First report of an exophilic Anopheles arabiensis population in Bissau City, Guinea-Bissau: recent introduction or sampling bias?

Table 2 Mean estimates of genetic diversity and relatedness

		A _R	H _e	F _IS	R _LR	R _QG	R _ML
Anopheles arabiensis	Adults	5.7	0.583	-0.054	0.054	0.304	17.9
	(N = 20)	[4.5-6.9]	[0.431-0.708]	[-0.132-0.017]	[0.042-0.063]	[0.279-0.327]	[12.9-24.3]
	Larvae	5.8	0.598	0.024	0.049	0.268	18.3
	(N = 122)	[4.7-6.8]	[0.455-0.706]	[-0.013-0.064]	[0.047-0.050]	[0.264-0.272]	[17.5-19.3]
Anopheles coluzzii	Larvae	8.8	0.812	0.017	0.023	0.027	6.5
Anopheles coluzzii	(N = 22)	[7.5-10.5]	[0.745-0.870]	[-0.052-0.086]	[0.017-0.030]	[0.009-0.047]	[3.8-10.7]
Anopheles gambiae	Adults	10.0	0.819	0.082	0.019	0.022	9.8
	(N = 48)	[8.1-11.9]	[0.767-0.864]	[0.055-0.113]	[0.016-0.021]	[0.013-0.031]	[8.1-11.7]
	Larvae	9.7	0.812	0.079	0.015	0.020	10.0
	(N = 53)	[7.9-11.7]	[0.756-0.863]	[0.022-0.130]	[0.013-0.019]	[0.012-0.028]	[8.5-11.8]

N: sample size; A_R: allele richness; H_e: expected heterozygosity; F_IS: inbreeding coefficient; R_LR: Lynch and Ritland [54] relatedness coefficient; R_QG: Queller and Goodnight [53] relatedness coefficient; R_ML: proportion (in percentage) of related pairs of individuals as determined by ML-RELATE. Significant estimates after correction of multiple tests for F_IS, R_LR and R_QG are in bold. 95% confidence intervals are in square brackets.