Open Access

Complete mtDNA genomes of Anopheles darlingi and an approach to anopheline divergence time

  • Marta Moreno1Email author,
  • Osvaldo Marinotti2,
  • Jaroslaw Krzywinski3,
  • Wanderli P Tadei4,
  • Anthony A James2, 5,
  • Nicole L Achee6 and
  • Jan E Conn1, 7
Malaria Journal20109:127

DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-9-127

Received: 12 February 2010

Accepted: 14 May 2010

Published: 14 May 2010

Abstract

Background

The complete sequences of the mitochondrial genomes (mtDNA) of members of the northern and southern genotypes of Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus) darlingi were used for comparative studies to estimate the time to the most recent common ancestor for modern anophelines, to evaluate differentiation within this taxon, and to seek evidence of incipient speciation.

Methods

The mtDNAs were sequenced from mosquitoes from Belize and Brazil and comparative analyses of structure and base composition, among others, were performed. A maximum likelihood approach linked with phylogenetic information was employed to detect evidence of selection and a Bayesian approach was used to date the split between the subgenus Nyssorhynchus and other Anopheles subgenera.

Results

The comparison of mtDNA sequences within the Anopheles darlingi taxon does not provide sufficient resolution to establish different units of speciation within the species. In addition, no evidence of positive selection in any protein-coding gene of the mtDNA was detected, and purifying selection likely is the basis for this lack of diversity. Bayesian analysis supports the conclusion that the most recent ancestor of Nyssorhynchus and Anopheles+Cellia was extant ~94 million years ago.

Conclusion

Analyses of mtDNA genomes of Anopheles darlingi do not provide support for speciation in the taxon. The dates estimated for divergence among the anopheline groups tested is in agreement with the geological split of western Gondwana (95 mya), and provides additional support for explaining the absence of Cellia in the New World, and Nyssorhynchus in the Afro-Eurasian continents.

Background

Anopheles darlingi is a major malaria vector in the Americas [1]. Its broad geographical distribution, ranging from southern Mexico to northern Argentina, is coupled with a high morphological, behavioral and genetic diversity [28]. Support for considerable genetic variation within this taxon comes from the analysis of polytene chromosomes [6], isozymes [7], as well as nuclear and mitochondrial DNA markers [814].

Analysis of the An. darlingi population structure based on the cytochrome-oxidase subunit 1 mitochondrial gene (COI) provided evidence in support of two significant subdivisions among An. darlingi populations from Central (including northwestern Colombia) and South America, with FST values similar to those found among different species [10]. This finding was substantiated by the analysis of microsatellite markers, which revealed limited gene flow between Central America and Brazil and Peru [12]. Also, patterns of variation within the single-copy nuclear white gene, with five fixed non-synonymous mutations detected between the northern and southern An. darlingi populations (hereafter termed northern and southern genotypes) [14], were consistent with the COI studies. Three localities were identified in the Amazon basin where the two genotypes co-occur (Iquitos, Peru; Guayaramerín, Bolivia; Fortuna near Puerto Ayacucho, Venezuela), but no hybrid specimens were detected there.

Recent studies revealed that the distribution of the COI gene variants within South American populations, especially those recovered from Brazil, reflects subdivisions consistent with geographical elements, such as the Amazon River Delta and mountains in southeastern Brazil, as barriers to gene flow [13]. Significant population structure of An. darlingi, identified using microsatellites markers, also was reported in a malaria-endemic region of eastern Amazonian Brazil [11, 12].

Overall, these findings support the hypothesis that An. darlingi is experiencing incipient speciation, with the northern and southern genotypes as the units of speciation [12], although other results appear to counter this hypothesis [9]. Therefore, it is critical to investigate the status of this taxon and elucidate the processes driving divergence between alternative genotypes.

The mtDNA markers are used often for phylogenetic and population genetics analyses because of ease of their amplification and high information content at different evolutionary levels, including variation within and between populations [15, 16]. To date, mtDNA genomes are available for only three anopheline species, belonging to the subgenera Anopheles (Anopheles quadrimaculatus species A) [17] and Cellia (Anopheles gambiae[18] and Anopheles funestus[19]). Because the evolutionary lineage encompassing the subgenus Nyssorhynchus presumably branched prior to the divergence of the subgenera Cellia and Anopheles lineages, mtDNA of Nyssorhynchus species may possess different characteristics, such as altered gene order or different selection pressures, which may affect the utility of mtDNA sequences as markers for evolutionary studies. The purifying selection mechanism under which the mtDNA is assumed to evolve has been questioned recently with some reports describing positive selection acting at the mitochondrial level [20, 21]. Therefore, testing the pattern of evolution of the mtDNA within the postulated incipient species, i.e. to examine whether the mtDNA is evolving under neutrality versus purifying or positive selection, can contribute to the understanding of An. darlingi differentiation.

Different approaches have been used to estimate divergence times within An. darlingi and to determine the most likely scenario for its diversification. Based on a single mitochondrial COI gene, the date of divergence was estimated to the Pleistocene, and the Pleistocene refugium was the main hypothesis to explain current distribution [10, 22]. Recently, a Bayesian approach was employed to estimate divergence within other species complexes, including Anopheles annulipes in Australia and Papua New Guinea [23], and the Neocellia Series in the Oriental region [24]. In addition, Krzywinski et al. [18] calculated divergence dates of mtDNAs using a molecular clock approach with the subgenera Anopheles and Cellia, as well as with Aedes and between An. gambiae and An. funestus. No information exists on the time of divergence of Nyssorhynchus, which is hypothesized to be one of the earliest branching lineages of Anopheles[25]. This study tests the differentiation of the An. darlingi genotypes using the whole mtDNA sequence, analyses patterns of selection within this taxon, and infers a date of Nyssorhynchus divergence from other Anopheles groups.

Methods

Sample origin and DNA extraction

Two resting female mosquitoes were collected near local homes from Manaus, Amazonas State, Brazil (3° 08'S/60° 01' W) in August 2006 and in Central Cayo District of Belize (17° 09'N/88° 36'W) in 2008. The Belize specimens were identified morphologically following the Wilkerson and Strickman [26] illustrated morphological key and the Brazilian mosquito was identified based on both Faran and Linthicum [27] and Forattini [28] entomological keys. Mosquitoes were stored on silica gel in a sealed container or preserved in isopropanol, both at room temperature. DNA was extracted from whole mosquitoes by two different kit extractions, a DNeasy Blood and Tissue kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and Wizard Genomic DNA Purification kit (Promega, Madison, WI), following the procedures of the manufacturers.

PCR amplification and sequencing of Anopheles darlingi mtDNA

The white gene genotype of each specimen was checked using the PCR-RFLP protocol described in Mirabello [14]. Gene amplification primers for the complete mtDNA were designed using Primer3 0.4.0 [29] based on published An. gambiae, An. quadrimaculatus and An. funestus mtDNA sequences (GenBank Accession NC_002084, NC_000875 and DQ146364). Each fragment overlapped upstream (5') by ~50 base pairs (bp) (see Additional file 1) and was amplified using a Ready-To-Go-PCR bead (Amersham Pharmacia/Biotech, NJ, USA) and run on a PTC-200 thermal cycler (BioRad, Inc.). Amplification conditions included an initial denaturation at 95° for 2 min, 35 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 1 min, annealing at 58°C for 2 min and extension at 72°C for 1 min, with a final extension step at 72°C for 10 min. Amplification products were purified with the Exo-SAP-IT kit (Amersham Biosciences) and sequenced directly. Sequencing of both strands was performed at Applied Genomic Technologies Core (Wadsworth Center) on an ABI 3700 DNA automated sequencer. To ensure fidelity during amplification, each fragment was sequenced at least three times and a consensus sequence established. The regions with unclear electropherograms, from the 14,000-nucleotide position covering the whole AT-rich region, were cloned with the vector TOPO TA (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer's recommendations.

Sequence assembly and annotation

Sequencher 3.0 (Gene Codes Corporation) was used for sequence assembly into contigs and for proofreading sequence files. Complete consensus sequences were aligned using the ClustalW application in Bioedit v 7.0 and alignments were annotated in SEQUIN [30]. Identification of transfer RNA genes was conducted using tRNAscan-SE [31]. Protein-coding and ribosomal RNA genes were by comparison with the An. gambiae mtDNA sequences (GenBank accession number NC_002084).

Genomic and evolutionary analyses

Nucleotide composition and the Relative Synonymous Codon Usage (RSU) values were calculated using the MEGA 4.1 program [32]. The GC- and AT-skews were used to determine the base compositional difference and strand asymmetry among the samples analysed [33]. Analyses of sequences also were performed with DnaSP v 4.10.9 [34] and DAMBE v 4.2.13 [35]. AT-rich region analyses and plot profiles were completed with the MacVector software (MacVector, Inc) and mreps v 2.5 [36].

To test if positive selection is acting as a force for genotype divergence, the identification of sites with an excess of amino acid replacements with selective pressure over long evolutionary time was determined. We calculated the dN/dS ratio (nonsynonymous and synonymous substitutions) using the entire sequence of each gene in pairwise comparisons to investigate the substitution rates in each protein-encoding gene [37]. In addition, the software PAML 3.15 was used to analyse DNA sequences with maximum likelihood methods in a phylogenetic framework [38]. CODEML is one of the programmes that can detect sites that have been under recurrent positive selection over long periods of time, e.g., to detect any departure from the neutrality theory in the protein sequences of An. darlingi. The selective pressure at the protein level was measured by ω, the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous rates dN/dS, with ω < 1, = 1, or >1 indicating conserved, neutral or adaptive evolution, respectively [39]. The measure of this ratio provides a sensitive measure of selective pressure at the amino acid level. Codon-based likelihood analysis was conducted under the random-sites model: Model M0 (one ratio) assumes constant selective pressure across codon sites and over time. Models M1a (neutral), M2a (selection), M7 (β) and M8 (β & ω) of variable selective pressure across codon sites were used to estimate selective pressure and to test for positive selection. Model M0 is the most simple and can be used to check that parameter estimates in more complex models are consistent. M0 (model = 0 NSsites = 0) was run to provide initial branch lengths, and the initial values of this tree were then used to run the other models. Because selection can act differently in some species, another approach, the branch-specific model, was also tested [40, 41] to detect any evidence of positive selection in any branch of the designated tree. For this analysis the whole protein-encoding genes were used in a combined file, setting the An. darlingi branch as the background one (ω = 1 fixed), and allowing ω to vary in the other anopheline branches of the tree topology. In both approaches, the tree topology for each protein obtained in PAUP [42] was used as the topology to be tested under maximum likelihood.

Phylogenetic analysis

In addition to An. darlingi mtDNA, the following sequences were included in the analysis: An. quadrimaculatus species A (GenBank L_04272), An. funestus (Genbank NC_008070), An. gambiae (NC_002084), Aedes albopictus (GenBank NC_006817) and Aedes aegypti (GenBank NC_010241). Drosophila yakuba (Genbank accession number NC_001322.1) was selected as the out-group [43].

Three different alignments were defined to test the phylogeny of the samples; one with the whole mtDNA sequence, the second with all the protein-encoding gene sequences concatenated and a third new data set with only 1st and 2nd positions of these protein-encoding genes to minimize homoplasy in the 3rd codon position [44]. The software Modeltest v. 3.7 [45] was used to determine the nucleotide substitution model and the alignments followed a GTR+I+γ model (although with different rates) and were used for the subsequent phylogenetic analysis. Three different approaches were followed to reconstruct the phylogeny for posterior analyses, maximum parsimony (MP), maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI). MP and ML were conducted with PAUP v 4.0b10 [42] and bootstrap values calculated with 1,000 replicates. The BI was performed employing MrBayes v 3.1.1. [46], with two simultaneous runs of 5,000,000 generations, discarding the first 25% as burn-in.

Estimation of divergence date

Culicidae fossil records are not common, and while most of them are compressed, some specimens have been detected in amber inclusions [47]. Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus) dominicanus is the oldest fossil record of the Anophelinae subfamily in the New World, with controversy in the proposed age ranging from 15-20 million years ago (mya) based on foraminifera [48] and 30-45 mya based on coccoliths [49]. The deficient Diptera fossil record offers only an age estimate for the divergence between Drosophila and Anopheles at ~259.9 mya [50], and this deep external calibration might not provide reliable estimation dates, especially for the youngest nodes and for intraspecific divergences within the An. darlingi taxa [51]. Alternatively, Brower [52] estimated that the standard arthropod mtDNA sequence divergence is 2.3% per million years based on calculations across five arthropod genera. The limitation of applying this information to our data is that it may underestimate divergences older than 3.25 million years, because of mutation saturation [53].

A Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach, (MCMC) available in the software BEAST v.1.4.6 [54] was performed to infer the topology and the node ages by estimating the Bayesian posterior distribution of the divergence. Following the recommendations of the authors, the uncorrelated relaxed lognormal clock was applied to estimate how clock-like our data were. The ucld.stdev parameter was checked, and in all partitions, the value was close to 0, indicating that the data were clock-like and that the rate of heterogeneity among species was low. Therefore, an uncorrelated lognormal relaxed clock was followed [55] and defined the rate prior to have a normal distribution with a mean of 0.1. The SRD06 model for the partition in the protein-encoding genes was selected, as it seems to provide a better fit for protein-coding nucleotide data [54]. This partition was run using the GTR with gamma and invariant sites model, the best fit with our nucleotide substitution detected by Modeltest. The Yule tree prior is the most suitable for trees describing the relationships among individuals from different species and it was selected to calculate the divergence time between taxa. Final analyses consisted of three separate MCMC runs of 20 million generations sampled every 1000 generations. Tracer v1.4 software was used to confirm the adequate mixing of the MCMC chains of the three separate runs and to check that the effective sample sizes of all the parameters were greater than 500. LogCombiner v1.4.7 was employed for combining the separate runs into one file. Finally, the maximum clade credibility tree was calculated with the mean node branch using TreeAnnotator v1.4.7. FigTree v1.2.1 was employed for visualization of the node branches.

Results and Discussion

Genome organization and structure

The complete mtDNAs of An. darlingi are 15,385 bp and 15,386 bp in length for the southern and northern genotypes, respectively. The typical 37 genes in animal mtDNA, comprising 13 protein-encoding genes, two rRNA genes (12S rRNA and 16S rRNA), 22 tRNA genes and a control region are found in both genomes (Figure 1 and Table 1). DNA sequences were deposited in GenBank under accession number GQ918272 (northern genotype) and GQ918273 (southern genotype). Genes are encoded on both strands (Table 1) with some open-reading frames overlapping adjacent genes (ATP8/ATP6 and NAD4/NAD4L as reported in other insects [56]), resulting in a compact genome. The An. darlingi gene arrangement structure is highly conserved when compared with the mitochondrion of the other three sequenced anopheline species.
Table 1

Localization and features of genes in the mtDNA of southern and northern Anopheles darlingi genotypes.

Gene

Strand

Position

Anticodon

Size (bp)

Start codon

Stop codon

tRNA Ile

H

1-68

GAT

69

  

tRNA Gln

L

66-134

TTG

69

  

tRNA Met

H

134-202

CAT

69

  

NAD2

H

203-1228

 

1026

ATT

TAA

tRNA Trp

H

1227-1295

TCA

69

  

tRNA Cys

L

1295-1358

GCA

64

  

tRNA Tyr

L

1359-1423

GTA

65

  

COI

H

1422-2963

 

1542

TCG

Ta

tRNA Leu

H

2959-3024

TAA

66

  

COII

H

3027-3711

 

685

ATG

Ta

tRNA Lys

H

3712-3782

CTT

71

  

tRNA Asp

H

3792-3859

GTC

68

  

ATP8

H

3860-4021

 

162

ATC

TAA

ATP6

H

4015-4695

 

681

ATG

TAA

COIII

H

4695-5481

 

787

ATG

Ta

tRNA Gly

H

5482-5548

TCC

67

  

NAD3

H

5549-5902

 

354

ATA

TAA

tRNA Arg

H

5902-5965

 

64

  

tRNA Ala

H

5965-6030

TGC

66

  

tRNA Asn

H

6031-6098

GTT

68

  

tRNA Ser

L

6099-6177

GCT

79

  

tRNA Glu

H

6166-6231

TTC

66

  

tRNA Phe

L

6230-6296

GAA

67

  

NAD5

L

6296-8037

 

1742

GTG

TAa

tRNA His

L

8038-8102

GTG

65

  

NAD4

L

8103-9444

 

1342

ATG

TAa

NAD4L

L

9438-9743

 

306

ATG

TAA

tRNA Thr

H

9744-9811

TGT

68

  

tRNA Pro

L

9812-9877

TGG

66

  

NAD6

H

9880-10404

 

525

ATT

TAA

CYTB

H

10404-11540

 

1137

ATG

TAA

tRNA Ser

H

11539-11604

TGA

66

  

NAD1

L

11622-12578

 

957

ATA

TAA

tRNA Leu

L

12573-12638

TAG

66

  

16S rRNA

L

12574-13967

 

1394

  

tRNA Val

L

13968-14039

TAC

72

  

12S rRNA

L

14040-14832

 

793

  

Control region

 

14833-15385, 386

 

555-554

  

a Termination codons completed via polyadenylation.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1475-2875-9-127/MediaObjects/12936_2010_Article_1208_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Schematic representation of the organization of the mtDNA of Anopheles darlingi. A) Genes encoded by the L-strand are shaded. tRNA genes are designated by single-letter amino acid codes; L1, L2, S1 and S2 indicate tRNA- Leu (TAA), tRNA-Leu (TAG), tRNA- Ser (GCT) and tRNA- Ser (TGA). B) Graphical representation of the A+T and G+C content across the whole mtDNA. X-axis values represent the length of the genome and the Y-axis represents the percentage.

The nucleotide composition of the An. darlingi southern genotype is as follows: the L-strand has a GC content of 20.73% and 79.27% AT (A = 35.06%, T = 44.21%, C = 9.23% and G = 11.5%) and the H-strand has A = 44.5%, C = 16.12%, G = 7.98%, T = 31.4%. The composition of both strands of the northern genotype was not significantly different from the southern genotype. The mtDNAs of both An. darlingi genotypes are biased towards a high A+T content (Table 2). The overall AT content in the whole mitochondrion sequence was 78.2% and 78.1% in northern and southern, reaching 93.68% and 93.67% in the AT rich region, respectively (Figure 1). This result is similar to that obtained with other anophelines, although it is slightly lower than in the other species included in the study (Table 2). The base composition, measured by the G-skew and T-skew, i.e. asymmetry in nucleotide composition, showed both skews (-0.144 and -0.141, for the G skew) and (-0.028 for the T-skew), indicating the preference for these two nucleotides, a widespread characteristic of animal mtDNAs [57].
Table 2

Base composition of the whole mitochondrion DNA sequence of different dipterans and Anopheles darlingi N and S (northern and southern, respectively).

Species

Total nt

A

C

G

T

A+T

G-skew

T-skew

Anopheles darlingi N

15386

6189

1920

1434

5843

78.2%

-0.144

-0.028

Anopheles darlingi S

15385

6181

1920

1444

5840

78.1%

-0.141

-0.028

Anopheles gambiae

15363

6150

1989

1458

5766

77.5%

-0.154

-0.032

Anopheles quadrimaculatus

15455

6221

2067

1432

5735

77.3%

-0.181

-0.040

Anopheles funestus

15354

6178

1936

1404

5836

78.2%

-0.159

-0.028

Aedes albopictus

16665

6680

2014

1396

6575

79.5%

-0.181

-0.007

Aedes aegypti

16655

6690

2118

1380

6467

79%

-0.210

-0.016

Drosophila yakuba

16019

6326

1949

1481

6263

78.6%

-0.136

-0.005

Transfer RNA and ribosomal RNA genes

The mtDNA of An. darlingi includes 22 tRNA genes with anticodons representing 20 different amino acids, identical to other anophelines (Table 1).

The lengths of the 12S and 16S rRNA genes are 793 bp and 1329 bp, respectively, identical in both genotypes, and are encoded on the L-strand. The ends of those genes were assumed to be extended to the boundaries of the flanking genes [16]. As in other anophelines, the lrRNA gene is flanked by the tRNA Leu and tRNA Val , while the srRNA gene is between tRNA Val and the control region. Their A+T contents were 82.54-82.39% for lrRNA and 79.95-79.70% for srRNA, which are within the range of other insects.

Protein-coding genes

Thirteen protein-coding genes could be identified in the mtDNA of An. darlingi, similar to those of other Anophelinae [1719]. Start codons in all the protein-coding genes are conserved and follow the ATN rule described previously in Anopheles[18], except for the COI gene, which has a TCG start codon characteristic of Anopheles[17, 18, 58]. Eight genes (NAD2, ATP8, ATP6, NAD3, NAD6, CYTB, NAD4L, NAD1) use the complete stop codon TAA (Table 1), whereas five genes have incomplete stop codons, TA_(NAD4, NAD5) and T_(COI, COII, COIII), which could be completed as a result of postranscriptional polyadenylation [59].

The codon usage of both genotypes of An. darlingi is nearly identical (Table 3), and the total number of non-stop codons is 3733 in both. This latter value is similar in the family Anophelinae, ranging from 3715 in An. quadrimaculatus to 3733 in An. gambiae (Figure 2).
Table 3

Codon usage in the southern and northern An. darlingi mtDNA (northern genotype in parentheses).

Codon

Count

Codon

Count

Codon

Count

Codon

Count

UUU

335 (334)

UCU

93 (94)

UAU

139 (141)

UGU

38 (37)

UUC

26 (27)

UCC

2 (3)

UAC

25 (23)

UGC

2 (3)

UUA

531 (534)

UCA

107 (108)

UAA

14

UGA

94 (95)

UUG

28 (24)

UCG

6

UAG

0

UGG

5 (4)

CUU

26 (27)

CCU

71 (72)

CAU

71

CGU

10 (9)

CUC

1 (0)

CCC

7 (6)

CAC

7

CGC

0

CUA

25 (26)

CCA

54 (55)

CAA

73 (75)

CGA

48 (47)

CUG

0

CCG

1 (0)

CAG

4 (2)

CGG

0 (2)

AUU

337 (333)

ACU

118 (115)

AAU

192 (189)

AGU

49 (53)

AUC

11 (15)

ACC

2 (4)

AAC

13 (15)

AGC

8 (6)

AUA

201 (203)

ACA

77

AAA

74 (72)

AGA

50 (49)

AUG

22 (21)

ACG

1 (3)

AAG

20 (22)

AGG

0

GUU

65 (68)

GCU

100

GAU

63 (64)

GGU

32 (34)

GUC

4 (6)

GCC

8

GAC

3 (2)

GGC

1

GUA

106

GCA

64 (65)

GAA

76 (78)

GGA

159 (161)

GUG

10 (9)

GCG

3

GAG

5 (3)

GGG

26 (20)

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1475-2875-9-127/MediaObjects/12936_2010_Article_1208_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Codon distribution in anopheline mtDNA. The Y-axis represents the contribution of each of the codons to the total. Numbers to the left refer to the total number of codons. Amino acids names are indicated on the X-axis. N: Anopheles darlingi northern genotype; S: Anopheles darlingi southern genotype.

The sequence identity within the An. darlingi taxon showed a high similarity across the whole genome (Table 4), with the lowest value (98.5) for the COII gene. Moreover, the sequence of the protein-encoding genes is conserved in Anophelinae, while more differences are found in the Control Region (CR) [60].
Table 4

Percent identity based on nucleotides sequences among An. darlingi taxon and other anophelines.

 

Identity (%)

Gene

An. darlingi S

vs N

An. darlingi S

vs An. funestus

An. darlingi S

vs An. gambiae

An. darlingi S

vs An. quadrimaculatus

ND2

99.2

87.2

88.6

87.6

COI

98.6

90.6

88.6

88.2

COII

98.5

90.6

89

89.6

ATP8

98.7

91.3

90.7

91.3

ATP6

98.6

87

89.1

87.2

COIII

98.4

89.1

89.9

89.3

ND3

98.8

88.4

88.7

82.2

ND5

98.7

87.3

86.9

85.4

ND4

98.5

85.7

87.8

86.8

ND4L

99.6

90.1

88.8

87.2

ND6

99.8

85.9

87.8

88.7

CYTB

99

90.6

90

89.7

ND1

98.6

90.7

89.7

90.3

16SrRNA

99.7

92.1

93.2

94.1

12SrRNA

98.4

92.2

93.6

94.3

tRNA

100

94.9

95.8

94.3

CR

97.3

60.9

67.3

56.7

S: An. darlingi southern genotype; N: An. darlingi northern genotype; CR: control region.

Non-coding regions

The mtDNA of An. darlingi contains five intergenic spacers. There are two spacers with only two nucleotides, while two others are formed by nine and 17 nucleotides. The A+T region, flanked by 12sRNA and tRNA Ile , has 574 and 573 nucleotides (northern and southern, respectively), and is presumed to be the origin of DNA replication of the organelle, as reported in other insects [61]. High levels of sequence divergence were found in the CRs among anopheline species, even when low diversity was detected in other genes (Table 4). This is consistent with the CR variation observed among dipteran mtDNAs [60]. Four motifs have been described in arthropod CRs: long sequence of thymines, tandem repeat sequences, a sub-region of even higher A+T content and stem-loop structures [62]. The CR of the An. darlingi genotypes showed only 15 variable sites among them, including nine indels (five insertions in the northern genotype). This is surprisingly small variation, even lower than within the An. gambiae complex, where 52 variable positions in CR were described [63]. The anopheline CR does not have the distinct domains seen in other insects [64]. In addition, the T-stretch structure, hypothesized as the regulation of transcription of the mtDNA, is located in position 142 (17 bp of extension) and this structure is a commonly observed in the other anophelines analysed as well in other Diptera, and in different insect orders [60, 64, 65].

Phylogenetic analyses

The relationships among Anopheles inferred using the MP, ML and Bayesian approaches are consistent with earlier reports based on mitochondrial and nuclear genes [25]. Nyssorhynchus was inferred as a sister taxon to Anopheles + Cellia with high bootstrap support for each node. Inconsistent topology was obtained only in the case of rDNA sequences, which grouped Anopheles with Nyssorhynchus, likely due to non-independence of substitutions within loop regions in rDNA genes. Thus, the tree topology was consistent and employed in posterior estimation of parameters in tests of selection.

No evidence of positive selection in the mtDNA

The Likelihood Ratio Test did not detect any sites under positive selection in any mtDNA gene. Parameter estimations of the variable ω were derived under different models for the 13 protein-encoding genes (Table 5). Analyses conducted with all the partitions were consistent with the conclusion that there is no positive selection acting on the protein-encoding genes of An. darlingi mtDNA, and that those are evolving by purifying selection. Even with models that allow variable selective pressure among sites (M2), ω values are distant from 1 and no indication of different selection intensities was detected. Under M8, the ω was >1 in three genes, NAD4, NAD6 and COIII, with less than one site with this pattern, although the comparison between models was insignificant. This could be an indication of a lack of power of the analysis, perhaps as a result of the few sequences that were available, the low divergence between them, or the lack of power of the Likelihood Ratio Test [39]. Concerns about small sample size and sequence divergence have been discussed [66]. Recently, it has been established that reasonable statistical power can be achieved with up to five genomes with divergence similar to those observed among some bacterial strains [67]. In addition, a recent study based on molecular evolution in mosquito immunity-related genes used this approach with similar sample size and with reliable results [68].
Table 5

Parameter estimates under five models of variable ω's among sites using PAML software.

  

Parameters estimates*

Gene

Codon

M0 (one-ratio)

M1a (neutral)

M2a (selection)

M7 (β)

M8 (β&ω)

NAD1

314

ω = 0.00843

p0 = 0.986, ω0 = 0.005

p1 = 0.013, ω1 = 1

p0 = 0.986, ω0 = 0.005

p1 = 0.013, ω1 = 1;

p2 = 0, ω2 = 16.720

p = 0.040

q = 2.433

p0 = 0.992, p1 = 0.007

p = 0.047, q = 4.310

ω = 1

NAD2

341

ω = 0.00705

p0 = 0.972, ω0 = 0.005

p1 = 0.027, ω1 = 1

p0 = 0.972, ω0 = 0.005

p1 = 0.027, ω1 = 1

p2 = 0, ω2 = 33.683

p = 0.166

q = 17.011

p0 = 0.099, p1 = 0.003

p = 0.179, q = 19.695

ω = 1

NAD3

117

ω = 0.00583

p0 = 0.995, ω0 = 0.005

p1 = 0.004, ω1 = 1

p0 = 0.995, ω0 = 0.005

p1 = 0.002, ω1 = 1

p2 = 0.001, ω2 = 1

p = 0.17328

q = 24.05246

p0 = 0.999, p1 = 0.00001

p = 0.173, q = 24.053

ω = 1

NAD4

447

ω = 0.00295

p0 = 0.967, ω0 = 0.007

p1 = 0.032, ω1 = 1

p0 = 0.967, ω0 = 0

p1 = 0.032, ω1 = 1

p2 = 0, ω2 = 1

p = 0.12561

q = 7.98102

p0 = 0.999, p1 = 0.00001

p = 0.125, q = 7.983

ω = 1

NAD4L

99

ω = 0.00168

p0 = 0.980, ω0 = 0

p1 = 0.019, ω1 = 1

p0 = 0.98, ω0 = 0

p1 = 0.019, ω1 = 1

p2 = 0, ω2 = 88.23

p = 0.02510

q = 4.53382

p0 = 0.999, p1 = 0.00001

p = 0.025, q = 4.534

ω = 23.181

NAD5

576

ω = 0.01018

p0 = 0.959, ω0 = 0.006

p1 = 0.040, ω1 = 1

p0 = 0.959, ω0 = 0,006

p1 = 0.04, ω1 = 1

p2 = 0, ω2 = 9.342

p = 0.09489

q = 5.44623

p0 = 0.998, p1 = 0.001

p = 0.096, q = 5.702

ω = 1

NAD6

174

ω = 0.00034

p0 = 0.922, ω0 = 0

p1 = 0.077, ω1 = 1

p0 = 0.922, ω0 = 0

p1 = 0.075, ω1 = 1

p2 = 0.002, ω2 = 1

p = 0.11857

q = 99.0

p0 = 0.999, p1 = 0.00001

p = 0.118, q = 99

ω = 1.915

ATP6

222

ω = 0.01750

p0 = 0.966, ω0 = 0.012,

p1 = 0.033, ω1 = 1

p0 = 0.966, ω0 = 0.01

p1 = 0.013, ω1 = 1

p2 = 0.02 , ω2 = 1

p = 0.12790

q = 5.29443

p0 = 0.999, p1 = 0.00001

p = 0.127, q = 5.295

ω = 1

ATP8

53

ω = 0.03705

p0 = 0.999, ω0 = 0.037

p1 = 0.000, ω1 = 1

p0 = 1, ω0 = 0.037

p1 = 0, ω1 = 1

p2 = 0, ω2 = 1

p = 0.63306

q = 15.13648

p0 = 0.999, p1 = 0.00001

p = 0.633, q = 15.138

ω = 1

COI

512

ω = 0.00343

p0 = 0.997, ω0 = 0.003

p1 = 0.002, ω1 = 1

p0 = 0.997, ω0 = 0.003

p1 = 0, ω1 = 1

p2 = 0.002, ω2 = 1

p = 0.00827

q = 0.29316

p0 = 0.999, p1 = 0.00001

p = 0.011, q = 0.524

ω = 1

COII

228

ω = 0.00761

p0 = 0.999, ω0 = 0.007

p1 = 0, ω1 = 1

p0 = 1, ω0 = 0.007

p1 = 0, ω1 = 1

p2 = 0, ω2 = 31.418

p = 0.05952

q = 5.03366

p0 = 0.999, p1 = 0.00001

p = 0.059, q = 5.033

ω = 1

COIII

262

ω = 0.00865

p0 = 0.984, ω0 = 0.005

p1 = 0.015, ω1 = 1

p0 = 0.984, ω0 = 0.005

p1 = 0.015, ω1 = 1

p2 = 0, ω2 = 68.73

p = 0.01261

q = 0.42587

p0 = 0.999, p1 = 0.00001

p = 0.0125, q = 0.422

ω = 2.891

CYTB

378

ω = 0.00516

p0 = 0.988, ω0 = 0.002

p1 = 0.011, ω1 = 1

p0 = 0.988, ω0 = 0.002

p1 = 0, ω1 = 1

p2 = 0.01, ω2 = 1

p = 0.01168

q = 0.44511

p0 = 0.994, p1 = 0.0051

p = 0.012, q = 0.583

ω = 1

*Pi is the proportion of sites to an ω category or to a β distribution with parameters p and q, depending on the model.

Estimates of time of most recent common ancestor

The analyses performed with all mtDNA genes pushed back the split between Culicinae (subgenus Stegomyia) and Anophelinae (genus Anopheles) to 190 mya, in the Early Jurassic. The Anopheles radiation took place during the Early Cretaceous (130 mya), and the most recent ancestor of the Anopheles and Cellia subgenera is estimated at 107 mya. Finally, the split within the Cellia subgenus (An. gambiae and An. funestus) was estimated at 82 mya. Alternatively, the analysis of the protein-coding genes provides earlier divergence dates, and although they correspond to the same geological periods, the nodes are dated more recently in agreement with an older origin of the mosquitoes in the Jurassic [69, 70]. A recent study based on six nuclear genes and morphological characters provides further support for a Jurassic origin of mosquitoes although the estimated divergence between Anopheles and Cellia was more recent (~43 mya) than the dates derived from our study [71]. The different evolutionary histories of the molecular markers (mtDNA vs nDNA), besides incomplete species sampling, may explain the apparent incongruence between the dates.

The inclusion of an additional calibration point of the divergence of Anophelinae and Culicinae estimated to 120 mya in the Early Cretaceous [72] was incorporated in the analysis, providing a node age divergence of the Nyssorhynchus-Anopheles of 79 mya. The process of separation between South America and Africa began in the Permian and the last connection by land was estimated to exist ~95 mya. In addition, the split between Anopheles-Cellia took place 58 mya (Figure 3). Altogether, these data provide estimates for the radiation of the subgenus Cellia concordant with the loss of land bridges between Africa-Europe and Europe-North America (through Greenland), that may explain the current distribution of the Cellia subgenus, absent in the Americas. Anopheles distribution across the American continent, in agreement with the radiation dates derived from this study, is sustained from a latitudinal migration and subsequent radiation from the north to the south. The large confidence intervals of both analyses include congruent dates that fit with the above explanation, although these estimates should be read carefully, since the use of few calibration points could provide weak estimates of divergence [73].
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1475-2875-9-127/MediaObjects/12936_2010_Article_1208_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Chronogram for the Subfamily Anophelinae and Culicinae. Node positions indicate mean estimated divergence times, and node bars indicate the 95% confidence intervals. The circles represent the calibration points: Drosophila-Anopheles 259.9 MY [50], and Anophelinae-Culicinae 120 MY [71].

The study of incipient species has been of paramount importance in the understanding of speciation in different organisms [74, 75]. Even though there is strong evidence for diverging genotypes in An. darlingi, its mtDNA does not sustain this level of variance. The persistence of permeable barriers that permit exchange of genetic information within genotypes could preclude the detection of the differentiation. Questions focused on reproductive isolation among the An. darlingi genotypes need to be addressed, as well as assortative mating features between co-existing populations. Taxa with a recent divergence time are expected to share ancestral variation in high proportions, which may confound the reconstruction of their historical relationships. Furthermore, it is likely that young species, with a recent divergence process, have fixed differences only at genes directly responsible for speciation. The major African malaria vector, An. gambiae, has incomplete barriers to gene flow, where divergent selection is acting on local regions of the genome, and gradually increasing the divergence of the populations until gene flow disappears between them [76, 77]. Further support for this form of divergence was provided with the "speciation island model", which suggests small regions with high differentiation in the genome of this taxon [77, 78].

The current studies focused on deciphering the complete genome of An. darlingi will provide new elements and tools to further evaluate the speciation of this taxon. Subsequently, the potential identification of genes affecting speciation should improve the surveillance and management of malaria programs in the Americas and help to elucidate the different patterns of malaria transmission involving An. darlingi.

In addition, the radiation of anophelinae species underscores the significance of these studies together with the origin of malaria parasites. The link between the anophelines in the New World and malaria parasites is still controversial [7981]. If human Plasmodium parasites were transferred to the Americas by European colonialists in post-Colombian times, then the contact between neotropical malaria vectors and protozoan is very recent. This supports the hypothesis that the susceptibility of mosquitoes to malaria infection is a basal characteristic and further investigations should be conducted to elucidate the refractoriness to this parasite in non-malaria vector species.

Conclusions

The lack of conclusive evidence of speciation at the mtDNA level demands further investigation of other markers, such as nuclear genes that can reflect differences in ecological preferences within An. darlingi. The divergence dates estimated for the subgenus Nyssorhynchus provide valuable information, which, although there is a need to be cautious, because the constraints of the method gave an approximation of the radiation of this group. Finally, it seems that purifying selection is predominant at the mitochondrial level, and the differences observed within the taxon may not be a consequence of that force.

Abbreviations

The abbreviations used in this work were: 

COI, COII, COIII: cytochrome oxidase subunit I, II, and III protein genes

CYTB

cytochrome b gene

ATP6

ATP8: ATP synthase subunit 6 and 8 genes

NAD1

NAD2, NAD3, NAD4, NAD4L, NAD5, NAD6: NADH dehydrogenase subunit 1-6, 4L genes.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank Sara Bickersmith and Sasha McKeon (Wadsworth Center, NYSDOH) for assistance with analysis and experiments. Also thanks to Jose R. Loaiza (Smithsonian Tropical Institute, Panama) for valuable comments on this manuscript. This work was supported by NIH grant AI 2ROI 54139 to JEC.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
New York State Department of Health, Wadsworth Center, Griffin Laboratory
(2)
Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, University of California
(3)
Vector Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine
(4)
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazonia
(5)
Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of California
(6)
Department of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
(7)
Department of Biomedical Sciences, School of Public Health, State University of New York-Albany, Empire Plaza

References

  1. World Health Organization: World Malaria Report 2008. 2008, WHO. Geneva, HO/HTM/GMP/2008.1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Linthicum KJ: A revision of the Argyritarsis section of the subgenus Nyssorhynchus of Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosq Syst. 1988, 20: 98-271.Google Scholar
  3. Charlwood JD: Biological variation in Anopheles darlingi Root. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1996, 91: 391-398.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Lounibos LP, Conn JE: Malaria vector heterogeneity in South America. American Entomologist. 2000, 46: 238-249.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Zimmerman RH, Galardo AK, Lounibos LP, Arruda M, Wirtz R: Bloodmeal hosts of Anopheles species (Diptera: Culicidae) in a malaria-endemic area of the Brazilian Amazon. J Med Entomol. 2006, 43: 947-956. 10.1603/0022-2585(2006)43[947:BHOASD]2.0.CO;2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Tadei WP, Santos JMM, Rabbani MG: Biologia de anofelinos amazônicos. V. Polimorfismo cromossômico de Anopheles darlingi Root (Diptera: Culicidae). Acta Amazonica. 1982, 12: 353-369.Google Scholar
  7. Steiner WWM, Narang S, Kitzmiller JB, Swofford DL: Genetic divergence and evolution in Neotropical Anopheles (subgenus Nyssorhynchus). Recent developments in the genetics of insect disease vectors. Edited by: Steiner WWM, Tabachnick WJ, Rai KS, Narang S. 1982, Stipes Champaign, Illinois, 523-551.Google Scholar
  8. Malafronte RS, Marrelli MT, Marinotti O: Analysis of ITS2 DNA sequences from Brazilian Anopheles darlingi (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 1999, 36: 631-634.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Manguin S, Wilkerson RC, Conn JE, Rubio-Palis Y, Danoff-Burg JA, Roberts DR: Population structure of the primary malaria vector in South America, Anopheles darlingi, using isozyme, random amplified polymorphic DNA, internal transcribed spacer 2, and morphologic markers. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999, 60: 364-376.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Mirabello L, Conn JE: Molecular population genetics of the malaria vector Anopheles darlingi in Central and South America. Heredity. 2006, 96: 311-321. 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800805.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Conn JE, Vineis JH, Bollback JP, Onyabe DY, Wilkerson RC, Povoa MM: Population structure of the malaria vector Anopheles darlingi in a malaria-endemic region of eastern Amazonian Brazil. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006, 74: 798-806.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Mirabello L, Vineis JH, Yanoviak SP, Scarpassa VM, Povoa MM, Padilla N, Achee NL, Conn JE: Microsatellite data suggest significant population structure and differentiation within the malaria vector Anopheles darlingi in Central and South America. BMC Ecol. 2008, 8: 3-10.1186/1472-6785-8-3.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Pedro P, Sallum MAM: Spatial expansion and population structure of the neotropical malaria vector, Anopheles darlingi. Biol J Linnean Soc. 2009, 97: 854-866. 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01226.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Mirabello L: Molecular population genetics of the malaria vector Anopheles darlingi throughout Central and South America using mitochondrial, nuclear, and microsatellite markers. PhD thesis. 2007, State University of New York at Albany, Biomedical Sciences DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  15. Boore JL, Collins TM, Stanton D, Daehler LL, Brown WM: Deducing the pattern of arthropod phylogeny from mitochondrial DNA rearrangements. Nature. 1995, 376: 163-165. 10.1038/376163a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Boore JL, Macey JR, Medina M: Sequencing and comparing whole mitochondrial genomes of animals. Methods Enzymol. 2005, 395: 311-348. full_text.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mitchell SE, Cockburn AF, Seawright JA: The mitochondrial genome of Anopheles quadrimaculatus species A: complete nucleotide sequence and gene organization. Genome. 1993, 36: 1058-1073. 10.1139/g93-141.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Beard CB, Hamm DM, Collins FH: The mitochondrial genome of the mosquito Anopheles gambiae: DNA sequence, genome organization, and comparisons with mitochondrial sequences of other insects. Insect Mol Biol. 1993, 2: 103-124. 10.1111/j.1365-2583.1993.tb00131.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Krzywinski J, Grushko OG, Besansky NJ: Analysis of the complete mitochondrial DNA from Anopheles funestus: an improved dipteran mitochondrial genome annotation and a temporal dimension of mosquito evolution. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2006, 39: 417-423. 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.01.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Bazin E, Glemin S, Galtier N: Population size does not influence mitochondrial genetic diversity in animals. Science. 2006, 312: 570-572. 10.1126/science.1122033.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Meiklejohn CD, Montooth KL, Rand DM: Positive and negative selection on the mitochondrial genome. Trends Genet. 2007, 23: 259-63. 10.1016/j.tig.2007.03.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Conn JE, Mirabello L: The biogeography and population genetics of neotropical vector species. Heredity. 2007, 99: 245-256. 10.1038/sj.hdy.6801002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Foley DH, Wilkerson RC, Cooper RD, Volovsek ME, Bryan JH: A molecular phylogeny of Anopheles annulipes (Diptera: Culicidae) sensu lato: the most species-rich anopheline complex. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2007, 43: 283-297. 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.10.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Morgan K, O'Loughlin SM, Mun-Yik F, Linton YM, Somboon P, Min S, Htun PT, Nambanya S, Weerasinghe I, Sochantha T, Prakash A, Walton C: Molecular phylogenetics and biogeography of the Neocellia Series of Anopheles mosquitoes in the oriental region. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2009, 52: 588-601. 10.1016/j.ympev.2009.01.022.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Krzywinski J, Besansky NJ: Molecular systematics of Anopheles: from subgenera to subpopulations. Annu Rev Entomol. 2003, 48: 111-139. 10.1146/annurev.ento.48.091801.112647.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilkerson RC, Strickman D: Illustrated key to the female Anophelinae mosquitoes of Central America and Mexico. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1990, 6: 7-34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Faran ME, Linthicum KJ: A handbook of Amazonian species of Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus) (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosq Syst. 1981, 8: 1-107.Google Scholar
  28. Forattini OP: Entomologia Médica. 1962, São Paulo: Universidade São Paulo, I:Google Scholar
  29. Rozen S, Skaletsky H: Primer3 on the www for general users and for biologist programmers. Methods Mol Biol. 2000, 132: 365-386.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Sequin. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Sequin/sequin.hlp.html]
  31. Lowe TM, Eddy SR: tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997, 25: 955-64. 10.1093/nar/25.5.955.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumar S, Tamura K, Nei M: MEGA3: Integrated software for Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis and sequence alignment. Brief Bioinform. 2004, 5: 150-163. 10.1093/bib/5.2.150.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Perna NT, Kocher TD: Patterns of nucleotide composition at fourfold degenerate sites of animal mitochondrial genomes. J Mol Evol. 1995, 41: 353-358. 10.1007/BF01215182.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rozas J, Sanchez-DelBarrio JC, Messeguer X, Rozas R: DnaSP, DNA polymorphism analyses by the coalescent and other methods. Bioinformatics. 2003, 19: 2496-2497. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg359.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Xia X, Xie Z: DAMBE: software package for data analysis in molecular biology and evolution. J Hered. 2001, 92: 371-373. 10.1093/jhered/92.4.371.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kolpakov R, Bana G, Kucherov G: mreps: Efficient and flexible detection of tandem repeats in DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003, 31: 3672-3678. 10.1093/nar/gkg617.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Nei M, Gojobori T: Simple methods for estimating the numbers of synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide substitutions. Mol Biol Evol. 1986, 3: 418-426.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Yang Z: PAML: a program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Comput Appl Biosci. 1997, 13: 555-556.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Yang Z, Nielsen R: Codon-substitution models for detecting molecular adaptation at individual sites along specific lineages. Mol Biol Evol. 2002, 19: 908-917.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Yang Z, Wong WSW, Nielsen R: Bayes empirical Bayes inference of amino acid sites under positive selection. Mol Biol Evol. 2005, 22: 1107-1118. 10.1093/molbev/msi097.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang J, Nielsen R, Yang Z: Evaluation of an improved branch-site likelihood method for detecting positive selection at the molecular level. Mol Biol Evol. 2005, 22: 2472-2479. 10.1093/molbev/msi237.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Swofford DL: PAUP* version 4.0b10. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). 2000, Sinauer Associates, Inc, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  43. Clary DO, Wolstenholme DR: The mitochondrial DNA molecular of Drosophila yakuba: nucleotide sequence, gene organization, and genetic code. J Mol Evol. 1985, 22: 252-271. 10.1007/BF02099755.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Swofford DL, Olsen GJ, Waddell PJ, Hillis DM: Phylogenetic inference. Molecular systematics. Edited by: Hillis DM, Moritz C, Mable BK. 1996, Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass, 407-514. 2Google Scholar
  45. Posada D, Crandall KA: MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics. 1998, 14: 817-818. 10.1093/bioinformatics/14.9.817.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP: MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2003, 19: 1572-1574. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Zavortink TJ, Poinar GO: Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus) dominicanus sp. n. (Diptera: Culicidae) from Dominican amber. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 2000, 93: 1230-1235. 10.1603/0013-8746(2000)093[1230:ANDSND]2.0.CO;2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Iturralde-Vincent MA, MacPhee RDE: Age and paleogeographical origin of Dominican amber. Science. 1996, 273: 1850-1852. 10.1126/science.273.5283.1850.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Schlee D: Das Bernstein-Kabinett. Sttutg Beitr Naturk C. 1990, 28: 100-Google Scholar
  50. Gaunt MW, Miles MA: An insect molecular clock dates the origin of the insects and accords with palaeontological and biogeographic landmarks. Mol Biol Evol. 2002, 19: 748-761.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Ho SY, Larson G: Molecular clocks: when times are a-changin'. Trends Genet. 2006, 22 (2): 79-83. 10.1016/j.tig.2005.11.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Brower AV: Rapid morphological radiation and convergence among races of the butterfly Heliconius erato inferred from patterns of mitochondrial DNA evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1994, 91: 6491-6495. 10.1073/pnas.91.14.6491.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. DeSalle R, Templeton A, Mori I, Pletscher S, Johnston JS: Temporal and spatial heterogeneity of mtDNA polymorphisms in natural populations of Drosophila mercatorum. Genetics. 1987, 116: 215-23.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Drummond AJ, Rambaut A: BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evol Biol. 2007, 7: 214-10.1186/1471-2148-7-214.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Drummond AJ, Ho SY, Phillips MJ, Rambaut A: Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4: e88-10.1371/journal.pbio.0040088.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Stewart JB, Beckenbach AT: Insect mitochondrial genomics: the complete mitochondrial genome sequence of the meadow spittlebug Philaenus spumarius (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha: Cercopoidae). Genome. 2005, 48: 46-54. 10.1139/g04-090.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Saccone C, De GC, Gissi C, Pesole G, Reyes A: Evolutionary genomics in Metazoa: the mitochondrial DNA as a model system. Gene. 1999, 238: 195-209. 10.1016/S0378-1119(99)00270-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Junqueira AC, Lessinger AC, Torres TT, da Silva FR, Vettore AL, Arruda P, Zeredo Espin AM: The mitochondrial genome of the blowfly Chrysomya chloropyga (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Gene. 2004, 339: 7-15. 10.1016/j.gene.2004.06.031.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Ojala D, Montoya J, Attardi G: tRNA punctuation model of RNA processing in human mitochondria. Nature. 1981, 290: 470-474. 10.1038/290470a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Oliveira MT, Azeredo-Espin AML, Lessinger AC: The mitochondrial DNA control region of Muscidae flies: evolution and structural conservation in a Dipteran context. J Mol Evol. 2007, 64: 519-527. 10.1007/s00239-006-0099-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Saito S, Tamura K, Aotsuka T: Replication origin of mitochondrial DNA in insects. Genetics. 2005, 171: 1695-705. 10.1534/genetics.105.046243.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Cook CE: The complete mitochondrial genome of the stomatopod crustacean Squilla mantis. BMC Genomics. 2005, 6: 105-10.1186/1471-2164-6-105.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Caccone A, Garcia BA, Powell JR: Evolution of the mitochondrial DNA control region in the Anopheles gambiae complex. Insect Mol Biol. 1996, 5: 51-59. 10.1111/j.1365-2583.1996.tb00040.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Duarte GT, De Azeredo-Espin AM, Junqueira AC: The mitochondrial control region of blowflies (Diptera: Calliphoridae): a hot spot for mitochondrial genome rearrangements. J Med Entomol. 2008, 45: 667-76. 10.1603/0022-2585(2008)45[667:TMCROB]2.0.CO;2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Schultheis AS, Weigt LA, Hendricks AC: Arrangement and structural conservation of the mitochondrial control region of two species of Plecoptera: utility of tandem repeat-containing regions in studies of population genetics and evolutionary history. Insect Mol Biol. 2002, 11: 605-610. 10.1046/j.1365-2583.2002.00371.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Anisimova M, Bielawski JP, Yang Z: Accuracy and power of Bayes prediction of amino acid sites under positive selection. Mol Biol Evol. 2002, 19: 950-958.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Anisimova M, Bielawski J, Dunn K, Yang Z: Phylogenomic analysis of natural selection pressure in Streptococcus genomes. BMC Evol Biol. 2007, 7: 154-10.1186/1471-2148-7-154.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Lehmann T, Hume JC, Licht M, Burns CS, Wollenberg K, Simard F, Ribeiro JM: Molecular evolution of immune genes in the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae. PLoS One. 2009, 4: e4549-10.1371/journal.pone.0004549.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Edwards FW: Diptera fam. Culicidae. Edited by: Wytsman P. 1932, Genera Insectorum. Desmet- Verteneuil, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  70. Henning W: Insect phylogeny. 1981, Wiley, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  71. Reidenbach KR, Cook S, Bertone MA, Harbach RE, Wiegmann BM, Besansky NJ: Phylogenetic analysis and temporal diversification of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) based on nuclear genes and morphology. BMC Evol Biol. 2009, 9: 298-10.1186/1471-2148-9-298.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Rai KS, Black WC: Mosquito genomes: structure, organization and evolution. Adv Genet. 1999, 41: 1-33. full_text.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Müller J, Reisz RR: Four well-constrained calibration points from the vertebrate fossil record for molecular clock estimates. Bioessays. 2005, 27: 1069-1075. 10.1002/bies.20286.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Coyne JA, Orr HA: The evolutionary genetics of speciation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998, 353: 287-305. 10.1098/rstb.1998.0210.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Wu CI, Ting CT: Genes and speciation. Nat Rev Genet. 2004, 5: 114-122. 10.1038/nrg1269.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Lehmann T, Diabate A: The molecular forms of Anopheles gambiae: a phenotypic perspective. Infect Genet Evol. 2008, 8: 737-746. 10.1016/j.meegid.2008.06.003.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Turner TL, Hahn MW, Nuzhdin SV: Genomic islands of speciation in Anopheles gambiae. PLoS Biol. 2005, 3 (9): e285-10.1371/journal.pbio.0030285.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Turner TL, Hahn MW: Locus- and population-specific selection and differentiation between incipient species of Anopheles gambiae. Mol Biol Evol. 2007, 24: 2132-2138. 10.1093/molbev/msm143.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Rich SM, Ayala FJ: Population structure and recent evolution of Plasmodium falciparum. PNAS. 2000, 97: 6994-7001. 10.1073/pnas.97.13.6994.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Carter R: Speculations on the origins of Plasmodium vivax malaria. Trends Parasitol. 2003, 19: 214-9. 10.1016/S1471-4922(03)00070-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Hume JC, Lyons EJ, Day KP: Human migration, mosquitoes and the evolution of Plasmodium falciparum. Trends Parasitol. 2003, 19: 144-9. 10.1016/S1471-4922(03)00008-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Moreno et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

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.