central America west of Panama had similar MS allele frequencies, but differed from Panama (Figure 2B and C). Larger differences in allele frequencies were observed between Central and South America (Figure 2B, C, and D). The Cuban population differed to the greatest extent from the other populations (Figure 2A, B, and C).

The MS allele frequencies were compared using AMOVA (Table 3). Similar results were obtained for the four MS loci with the infinite allele mutation model and the stepwise mutation model. In all analyses, variation among individuals in collections accounted for most (84–97%) of the total variance. Among Central American countries, AMOVA estimated only ~3% of the variance among collections from Chiapas (Mexico) to Panama (Table 3). More variation was detected among South American countries (~6–8%) and among collections within countries (~1–4%) (Table 3). Between Central and South America, AMOVA estimated large variance (~8–11%) and ~3% among collections within regions (Table 3). These results suggest large genetic differences between Central and South American collections. The MS allele frequencies were lastly compared among Cuba and continental populations (Table 3). Significant variation occurred among regions (~6–11%) and similar variation was detected among collections (~5%). This suggests significant genetic differentiation between Cuban and continental collections.

The FST/(1 − FST) was computed between all pairs of collections and the matrix of pairwise differences between collections was subject to cluster analysis (Figure 3A). All the Central American collections west of Costa Rica clustered together but were separate from the cluster containing Costa Rican and Panamanian collections. The Venezuelan collections clustered together and were the most distant relative to the Central American collections, followed by Cuba and Colombia.

Regression analysis of pairwise FST/(1 − FST) against geographic distance for Central American collections yielded a small but significant correlation (Figure 4A), as did regression analysis against the natural logarithm of the geographic distance (Figure 4B). The FST did not increase until geographic distances approached ~665 km (~e6.5). The average effective population size (Ne) was 96 individuals among collections (Figure 4B).

Mitochondrial DNA haplotype frequencies among collections.

Fifty different ND5 haplotypes were detected by SSCP among 1,865 An. albimanus. There was an average of 11.1 haplotypes detected per population with a range of 7–19 (Table 2). Sequencing was done on 26 of the most common haplotypes.

The level of nucleotide diversity in the ND5 sequence, including silent and non-silent sites, was moderate in most Central American populations (0.0013–0.0058), increased in Panama and South America (0.0047–0.0080), and was greatest in Cuba (0.0159) (Table 2). Of a total of 31 segregating sites, six resulted in amino acid replacements.

Haplotype frequency profiles of all 50 ND5 haplotypes are shown by country in Figure 5. Haplotype frequencies were similar for most countries in Central America (including Chiapas, Mexico) but differed substantially with those from Cuba, the Pacific region of Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, and Venezuela (Figure 5). Haplotype 1 was the most frequent in both Cuba and Central America (Figure 5).

There were eight haplotypes in Cuba and three were unique to Cuba at a frequency ≥0.1; the other five were shared with Central America and one was shared with Central and South America. There were 40 haplotypes present in Central America, of which 15 were unique but in low frequencies in Guatemala. Two unique haplotypes were present at low frequency in Panama, one in Mexico, and one in El Salvador. Central America shared seven haplotypes with South America. There were 14 haplotypes in South America, three were unique to Colombia and two were unique to Venezuela.

Haplotype frequencies were compared among Central American countries using AMOVA (Table 3). As with the MS alleles, variation among individuals in collections accounted for most (77–92%) of the total variance. Approximately 5% occurred among countries and ~2% among collections within countries. The variation detected among countries decreased to 0.9% when only those collections west of Panama were considered. This pattern suggests a panmictic population from Chiapas (Mexico) to Costa Rica. Among countries in South America, 25% of the variation arose among countries (Table 3). A large amount (16%) of variance occurred between Central and South American collections (Table 3). The AMOVA indicated that ~4% of the variation arose between Cuba and continental populations (Table 3).

Pairwise mtDNA FST/(1 − FST) were subject to cluster analysis (Figure 3B). As with the MS loci, all of the Central American collections clustered together, except for the Costa Rican collection of Puntarenas and the Panamanian collections. These collections separated from the Central American clusters as did the Cuban and South American collections, suggesting major differences between western Central America and Panama and South America.

The FST/(1 − FST) estimates for Central American collections were regressed against geographic distances to test for isolation by distance. No correlation was found among collections west of Panama (R2 = 0.01, Mantel probability = 0.207), but the inclusion of Panamanian collections in the analysis resulted in increase in slope and an apparent correlation (R2 = 0.52, Mantel probability = 0.001) (Figure 4C). The mtDNA variation therefore indicates that the Central American collections west of Panama seem to be panmictic.

Pairwise MS FST/(1 − FST) and ND5 FST/(1 − FST) for all collections were regressed and a significant correlation was detected (R2 = 0.36), suggesting that MS and mtDNA markers are giving similar patterns of variation.

Phylogenetic relationships among ND5 haplotypes.

The ND5 sequences of An. albimanus were manually aligned with the homologous regions of An. gambiae, An. quadrimaculatus, An. bellator, and An. cruzi as outgroups. Phylogenetic analysis identified a well-supported clade containing the three unique Cuban haplotypes that was basal to a clade with mainly South American haplotypes, and this in turn separated with slight bootstrap support from a clade formed by the rest of haplotypes (Figure 6).

DISCUSSION

Patterns of variation in both mtDNA and MS markers were largely consistent with one another and with patterns obtained with the mtDNA marker in our previous study.8 Although few microsatellite loci were analyzed, the consistency among themselves and with the mitochondrial marker suggests that they represent genome wide effects. Within Central America, both markers detected minor genetic differences between populations from Chiapas to Atlantic Costa Rica. There was no evidence of isolation by distance with the mtDNA markers, and MS markers indicated weak isolation by distance. The MS markers suggested that An. albimanus populations in Central America that are within ~665 km of one another are panmictic. A significant isolation by distance was only detected with the mtDNA when including Panama in the regression analysis. However, the AMOVA suggests that it is not distance but rather some discrete barrier that causes the significant correlation. This also suggests that our previously inferred8 isolation by distance using the ND5 marker was in error, probably confounded by including genetic differences between Central and South America. That analysis was completed on all populations because of small sample sizes outside Central America. Within Guatemala, An. albimanus populations were genetically homogeneous between Atlantic and Pacific regions. This confirms our prior conclusion8 that the differences observed between these regions9 were probably due to concerted evolution of the IGS. Pacific and Atlantic populations exchange genes at a rate sufficient to homogenize the frequencies of microsatellite alleles and mitochondrial haplotypes, but not so rapidly as to overcome the homogenizing forces of molecular drive in local An. albimanus populations.

Barriers to gene flow were evident between Central and South American An. albimanus populations. However, in the present study the mtDNA marker suggests that one barrier probably occurs within Central America, west into Panama and Costa Rica. This was not detected in our prior study because of sparse geographic sampling in Panama and South America. The variation between Atlantic and Pacific Costa Rican populations increases toward Panama. This genetic difference may have been caused in part by a population contraction in Panama (e.g., due to more intense insecticide control). There were a smaller number of ND5 haplotypes and MS alleles in Panama compared with other Central American populations (Table 2). This barrier might be the mountain range that crosses Costa Rica and Western Panama, separating the Atlantic from the Pacific regions (Figure 1). The mountains reach close to both coasts in some areas. Further sampling of An. albimanus in that area would be required to confirm this as a barrier.

As in our previous study, An. albimanus populations in South America were genetically heterogeneous. This genetic differentiation is higher than the one previously detected using 25 allozymes in 11 populations of An. albimanus in Colombia.25 In that case, northern populations of An. albimanus clustered separately from the southern populations but with Nei distances24 less than 0.05. The high level of population structure found in South American An. albimanus also requires further examination. Our study documents for the first time small to moderate genetic differences between Caribbean and continental An. albimanus populations, suggesting that the Caribbean ocean represents a partial barrier to gene flow. It is interesting to note that between Cuban and the continental collections, MS markers exhibited larger variance than the mtDNA marker, but MS markers detected less variance than the mtDNA marker within Central America and between Central and South America collections. The MS markers may exhibit less variance at larger geographic distances due to size homoplasy and size constraints.26–29 Nucleotide diversity was greatest in the Cuban collections. Furthermore, phylogenetic analysis of ND5 sequences indicated that three of the unique Cuban haplotypes were basal in An. albimanus. Both observations are consistent with a hypothesis that continental An. albimanus populations originated in the Caribbean islands. In addition, the basal Cuban clade was more similar to the South American clade than to the larger clade containing predominantly haplotypes from Central America. This pattern is difficult to understand given the present distribution of An. albimanus. The species is not present in the Lesser Antilles or in eastern Venezuela (Figure 7), regions that would be the closest link between the Greater Antilles and South America.

The level of genetic differentiation detected with MS loci for An. albimanus among Central American and South American populations is comparable with the one detected with MS in Africa among An. gambiae populations separated by the Rift Valley complex in Kenya30,31 and by 400–500 km in western Africa.32 However, An. albimanus differs considerably from An. gambiae in having a smaller effective population size (96 individuals) in Central America (Figure 4B) compared with An. gambiae (~103).33 The small effective population size of An. albimanus in Central America suggests a bottleneck in its natural history. This does not seem to be caused by seasonal fluctuations since no significant difference in genetic composition was found between the rainy and the dry season.8 Although insecticide control in the region could have contributed to a bottleneck in the population, a founder effect of mosquitoes migrating from the Caribbean to Central America seems more consistent with the data.

Our results and the present distribution of An. albimanus are consistent with the gene flow pattern shown in Figure 7. The current An. albimanus populations originated in the Greater Antilles and moved across the Caribbean ocean to Central and South America by different routes. The Caribbean ocean represents a partial barrier to gene flow; An. albimanus populations in the continent may have lower nucleotide diversity due to genetic drift. Putative barriers to gene flow located in Costa Rica and Panama decrease gene flow among Central and South American populations.

The gene flow pattern deduced for An. albimanus has several implications for vector control. The population west of Costa Rica in Central America appears to be panmictic. Genetically modified mosquitoes released in these areas would not experience barriers to gene flow. The inferred barriers to gene flow in Costa Rica and Panama might predict larger differences in vector capacity between An. albimanus populations from Central, South America, and the Greater Antilles than among populations within each region.

Table 1

Locations, collectors, regions, dates, and samples sizes of Anopheles albimanus collections*

Region Country (collector) Sub-region Collection site date (n for ND5, n for MS)ND5 nMS n
* Samples sizes are indicated in parentheses when multiple collections were taken at a site. ND5 = NADH dehydrogenase subunit 5, MS = microsatellite; ND = not determined.
Caribbean146170
    Cuba146170
            1) La Habana (I. Garcia) 5/19/99146170
    Central America1,5751,110
        Mexico, Chiapas143150
            2) Zapata 12/1/984750
            3) Cossalapa 12/1/984850
            4) N. Independencia 12/19/984850
    Guatemala (N. Padilla, C. C. de Roslaes, P. Peralta, J. Garcia)923422
        Northern Guatemala298115
            5) Champona 3/6/95 (12, 0), 7/6/95 (32, 0), 9/5/95 (43, 0), 3/11/96 (0, 37)8737
            6) Nahua 3/9/95 (9, 0), 7/3/95 (43, 0), 9/6/95 (43, 0)8124
            7) S. Luis Peten PE 7/10/95 (43, 0), 3/12/01 (0, 31)4331
            8) S. Luis Peten BV 7/10/95 (43, 0), 9/4/95 (44, 0), 3/12/01 (0, 23)8723
        Southern Guatemala443211
            9) Cuto 2/6/95 (42, 0), 6/5/95 (26, 0), 4/5/95 (89, 0), 3/27/96 (0, 48)14748
            10) Lauro 6/7/95 (4, 0), 4/4/95 (19, 0), 2/9/95 (31, 0), 3/27/96 (0, 14), 6/7/96 (0, 13)5427
            11) Mango 3/15/95 (22, 0), 2/28/96 (33, 32), 3/7/96 (37, 0)9232
            12) Ruperto 2/8/95 (16, 0), 6/7/95 (16, 0), 4/3/95 (9, 0), 10/4/95 (0, 48), 3/27/96 (0, 16)4164
            13) Tallado 6/5/95 (12, 0), 2/7/95 (40, 40), 8/2/95 (38, 0), 6/6/95 (9, 0)9940
        Eastern Guatemala18296
            14) El Motor 3/20/964548
            15) Puente Blanco 7/11/95 (46, 0), 2/21/96 (46, 48), 9/11/95 (45, 0)13748
    El Salvador (H. Francia)125149
            16) San Alfredo 10/21/984250
            17) San Diego 10/21/983950
            18) Sta Lucia 10/21/984439
    Nicaragua (E. Lugo)136150
            19) Corral 1 9/24/984650
            20) Corral 2 9/24/984750
            21) Corral 3 9/30/984350
    Costa Rica (T. Solano)159120
        Atlantic Ocean Coast95120
            22) Bananito 4/13/994660
            23) Batan 4/13/994960
        Pacific Ocean Coast64ND
            24) Puntarenas 9564ND
    Panama (A. Ying)89119
            25) Corral 1a 2/23/994959
            26) Corral 1b 2/23/994060
South America144131
    Colombia4749
            27) El Carmen (V P. Howley) 914749
    Venezuela (Y. Rangel)9782
            28) Corral Magdalena 8/993050
            29) Corral Puertas Negra 8/996732
Total1,8651,411
Table 2

Estimates of variability in the mitochondrial (ND5) haplotype sequences and the microsatellite (MS) markers*

ND5MS 1-90MS 2-14MS 2-25MS 6-41
SampleSample size†No. of haplotypes†Nucleotide diversity (π)Theta (𝛉)HobsHexpNo. of allelesHobsHexpNo. of allelesHobsHexpNo. of allelesHobsHexpNo. of alleles
* Hobs = observed heterozygosity; Hexp = expected heterozygosity; ND = not determined.
† Total sample size (sample size sequenced for ND5) included in the analysis.
‡ Significantly different from Hexp (P < 0.05).
La Habana146 (145)8 (7)0.0159 ± 0.00846.190.780.82120.810.84150.69*0.83190.560.536
Zapata47 (46)10 (9)0.0051 ± 0.00331.990.860.89170.760.86130.860.83160.62‡0.747
Cosalapa48 (47)9 (8)0.0034 ± 0.00241.310.800.86130.760.86150.900.85160.780.749
Nva Ind48 (47)10 (9)0.0025 ± 0.00190.990.780.87150.78‡0.89140.780.86180.740.726
Champona87 (80)19 (14)0.0058 ± 0.00362.270.840.89110.810.85110.810.83100.590.624
Nahuá81 (77)16 (12)0.0036 ± 0.00251.390.670.8180.63‡0.88100.830.86120.38‡0.756
SL Petén PE43 (38)13 (10)0.0034 ± 0.00241.330.65‡0.8590.730.76110.740.81120.710.625
SL Petén BV87 (74)18 (11)0.0020 ± 0.00170.800.870.90110.830.83110.700.85100.78‡0.634
Cuto147 (152)17 (13)0.0027 ± 0.00201.070.850.85110.850.86120.750.83140.670.667
Lauro54 (51)14 (12)0.0041 ± 0.00271.590.780.87101.000.90140.780.84120.700.677
El Mango92 (89)16 (13)0.0033 ± 0.00231.290.720.8190.810.85100.880.87150.690.766
Ruperto41 (38)12 (9)0.0032 ± 0.00231.260.840.83110.810.82160.750.83160.700.696
Tallado99 (98)13 (12)0.0036 ± 0.00251.410.780.83130.38‡0.86120.820.83120.580.636
El Motor45 (43)9 (7)0.0020 ± 0.00160.780.790.86100.770.89130.770.80130.690.698
Pte Blco137 (134)12 (9)0.0031 ± 0.00221.220.750.84120.790.87140.790.84150.600.605
Sn Alfredo42 (40)7 (6)0.0013 ± 0.00120.490.920.90160.840.86160.840.84160.720.706
Sn Diego39 (39)9 (9)0.0028 ± 0.00211.090.71‡0.85140.840.89140.81‡0.85160.650.777
Sta Lucia44 (41)11 (9)0.0048 ± 0.00311.870.840.86130.820.88170.760.84160.720.686
Corral 146 (43)11 (9)0.0038 ± 0.00261.470.840.89150.80‡0.88160.720.85140.820.696
Corral 247 (47)10 (10)0.0035 ± 0.00241.350.72*0.87150.67‡0.87180.800.85150.560.665
Corral 343 (42)8 (7)0.0028 ± 0.00211.110.800.87130.840.88160.840.85140.700.698
Bananito46 (46)9 (9)0.0037 ± 0.00251.440.830.89130.600.73160.750.78130.570.664
Batan49 (48)8 (7)0.0085 ± 0.00493.330.62‡0.84110.55‡0.61100.57‡0.70100.580.644
Puntarenas64 (45)12 (9)0.0104 ± 0.00594.05NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
Corral 1A49 (45)8 (7)0.0062 ± 0.00382.430.780.83120.830.7790.660.73120.530.604
Corral 1B40 (38)8 (6)0.0077 ± 0.00463.000.850.82120.680.7490.700.77120.68‡0.646
El Carmen47 (45)9 (7)0.0080 ± 0.00473.100.810.84130.650.7470.760.84120.710.604
Magdalena30 (14)8 (4)0.0047 ± 0.00321.840.700.6760.610.6140.660.6370.09‡0.335
Puerta Negra67 (33)9 (5)0.0051 ± 0.00331.990.700.6980.73*0.6550.720.7290.16‡0.246
Mean64 (59)11 (9)0.0047 ± 0.00301.760.780.8411.90.750.8212.40.770.8113.40.620.645.8
Table 3

Analysis of molecular variance of mitochondrial (ND5) and microsatellite markers (MS) among Anopheles albimanus collections*

Source of variationND5 % variationMS (IAM)† % variationMS (SMM)‡ % variation
* Nm = effective migration rate.
† Infinite allele model.
‡ Stepwise mutation model.
§ Statistically significant by permutation test (1,023 permutations).
Variation among countries in Central America
    Among countries5.442.001.76
    Among collections within countries2.081.362.11
    Within collections92.4796.6496.14
Fixation indicesFSTFSTRST
    F (Countries)0.054§ (Nm = 8.8)0.020§ (Nm = 12.3)0.018§ (Nm = 13.6)
    F (Collections in countries)0.022§0.014§0.021§
    F (All collections)0.075§0.034§0.039§
Variation among countries in South America
    Among countries24.885.748.22
    Among collections within countries−1.833.711.40
    Within collections76.9590.5590.38
Fixation indicesFSTFSTRST
    F (Countries)0.249 (Nm = 1.5)0.057 (Nm = 4.1)0.082 (Nm = 3.0)
    F (Collections in countries)−0.024§0.039§0.015
    F (All collections)0.231§0.094§0.096
Variation between Central and South America
    Between Central and South America16.2711.447.78
    Among collections within regions5.382.813.44
    Within collections78.3585.7588.78
Fixation indicesFSTFSTRST
    F (Regions)0.163§ (Nm = 2.6)0.114§ (Nm = 1.93)0.078§ (Nm = 3.0)
    F (Collections in regions)0.064§0.032§0.037§
    F (All collections)0.216§0.143§0.112§
Variation between Cuba and continental populations
    Between Cuba and continental populations4.035.9211.17
    Among collections within regions9.025.265.09
    Within collections86.9688.8283.74
Fixation indicesFSTFSTRST
    F (Regions)0.040 (Nm = 11.9)0.059 (Nm = 4.0)0.112 (Nm = 2.0)
    F (Collections in regions)0.094§0.056§0.057§
    F (All collections)0.130§0.112§0.163§
Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Map of the Caribbean region showing the approximate locations of Anopheles albimanus collections (see Table 1 for site and country names); mountains higher than 300 meters are indicated in gray.

Citation: The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Am J Trop Med Hyg 71, 3; 10.4269/ajtmh.2004.71.350

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Frequencies of microsatellite (MS) alleles by size and geographic region for loci 1-90 (A), 2-14 (B), 2-25 (C), and 6-41 (D). Alleles with frequencies <0.01 are not shown. The repeat number (R) for sequenced alleles is indicated. bp = basepairs.

Citation: The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Am J Trop Med Hyg 71, 3; 10.4269/ajtmh.2004.71.350

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Unweighted pair group method using averages cluster analysis of pairwise FST/(1 − FST) relationships between collections for (A) microsatellite loci and (B) NADH dehydrogenase subunit 5 (ND5) mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).

Citation: The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Am J Trop Med Hyg 71, 3; 10.4269/ajtmh.2004.71.350

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Regression analysis of pairwise FST/(1 − FST) estimates against pairwise geographic distance or against natural logarithms of geographic distances among collections in Central America using (A and B) microsatelllite (MS) loci or (C) NADH dehydrogenase subunit 5 (ND5) mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Pairwise estimates between Panamanian collections and collections from other countries (○) and between collections from Central American countries other from Panama (•) are indicated. Regression analysis of ND5 pairwise estimates excluding Panamanian collections (C-1) and including Panamanian collections (C-2) are indicated. Prob. = probability.

Citation: The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Am J Trop Med Hyg 71, 3; 10.4269/ajtmh.2004.71.350

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Frequencies of the 50 NADH dehydrogenase subunit 5 (ND5) haplotypes in Anopheles albimanus populations grouped by country.

Citation: The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Am J Trop Med Hyg 71, 3; 10.4269/ajtmh.2004.71.350

Figure 6.
Figure 6.

Maximum likelihood tree showing phylogenetic relationships among individual NADH dehydrogenase subunit 5 haplotypes. Bootstrap support using maximum parsimony analysis appears above each branch, while bootstrap support using Tamura-Nei genetic distance/neighbor joining appears below each branch. An. = Anopheles; CA = Central America; Guat. = Guatemala; SA = South America; Mex. = Mexico; Pan. = Panama; Colomb. = Colombia.

Citation: The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Am J Trop Med Hyg 71, 3; 10.4269/ajtmh.2004.71.350

Figure 7.
Figure 7.

Inferred gene flow (arrows) and its partial natural barriers (blocks) for Anopheles albimanus populations in the Americas. The current distribution of An. albimanus is shown in gray.

Citation: The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Am J Trop Med Hyg 71, 3; 10.4269/ajtmh.2004.71.350

Authors’ addresses: Alvaro Molina-Cruz, Laboratory of Malaria and Vector Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Twinbrook III, 12735 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, MD 20852, E-mails: amolina-cruz@niaid.nih.gov and amolinac@uvg.edu.gt. Ana María P. de Mérida, Katherine Mills, Fernando Rodríguez, Carolina Schoua, María Marta Yurrita, Eduviges Molina, and Margarita Palmieri, Medical Entomology Research and Training Unit, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, 15 Avenida 11-95, Zona 15, VH III, Apartado Postal No. 82, 01901, Guatemala City, Guatemala, Telephone: 502-364-0336, Fax: 502-364-0052. William C. Black IV, Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, Telephone: 970-4916136, Fax: 970-4911815, E-mail: wcb4@cvmbs.colostate.edu.

Acknowledgments: We thank all of our collaborators in Latin American who provided mosquito collections. Dr. Mark Benedict (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA) kindly provided us with primer sequences for MS 2-25. Dr. Richard Wilkerson kindly provided us with DNA samples of An. bellator and An. cruzi.

Financial support: This project was supported by the UNDP/World Bank/World Health Organization Special Program for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR), grant no. 971171 to Ana María P. de Mérida, and training award no. M8/181/4/M.422 to Alvaro Molina-Cruz.

REFERENCES

  • 1

    Rubio-Palis Y, Zimmerman RH, 1997. Ecoregional classification of malaria vectors in the neotropics. J Med Entomol 34 :499–510.

  • 2

    Frederickson EC, 1993. Bionomics and Control of Anopheles albimanus. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization, Pan American Sanitary Bureau Regional Office of the World Health Organization.

  • 3

    Keppler WJJ, Kitzmiller JB, Rabbani MG, 1973. The salivary gland chromosomes of Anopheles albimanus.Mosq News 33 :42–49.

  • 4

    Faran ME, 1980. Mosquito studies (Diptera, Culicidae) XXXIV. A revision of the Albimanus section of the subgenus Nysorhynchus of Anopheles. Contrib Am Entomol Inst Ann Arbor 15 :1–215.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Tabachnick WJ, Black WC IV, 1995. Making a case for molecular population genetic studies of arthropod vectors. Parasitol Today 11 :27–30.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Donnelly MJ, Simard F, Lehmann T, 2002. Evolutionary studies of malaria vectors. Trends Parasitol 18 :75–80.

  • 7

    Collins FH, Besansky NJ, 1994. Vector biology and the control of malaria in Africa. Science 264 :1874–1875.

  • 8

    de Merida AM, Palmieri M, Yurrita M, Molina A, Molina E, Black WC IV, 1999. Mitochondrial DNA variation among Anopheles albimanus populations. Am J Trop Med Hyg 61 :230–239.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    de Merida AM, De Mata MP, Molina E, Porter CH, Black WC IV, 1995. Variation in ribosomal DNA intergenic spacers among populations of Anopheles albimanus in South and Central America. Am J Trop Med Hyg 53 :469–477.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Black WCI, DuTeau NM, 1997. RAPD-PCR and SSCP analysis for insect population genetic studies. Crampton JM, Beard CB, Louis C, eds. The Molecular Biology of Insect Disease Vectors: A Methods Manual.New York: Chapman and Hall, 361–373.

  • 11

    Schaffer HE, Sederoff RR, 1981. Improved estimation of DNA fragment lengths from agarose gels. Anal Biochem 115 :113–122.

  • 12

    Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM, 1992. Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131 :479–491.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Weir BS, 1996. Genetic Data Analysis II: Methods for Discrete Population Genetic Data. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

  • 14

    Slatkin M, 1993. Isolation by distance in equilibrium and non equilibrium populations. Evolution 47 :264–279.

  • 15

    Rousset F, 1997. Genetic differentiation and estimation of gene flow from F-statistics under isolation by distance. Genetics 145 :1219–1228.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Mantel N, 1967. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27 :209–220.

  • 17

    Sohkal RR, Sneath PHA, 1963. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.

  • 18

    Felsenstein J, 1993. PHYLIP: Phylogeny Inference Package. Version 3.5C. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

  • 19

    Hasegawa M, Kishino H, Yano T, 1985. Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J Mol Evol 22 :160–174.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Tamura K, Nei M, 1993. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol Biol Evol 10 :512–526.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Saitou N, Nei M, 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 4 :406–425.

  • 22

    Nei M, 1987. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • 23

    Watterson GA, 1975. On the number of segregating sites in genetical models without recombination. Theor Popul Biol 7 :256–276.

  • 24

    Nei M, 1978. Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89 :583–590.

  • 25

    Narang SK, Seawright JA, Suarez MF, 1991. Genetic structure of natural populations of Anopheles albimanus in Colombia. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 7 :437–445.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Nauta MJ, Weissing FJ, 1996. Constraints on allele size at microsatellite loci: implications for genetic differentiation. Genetics 143 :1021–1032.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Estoup A, Jarne P, Cornuet JM, 2002. Homoplasy and mutation model at microsatellite loci and their consequences for population genetics analysis. Mol Ecol 11 :1591–1604.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Donnelly MJ, Townson H, 2000. Evidence for extensive genetic differentiation among populations of the malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis in Eastern Africa. Insect Mol Biol 9 :357–367.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Walton C, Thelwell NJ, Priestman A, Butlin RK, 1998. The use of microsatellites to study gene flow in natural populations of Anopheles malaria vectors in Africa: potential and pitfalls. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 14 :266–272.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Lehmann T, Licht M, Elissa N, Maega BT, Chimumbwa JM, Watsenga FT, Wondji CS, Simard F, Hawley WA, 2003. Population Structure of Anopheles gambiae in Africa. J Hered 94 :133–147.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Lehmann T, Hawley WA, Grebert H, Danga M, Atieli F, Collins FH, 1999. The Rift Valley complex as a barrier to gene flow for Anopheles gambiae in Kenya. J Hered 90 :613–621.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Carnahan J, Zheng L, Taylor CE, Toure YT, Norris DE, Dolo G, Diuk-Wasser M, Lanzaro GC, 2002. Genetic differentiation of Anopheles gambiae s.s. populations in Mali, west Africa, using microsatellite loci. J Hered 93 :249–253.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Krzywinski J, Besansky NJ, 2003. Molecular systematics of Anopheles: from subgenera to subpopulations. Annu Rev Entomol 48 :111–139.

Save