Plan
Comptes Rendus
no. 11

Molecular biology and genetics/Biologie et génétique moléculaires
Cytogenetic, cross-mating and molecular evidence of four cytological races of Anopheles crawfordi (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand and Cambodia
Atiporn Saeung1  ; Visut Baimai2 ; Sorawat Thongsahuan3 ; Yasushi Otsuka4 ; Wichai Srisuka5 ; Kritsana Taai1 ; Pradya Somboon1 ; Wannapa Suwonkerd6 ; Tho Sochanta7 ; Wej Choochote1
1 Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
2 Department of Biology and Centre for Vectors and Vector-Borne Diseases, Faculty of Science, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
3 Faculty of Veterinary Science (Establishment Project), Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand
4 Research Center for the Pacific Islands, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima 890-8580, Japan
5 Entomology Section, Queen Sirikit Botanic Garden, P.O. Box 7, Chiang Mai 50180, Thailand
6 Office of Disease Prevention and Control No. 10, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
7 National Center for Malaria Control, Parasitology and Entomology, Phnom Penh 12302, Cambodia
Comptes Rendus. Biologies, Volume 337 (2014) no. 11, pp. 625-634.

Résumé

Twenty-nine isolines of Anopheles crawfordi were established from wild-caught females collected from cow-baited traps in Thailand and Cambodia. Three types of X (X1, X2, X3) and four types of Y (Y1, Y2, Y3, and Y4) chromosomes were identified, according to differing amounts of extra heterochromatin. These sex chromosomes represent four metaphase karyotypes, i.e., Forms A (X1, X2, X3, Y1), B (X1, X2, X3, Y2), C (X2, Y3) and D (X2, Y4). Forms C and D are novel metaphase karyotypes confined to Thailand, whereas forms A and B appear to be common in both Thailand and Cambodia. Cross-mating experiments between the four karyotypic forms indicated genetic compatibility in yielding viable progenies and synaptic salivary gland polytene chromosomes. The results suggest that the forms are conspecific and A. crawfordi comprises four cytological races, which is further supported by very low intraspecific variation (mean genetic distance = 0.000–0.018) of the nucleotide sequences in ribosomal DNA (ITS2) and mitochondrial DNA sequences (COI, COII).

Métadonnées
Reçu le :
Accepté le :
Publié le :
DOI : 10.1016/j.crvi.2014.08.001
Mots clés : Anopheles crawfordi, Metaphase karyotypes, Cross-mating experiments, ITS2, COI, COII
Atiporn Saeung 1 ; Visut Baimai 2 ; Sorawat Thongsahuan 3 ; Yasushi Otsuka 4 ; Wichai Srisuka 5 ; Kritsana Taai 1 ; Pradya Somboon 1 ; Wannapa Suwonkerd 6 ; Tho Sochanta 7 ; Wej Choochote 1

1 Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
2 Department of Biology and Centre for Vectors and Vector-Borne Diseases, Faculty of Science, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
3 Faculty of Veterinary Science (Establishment Project), Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand
4 Research Center for the Pacific Islands, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima 890-8580, Japan
5 Entomology Section, Queen Sirikit Botanic Garden, P.O. Box 7, Chiang Mai 50180, Thailand
6 Office of Disease Prevention and Control No. 10, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
7 National Center for Malaria Control, Parasitology and Entomology, Phnom Penh 12302, Cambodia 
@article{CRBIOL_2014__337_11_625_0,
     author = {Atiporn Saeung and Visut Baimai and Sorawat Thongsahuan and Yasushi Otsuka and Wichai Srisuka and Kritsana Taai and Pradya Somboon and Wannapa Suwonkerd and Tho Sochanta and Wej Choochote},
     title = {Cytogenetic, cross-mating and molecular evidence of four cytological races of {\protect\emph{Anopheles} crawfordi} {(Diptera:} {Culicidae)} in {Thailand} and {Cambodia}},
     journal = {Comptes Rendus. Biologies},
     pages = {625--634},
     publisher = {Elsevier},
     volume = {337},
     number = {11},
     year = {2014},
     doi = {10.1016/j.crvi.2014.08.001},
     language = {en},
}
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Atiporn Saeung
AU  - Visut Baimai
AU  - Sorawat Thongsahuan
AU  - Yasushi Otsuka
AU  - Wichai Srisuka
AU  - Kritsana Taai
AU  - Pradya Somboon
AU  - Wannapa Suwonkerd
AU  - Tho Sochanta
AU  - Wej Choochote
TI  - Cytogenetic, cross-mating and molecular evidence of four cytological races of Anopheles crawfordi (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand and Cambodia
JO  - Comptes Rendus. Biologies
PY  - 2014
SP  - 625
EP  - 634
VL  - 337
IS  - 11
PB  - Elsevier
DO  - 10.1016/j.crvi.2014.08.001
LA  - en
ID  - CRBIOL_2014__337_11_625_0
ER  - 
%0 Journal Article
%A Atiporn Saeung
%A Visut Baimai
%A Sorawat Thongsahuan
%A Yasushi Otsuka
%A Wichai Srisuka
%A Kritsana Taai
%A Pradya Somboon
%A Wannapa Suwonkerd
%A Tho Sochanta
%A Wej Choochote
%T Cytogenetic, cross-mating and molecular evidence of four cytological races of Anopheles crawfordi (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand and Cambodia
%J Comptes Rendus. Biologies
%D 2014
%P 625-634
%V 337
%N 11
%I Elsevier
%R 10.1016/j.crvi.2014.08.001
%G en
%F CRBIOL_2014__337_11_625_0
Atiporn Saeung; Visut Baimai; Sorawat Thongsahuan; Yasushi Otsuka; Wichai Srisuka; Kritsana Taai; Pradya Somboon; Wannapa Suwonkerd; Tho Sochanta; Wej Choochote. Cytogenetic, cross-mating and molecular evidence of four cytological races of Anopheles crawfordi (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand and Cambodia. Comptes Rendus. Biologies, Volume 337 (2014) no. 11, pp. 625-634. doi : 10.1016/j.crvi.2014.08.001. https://comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/biologies/articles/10.1016/j.crvi.2014.08.001/

Version originale du texte intégral

1 Introduction

Anopheles crawfordi Reid, 1953 belongs to the Lesteri Subgroup of the Hyrcanus Group within the Myzorhynchus Series of the subgenus Anopheles [1]. So far, the distribution of this anopheline species has been recorded from India (Assam), Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, peninsular Malaysia and Indonesia (Sumatra) [2,3]. Even though A. crawfordi could be found abundantly as a proven outdoor-biter of humans in certain localities of eastern and southern Thailand, its status as a vector of pathogens of human diseases remains obscure and needs to be investigated more intensively [2]. However, our recent experiments indicate that this anopheline species could be an important vector of the filarial nematode, nocturnally subperiodic Brugia malayi, as determined by 80–85% susceptibility rates and an average of six L3 larvae per infected mosquito [4]. These results were in agreement with previous investigation indicating that A. crawfordi could provide satisfactory susceptibility to B. malayi in Malaysia [5,6]. Additionally, A. crawfordi is considered an economic pest due to its vicious biting-behavior of cattle [1,2,5].

Cytogenetic investigations of A. crawfordi from two different localities in Thailand (eastern region: Chanthaburi Province; southern region: Phang Nga Province) were performed by Baimai et al. [7]. The results of their studies demonstrated that A. crawfordi exhibits genetic diversity at the chromosomal level, via a gradual increase in extra heterochromatin on the X and Y chromosomes. Two karyotypic variants (cytological forms), namely forms A (X1, Y1) and B (X2, Y2), were identified. The marked genetic variation of the X and Y chromosomes, as in other species of Anopheles, may indicate the existence of a species complex. The identical morphology or minimal morphological distinction among sibling species (isomorphic species) and subspecies (cytological races) within species complexes leads to difficulty in reliably identifying individual sibling species, which may differ in biological characteristics (e.g., microhabitats, resting and biting behaviors, sensitivity or resistance to insecticides, susceptibility or refractory character to pathogens, etc.) that may influence their vectorial capacity. Thus, inaccurate identification of individual members within a species complex may result in the failure to distinguish vector and non-vector species, and complicate vector control [8]. Although marked genetic variation at the chromosomal level of A. crawfordi has been observed, little is known about the genetics of chromosomal forms. This paper reports on the existence of two additional karyotypic forms of A. crawfordi and the results of cross-mating between the four karyotypic forms and comparisons of sequences for the second internal transcribed spacer (ITS2) of rDNA, and cytochrome c oxidase subunits I (COI) and II (COII) of mtDNA.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Field collections and establishment of isoline colonies

Wild-caught, fully engorged females of A. crawfordi were collected from cow-baited traps at six locations in Thailand (Chiang Mai and Nan Provinces, northern region; Chumphon, Phang Nga, Trang and Songkhla Provinces, southern region), and two locations in Cambodia (Ratanakiri and Mondulkiri) (Fig. 1, Table 1). A total of 29 isolines were established and maintained using the techniques described by Choochote and Saeung [9]. The isolines were identified as A. crawfordi based on the morphology of the egg, larval, pupal, and adult stages of F1 progenies, using available keys [2,3,10]. The isolines were used for studies of the metaphase karyotype, cross-mating experiments and molecular analyses.

Fig. 1

Maps of Thailand and Cambodia showing eight provinces where specimens of A. crawfordi were collected and the number of isolines of the four karyotypic forms (A–D) detected in each location.

Table 1

Isolines of four karyotypic forms (A–D) of A. crawfordi and their GenBank accession numbers.

Location
(geographical coordinate)		 Code of isolinea Karyotypic form GenBank accession number Reference
ITS2 COI COII
Thailand
 Chiang Mai
(18° 47′ N, 98° 59′ E)		 Cm1Aa A (X1, Y1) AB779131 AB779160 AB779189 This study
 Nan
(19° 21′ N, 100° 39′ E)		 Nn1Ba B (X1, Y2) AB779132 AB779161 AB779190 This study
 Chumphon
(10° 29′ N, 99° 11′ E)		 Cp1A A (X3, Y1) AB779133 AB779162 AB779191 This study
 Trang
(07° 33′ N, 99° 38′ E)		 Tg1Ba B (X3, Y2) AB779134 AB779163 AB779192 This study
Tg2Ca C (X2, Y3) AB779135 AB779164 AB779193 This study
Tg3Aa A (X3, Y1) AB779136 AB779165 AB779194 This study
Tg4Da D (X2, Y4) AB779137 AB779166 AB779195 This study
Tg6B B (X2, Y2) AB779138 AB779167 AB779196 This study
Tg8D D (X2, Y4) AB779139 AB779168 AB779197 This study
Tg11A A (X2, Y1) AB779140 AB779169 AB779198 This study
Tg12C C (X2, Y3) AB779141 AB779170 AB779199 This study
 Phang Nga
(08° 27′ N, 98° 31′ E)		 Pg4A A (X1, Y1) AB779142 AB779171 AB779200 This study
Pg5Aa A (X2, Y1) AB779143 AB779172 AB779201 This study
Pg6A A (X1, Y1) AB779144 AB779173 AB779202 This study
Pg7A A (X2, Y1) AB779145 AB779174 AB779203 This study
Pg8A A (X2, Y1) AB779146 AB779175 AB779204 This study
Pg9A A (X2, Y1) AB779147 AB779176 AB779205 This study
Pg11A A (X2, Y1) AB779148 AB779177 AB779206 This study
Pg12A A (X1, Y1) AB779149 AB779178 AB779207 This study
Pg14A A (X1, Y1) AB779150 AB779179 AB779208 This study
Pg16A A (X2, Y1) AB779151 AB779180 AB779209 This study
 Songkhla
(07° 13′ N, 100° 37′ E)		 Sk1Ba B (X3, Y2) AB779152 AB779181 AB779210 This study
Cambodia
 Ratanakiri
(13° 44′ N, 107° 0′ E)		 Rt1Aa A (X1, Y1) AB779153 AB779182 AB779211 This study
Rt2B B (X2, Y2) AB779154 AB779183 AB779212 This study
Rt3B B (X2, Y2) AB779155 AB779184 AB779213 This study
 Mondulkiri
(12° 27′ N, 107° 14′ E)		 Mr1Ba B (X2, Y2) AB779156 AB779185 AB779214 This study
Mr2A A (X2, Y1) AB779157 AB779186 AB779215 This study
Mr3A A (X1, Y1) AB779158 AB779187 AB779216 This study
Mr4B A (X2, Y2) AB779159 AB779188 AB779217 This study
Vietnam
3.6 – – KF431868 KF431892 Ngo et al. [49]
269 – – KF431873 KF431896 Ngo et al. [49]
286 – – KF431865 KF431889 Ngo et al. [49]
302 – – KF431881 KF431902 Ngo et al. [49]
A. belenrae – – EU789794 – – Park et al. [38]
A. kleini – – EU789793 – – Park et al. [38]
A. lesteri – – EU789791 – – Park et al. [38]
ilG1 – – AB733028 AB733036 Taai et al. [50]
A. paraliae Sk1B B (X1, Y2) AB733487 AB733503 AB733519 Taai et al. [40]
A. peditaeniatus RbB B (X3, Y2) AB539061 AB539069 AB539077 Choochote [31]
A. pullus – – EU789792 – – Park et al. [38]
– – – AY444348 AY444347 Park et al. [35]
A. sinensis i2ACM A (X, Y1) AY130473 – – Min et al. [37]
– – – AY444351 – Park et al. [35]
i1BKR B (X, Y2) – – AY130464 Min et al. [37]

a Used in crossing experiments.

2.2 Metaphase karyotype preparation

Metaphase chromosomes were prepared from 10 early fourth-instar larval brains of F1 progenies of each isoline, using techniques previously described by Saeung et al. [11]. Identification of karyotypic forms followed the standard cytotaxonomic systems of Baimai et al. [7].

2.3 Cross-mating experiments

The ten laboratory-raised isolines of A. crawfordi were selected arbitrarily from the 29 isoline colonies, which were representative of four karyotypic forms, i.e., form A [Cm1A (X1, Y1), Tg3A (X3, Y1), Pg5A (X2, Y1), Rt1A (X1, Y1)], form B [Nn1B (X1, Y2), Tg1B (X3, Y2), Sk1B (X3, Y2), Mr1B (X2, Y2)], form C [Tg2C (X2, Y3)], and form D [Tg4D (X2, Y4)] (Table 1). These isolines were used for cross-mating experiments to determine post-mating barriers by employing the techniques previously reported by Saeung et al. [11].

2.4 DNA extraction and PCR amplification

Total genomic DNA was isolated from individual F1 progeny adult female of each isoline (Table 1) using the DNeasy® Blood and Tissue Kit (QIAGEN). Primers for amplification of the ITS2, COI, and COII regions followed previous studies by Saeung et al. [11]. The ITS2 region of rDNA was amplified using primers ITS2A (5′-TGT GAA CTG CAG GAC ACA T-3′) and ITS2B (5′-TAT GCT TAA ATT CAGGGGGT-3′) [12]. The 709-bp fragment of the mitochondrial COI barcoding region was amplified using the LCO1490 (5′-GGT CAA CAA ATC ATA AAG ATA TTG G-3′) and HCO2198 (5′-TAA ACT TCA GGG TGA CCA AAA AAT CA-3′) primers of Folmer et al. [13]. The mitochondrial COII region was amplified using primers LEU (5′-TCT AAT ATG GCA GAT TAG TGC A-3′) and LYS (5′-ACT TGC TTT CAG TCA TCT AAT G-3′) [14]. Each PCR reaction was carried out in 20 μL containing 0.5 U Ex Taq (Takara), 1X Ex Taq buffer, 2 mM of MgCl2, 0.2 mM of each dNTP, 0.25 μM of each primer, and 1 μL of the extracted DNA. For ITS2, PCR consisted of initial denaturation at 94 °C for 1 min, 30 cycles at 94 °C for 30 s, 55 °C for 30 s, and 72 °C for 1 min, and a final extension at 72 °C for 5 min. The amplification profile of COI and COII comprised initial denaturation at 94 °C for 1 min, 30 cycles at 94 °C for 30 s, 50 °C for 30 s, and 72 °C for 1 min, and a final extension at 72 °C for 5 min. The amplified products were electrophoresed in 1.5% agarose gels and stained with ethidium bromide. Finally, the amplicons were purified using the QIAquick® PCR Purification Kit (QIAGEN). The PCR products were sequenced in both directions using the BigDye® V3.1 Terminator Cycle Sequencing Kit and 3130 genetic analyzer (Applied Biosystems).

2.5 Sequencing alignment and phylogenetic analysis

Sequences were aligned using the CLUSTAL W multiple alignment program [15] and edited manually in BioEdit version 7.0.5.3 [16]. All positions containing gaps and missing data were excluded from the analysis. The Kimura two-parameter (K2P) model was employed to calculate genetic distances [17]. Using the distances, construction of neighbor-joining trees [18] and the bootstrap test with 1000 replications were performed with Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) version 6.0 [19]. Bayesian analysis was conducted with MrBayes 3.2 [20] by using two replicates of 1 million generations with the nucleotide evolutionary model. The best-fit model was chosen for each gene separately using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) in Mr Model test version 2.3 [21]. The general time-reversible (GTR) with gamma distribution shape parameter (G) was selected for ITS2, whereas the GTR + I + G was the best-fit model for COI and COII. Bayesian posterior probabilities were calculated from the consensus tree after excluding the first 25% trees as burn-in. Available sequences of the Hyrcanus Group were retrieved from GenBank using BLAST (http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi) for performing the phylogenetic analysis with our sequences (Table 1).

3 Results

3.1 Metaphase karyotypes

Cytological observations of F1 progenies of 29 isolines of A. crawfordi demonstrated distinct types of sex chromosomes due to the addition of extra heterochromatin. There were three types of X (metacentric X1, submetacentric X2, and large submetacentric X3) and four types of Y chromosomes (small telocentric Y1, large subtelocentric Y2, small subtelocentric Y3, and submetacentric Y4) (Fig. 2). These types of X and Y chromosomes comprised four forms of metaphase karyotypes on the basis of Y chromosome configurations, designated as forms A (X1, X2, X3, Y1), B (X1, X2, X3, Y2), C (X2,Y3), and D (X2, Y4). The number of isolines of these karyotypic forms occurring in different localities in six and two provinces of Thailand and Cambodia, respectively, are illustrated in Fig. 1 and Table 1. Forms C and D are new metaphase karyotypes discovered in the present study. Forms A and B appeared to be common in both Thailand and Cambodia, whereas forms C and D were confined to Trang Province, southern Thailand.

Fig. 2

Metaphase karyotypes of A. crawfordi: a: form A (X1, Y1: Chiang Mai); b: form A (X3, Y1: Chumphon); c: form A (X2, Y1: Trang); d: form B (X1, Y2: Nan); e: form B (X3, Y2: Trang); f: form B (X3, Y2: Songkhla); g: form B (X2, Y2: Ratanakiri); h: form C (X2, Y3: Trang); i: form D (X2, Y4: Trang); j: form B (homozygous X2, X2: Mondulkiri); diagrams of representative metaphase karyotypes of form C (k) and form D (l).

3.2 Cross-mating experiments

Details of hatchability, pupation, emergence and adult sex ratio of parental, reciprocal and F1-hybrid crosses among the 10 isolines of A. crawfordi representing forms A–D are shown in Table 2. All crosses yielded viable progeny through the F2 generations. No evidence of genetic incompatibility and/or post-mating reproductive isolation was observed among these crosses. The salivary gland polytene chromosomes of the fourth-instar larvae of F1-hybrids from all crosses showed synapsis without inversion loops along the whole length of all autosomes and the X chromosome (Fig. 3).

Table 2

Cross-mating experiments of 10 isolines of A. crawfordi.

Crosses
(female × male)		 Total eggs
(number)a		 Embryonation
rateb		 Hatched
n (%)		 Pupation
n (%)		 Emergence
n (%)		 Total emergence n (%)
Female Male
Parental cross
 Cm1A × Cm1A 309 (179, 130) 90 272 (88.03) 258 (94.85) 248 (96.12) 111 (44.76) 137 (55.24)
 Nn1B × Nn1B 251 (141, 110) 87 208 (82.87) 200 (96.15) 200 (100.00) 88 (44.00) 112 (56.00)
 Tg3A × Tg3A 395 (166, 229) 92 348 (88.10) 317 (91.09) 311 (98.11) 162 (52.09) 149 (47.91)
 Tg1B × Tg1B 413 (234, 179) 79 326 (78.93) 293 (89.88) 287 (97.95) 149 (51.92) 138 (48.08)
 Tg2C × Tg2C 314 (200, 114) 85 264 (84.08) 259 (98.11) 256 (98.84) 111 (43.36) 145 (56.64)
 Tg4D × Tg4D 228 (123, 105) 83 185 (81.14) 183 (98.92) 183 (100.00) 93 (50.82) 90 (49.18)
 Pg5A × Pg5A 326 (146, 180) 88 284 (87.12) 281 (98.94) 278 (98.93) 138 (49.64) 140 (50.36)
 Sk1B × Sk1B 269 (103, 166) 97 261 (97.03) 256 (98.08) 251 (98.05) 118 (47.01) 133 (52.99)
 Rt1A × Rt1A 254 (156, 98) 93 236 (92.91) 231 (97.88) 229 (99.13) 127 (55.46) 102 (44.54)
 Mr1B × Mr1B 269 (175, 94) 88 237 (88.10) 232 (97.89) 230 (99.14) 112 (48.70) 118 (51.30)
Reciprocal cross
 Cm1A × Nn1B 360 (217, 143) 80 284 (78.89) 281 (98.94) 281 (100.00) 132 (46.98) 149 (53.02)
 Nn1B × Cm1A 283 (105, 178) 93 252 (89.05) 252 (100.00) 252 (100.00) 111 (44.05) 141 (55.95)
 Cm1A × Tg3A 232 (146, 86) 94 204 (87.93) 200 (98.04) 196 (98.00) 114 (58.16) 82 (41.84)
 Tg3A × Cm1A 258 (129, 129) 92 235 (91.09) 230 (97.87) 228 (99.13) 108 (47.37) 120 (52.63)
 Cm1A × Tg1B 269 (151, 118) 90 221 (82.16) 217 (98.19) 213 (98.16) 96 (45.07) 117 (54.93)
 Tg1B × Cm1A 278 (113, 165) 93 256 (92.09) 246 (96.09) 239 (97.15) 126 (52.72) 113 (47.28)
 Cm1A × Tg2C 320 (134, 186) 95 282 (88.13) 282 (100.00) 282 (100.00) 149 (52.84) 133 (47.16)
 Tg2C × Cm1A 337 (179, 158) 96 313 (92.88) 285 (91.05) 242 (84.91) 117 (48.35) 125 (51.65)
 Cm1A × Tg4D 280 (120, 160) 90 252 (90.00) 232 (92.06) 230 (99.14) 112 (48.70) 118 (51.30)
 Tg4D × Cm1A 282 (113, 169) 88 240 (85.11) 200 (83.33) 196 (98.00) 102 (52.04) 94 (47.96)
 Cm1A × Pg5A 255 (138, 117) 95 242 (94.90) 242 (100.00) 230 (95.04) 97 (42.17) 133 (57.83)
 Pg5A × Cm1A 260 (160, 100) 96 247 (95.00) 232 (93.93) 216 (93.10) 111 (51.39) 105 (48.61)
 Cm1A × Sk1B 296 (170,126) 95 281 (94.93) 281 (100.00) 275 (97.86) 138 (50.18) 137 (49.82)
 Sk1B × Cm1A 333 (160, 173) 90 290 (87.09) 258 (88.97) 201 (77.91) 104 (51.74) 97 (48.26)
 Cm1A × Rt1A 263 (145, 118) 94 247 (93.92) 230 (93.12) 230 (100.00) 121 (52.61) 109 (47.39)
 Rt1A × Cm1A 277 (163, 114) 92 255 (92.06) 247 (96.86) 230 (93.12) 118 (51.30) 112 (48.70)
 Cm1A × Mr1B 287 (109, 178) 87 227 (79.09) 209 (92.07) 209 (100.00) 102 (48.80) 107 (51.20)
 Mr1B × Cm1A 308 (194, 114) 78 234 (75.97) 234 (100.00) 234 (100.00) 113 (48.29) 121 (51.71)
F 1 -hybrid cross
 (Cm1A × Nn1B)F1 × (Cm1A × Nn1B)F1 320 (136, 184) 86 243 (75.94) 221 (90.95) 221 (100.00) 104 (47.06) 117 (52.94)
 (Nn1B × Cm1A)F1x (Nn1B × Cm1A)F1 357 (168, 189) 91 300 (84.03) 267 (89.00) 267 (100.00) 134 (50.19) 133 (49.81)
 (Cm1A × Tg3A)F1 × (Cm1A × Tg3A)F1 296 (169, 127) 80 216 (72.97) 216 (100.00) 207 (95.83) 101 (48.79) 106 (51.21)
 (Tg3A xCm1A)F1 × (Tg3A × Cm1A)F1 325 (126, 199) 87 260 (80.00) 257 (98.85) 257 (100.00) 131 (50.97) 126 (49.03)
(Cm1A × Tg1B)F1 × (Cm1A × Tg1B)F1 235 (108, 127) 91 207 (88.09) 207 (100.00) 205 (99.03) 86 (41.95) 119 (58.05)
 (Tg1B × Cm1A)F1 × (Tg1B × Cm1A)F1 252 (145, 107) 84 171 (67.86) 169 (98.83) 166 (98.22) 86 (51.81) 80 (48.19)
 (Cm1A × Tg2C)F1 × (Cm1A × Tg2C)F1 318 (131, 187) 83 261 (82.08) 261 (100.00) 253 (96.93) 121 (47.83) 132 (52.17)
(Tg2C × Cm1A)F1 × (Tg2C × Cm1A)F1 354 (164, 190) 85 290 (81.92) 287 (98.97) 276 (96.17) 132 (47.83) 144 (52.17)
 (Cm1A × Tg4D)F1 × (Cm1A × Tg4D)F1 263 (188, 75) 80 200 (76.05) 182 (91.00) 180 (98.90) 86 (47.78) 94 (52.22)
 (Tg4D × Cm1A)F1 × (Tg4D × Cm1A)F1 250 (150, 100) 97 212 (84.80) 212 (100.00) 210 (99.06) 116 (55.24) 94 (44.76)
 (Cm1A × Pg5A)F1 × (Cm1A × Pg5A)F1 265 (126, 139) 91 230 (86.79) 230 (100.00) 225 (97.83) 106 (47.11) 119 (52.89)
 (Pg5A × Cm1A)F1 × (Pg5A × Cm1A)F1 250 (102, 148) 88 195 (78.00) 183 (93.85) 172 (93.99) 86 (50.00) 86 (50.00)
 (Cm1A × Sk1B)F1 × (Cm1A × Sk1B)F1 336 (136, 200) 85 269 (80.06) 269 (100.00) 269 (100.00) 110 (40.89) 159 (59.11)
 (Sk1B × Cm1A)F1 × (Sk1B × Cm1A)F1 320 (162, 158) 92 269 (84.06) 269 (100.00) 269 (100.00) 134 (49.81) 135 (50.19)
 (Cm1A × Rt1A)F1 × (Cm1A × Rt1A)F1 227 (148, 79) 84 154 (67.84) 140 (90.91) 137 (97.86) 66 (48.18) 71 (51.82)
 (Rt1A × Cm1A)F1 × (Rt1A × Cm1A)F1 235 (108, 127) 97 218 (92.77) 218 (100.00) 218 (100.00) 116 (53.21) 102 (46.79)
 (Cm1A × Mr1B)F1 × (Cm1A × Mr1B)F1 268 (159, 109) 79 204 (76.12) 204 (100.00) 204 (100.00) 102 (50.00) 102 (50.00)
 (Mr1B × Cm1A)F1 × (Mr1B × Cm1A)F1 245 (100, 145) 65 152 (62.04) 150 (98.68) 147 (98.00) 69 (46.94) 78 (53.06)

a Two selective egg-batches of inseminated females from each cross.

b Dissection from 100 eggs.

Fig. 3

Complete synapsis in all arms of salivary gland polytene chromosome of F1-hybrid larvae of A. crawfordi: a: Cm1A female × Sk1B male; b: Cm1A female × Tg2 C male; c: Cm1A female × Tg4D male; d: Cm1A female × Rt1A male; e: Cm1A female × Mr1B male.

3.3 DNA sequences and phylogenetic analysis

All sequences generated from the 29 isolines are available in the DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank nucleotide sequence database under accession numbers AB779131-AB779217 (Table 1). The length of the ITS2 region ranged from 446 to 449 bp in seven and 22 isolines from Cambodia and Thailand, respectively. A. crawfordi from both provinces of Cambodia differed from A. crawfordi in Thailand by a deletion of T, C, and T at positions 21, 280, and 292, respectively. However, they all showed the same length for COI (658 bp, excluding primers) and COII (685 bp) sequences. The evolutionary relationships among the four karyotypic forms were determined using neighbor-joining (NJ) and Bayesian analysis. Both phylogenetic methods showed similar tree topologies, thus, only the Bayesian tree is shown in Figs. 4–6. All 29 isolines were placed within the same cluster and well separated from other species of the Anopheles hyrcanus group (Anopheles belenrae, Anopheles kleini, Anopheles lesteri, Anopheles paraliae, Anopheles peditaeniatus, Anopheles pullus and Anopheles sinensis). The mean intra-specific sequence divergences within (0.000–0.018) and between (0.000–0.016) the four karyotypic forms are not significantly different for the DNA regions (Table 3). In addition, COI and COII sequences of A. crawfordi from Vietnam (Table 1) formed the clade with our sequences with high support (NJ = 82–100%, BPP = 100%, Figs. 5–6). The low mean genetic distance among specimens examined for COI (0.017) and COII (0.011) genes were good supportive evidence of a single species.

Fig. 4

Phylogenetic relationships of A. crawfordi from Thailand and Cambodia using Bayesian analysis based on ITS2 sequences compared with seven species of the Hyrcanus Group. Codes for the specimens are shown in Table 1. Numbers on branches are bootstrap values (%) of NJ analysis and Bayesian posterior probabilities (%). Only the values higher than 50% are shown. Bars represent 0.05 substitutions per site.

Fig. 5

Phylogenetic relationships of A. crawfordi from Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam using Bayesian analysis based on COI sequences compared with five species of the Hyrcanus Group. Codes for the specimens are shown in Table 1. Numbers on branches are bootstrap values (%) of NJ analysis and Bayesian posterior probabilities (%). Only the values higher than 50% are shown. Bars represent 0.005 substitutions per site.

Fig. 6

Phylogenetic relationships of A. crawfordi from Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam using Bayesian analysis based on COII sequences compared with five species of the Hyrcanus Group. Codes for the specimens are shown in Table 1. Numbers on branches are bootstrap values (%) of NJ analysis and Bayesian posterior probabilities (%). Only the values higher than 50% are shown. Bars represent 0.005 substitutions per site.

Table 3

Mean intra-specific divergence of ITS2, COI and COII sequences of A. crawfordi Forms A, B, C and D from Thailand and Cambodia obtained using the Kimura two-parameter (K2P) model.

ITS2 COI COII
Within form
 A 0.009 0.010 0.008
 B 0.014 0.018 0.012
 C 0.000 0.000 0.000
 D 0.000 0.000 0.000
Between forms
 A–B 0.014 0.016 0.011
 A–C 0.005 0.006 0.005
 A–D 0.005 0.006 0.005
 B–C 0.014 0.015 0.011
 B–D 0.014 0.015 0.011
 C–D 0.000 0.000 0.000

4 Discussion

Metaphase karyotypes of A. crawfordi from two different locations (eastern region, Chanthaburi Province; southern region, Phang Nga Province) in Thailand were investigated by Baimai et al. [7]. The results revealed karyotypic variation via a gradual increase of extra heterochromatin on the X (X1, X2) and Y (Y1, Y2) chromosomes, which gave rise to two karyotypic forms [forms A (X1, X2, Y1) and B (X1, X2, Y2)]. These metaphase karyotypes could be distinguished based on size, shape, amount, and distribution of constitutive heterochromatin on the sex chromosomes. Likewise, the four distinct karyotypic forms [forms A (X1, X2, X3, Y1), B (X1, X2, X3, Y2), C (X2, Y3), and D (X2, Y4)] of A. crawfordi detected among the 29 isolines from six and two locations in Thailand and Cambodia, respectively, were due to the addition of extra heterochromatin on the sex chromosomes. Obviously, the above information indicated the possibility of a cytological mechanism for the karyotypic evolution of the Oriental Anopheles by gradually adding extra heterochromatin onto the arms of sex chromosomes, which is in keeping with hypothesis of Baimai [22]. Additionally, such chromosome distinction is very useful for the cytotaxonomic study of closely related species, especially sibling species and/or subspecies of Anopheles, as exemplified in other groups of Oriental anophelines [8,11,23–32].

Regarding the distribution of the four karyotypic forms of A. crawfordi, forms A and B appear to be common in all locations of both Thailand and Cambodia, whereas forms C and D are confined to Trang Province, southern Thailand. Remarkably, form A (10 isolines) was detected only in Phang Nga Province, whereas all karyotypic forms were obtained from eight isolines in Trang Province, despite these two provinces being separated by approximately 190 km. This is the first substantial evidence that supports the richness of ecological diversity in Trang Province, which seems to be the main key for supporting specific microhabitats that favor the karyotypic evolution of A. crawfordi.

Cross-mating experiments using isoline colonies of anopheline mosquitoes, which relate to results of cytology and molecular analysis to determine post-mating barriers, have proven to be an efficient technique for identifying sibling species and/or subspecies within Anopheles [8,11,23–32]. Regarding this matter, cross-matings among the four allopatric karyotypic forms of A. crawfordi were performed intensively. The absence of post-mating reproductive isolation through F2 generations strongly suggests that the four cytological races are conspecific. Low intra-specific sequence divergence (mean genetic distance = 0.000–0.018) of ITS2, COI, and COII of the four forms provides good supportive evidence. The maximum intra-species K2P values based on COI barcoding sequences obtained from this study were similar to that reported for Anopheles pallidus (0.0184) [33]. Kumar et al. [33] denoted that the K2P values were > 0.02 between different species for Culicidae. Our findings are in agreement with the results of cross-matings among karyotypic forms of other anophelines previously reported by several investigators, i.e., Anopheles vagus [34], A. pullus (= Anopheles yatsushiroensis) [35], A. sinensis [36–39], Anopheles aconitus [25], Anopheles barbirostris A1 and A2 [11,29], Anopheles campestris-like [30], Anopheles peditaeniatus [31,32], and Anopheles paraliae [40].

Until now, numerous studies have used ribosomal and mitochondrial DNA markers for phylogenetic analysis to determine the relationships among sibling species and/or subspecies of Anopheles [11,27,29,30,41–48]. Recently, Ngo et al. [49] reported that Anopheles dangi is deemed to be a synonym of A. crawfordi based on low mean genetic distance (0.006) of COI, COII and Cyt-b genes of mtDNA and the D3 gene of rDNA derived from specimens collected in south-central Vietnam. However, there have been no reports of evolutionary relationships among different karyotypic forms of A. crawfordi. Thus, our report is the first on the phylogenetic relationships among four karyotypic forms of Thai and Cambodian A. crawfordi populations. The comparison of our COI and COII sequences with those reported from Ngo et al. [49] were also performed in this study. Both Bayesian trees revealed that they are the same species. This study provides important information on the distribution of this species across different geographic regions, and highlights that the four karyotypic forms represent a single species. In addition, this is the first multidisciplinary approach based on cytological markers and DNA sequences to investigate different populations of A. crawfordi.

Disclosure of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest concerning this article.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Thailand Research Fund (TRF Senior Research Scholar: RTA5480006) and the Diamond Research Grant of Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University to Wej Choochote and Atiporn Saeung. The authors would like to thank Dr. Wattana Navacharoen, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, for his interest in this research.

Bibliographie

[1] R.E. Harbach Anopheles classification, Mosquito taxonomic inventory, 2014 (http://mosquito-taxonomic-inventory.info/node/11358 [Accessed 10 July 2014])

[2] J.A. Reid Anopheline mosquitoes of Malaya and Borneo, Stud. Inst. Med. Res. Malaysia, Volume 31 (1968), pp. 1-520

[3] B.A. Harrison; J.E. Scanlon Medical entomology studies II. The subgenus Anopheles in Thailand (Diptera: Culicidae), Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst., Volume 12 (1975), pp. 1-307

[4] A. Saeung; C. Hempolchom; V. Baimai; S. Thongsahuan; K. Taai; N. Jariyapan; U. Chaithong; W. Choochote Susceptibility of eight species members of Anopheles hyrcanus group to nocturnally subperiodic Brugia malayi, Parasit. Vectors, Volume 6 (2013), p. 5

[5] J.A. Reid; T.A. Wilson Ganapathipillai, Studies on filariasis in Malaya: The mosquito vectors of periodic Brugia malayi in North-West Malaya, Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol., Volume 56 (1962), pp. 323-336

[6] R.H. Wharton; A.B.G. Laing; W.H. Cheong Studies on the distribution and transmission of malaria and filariasis among aborigines in Malaya, Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol., Volume 57 (1963), pp. 235-254

[7] V. Baimai; R. Rattanarithikul; U. Kijchalao Metaphase karyotypes of Anopheles of Thailand and Southeast Asia: I. The hyrcanus group, J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc., Volume 9 (1993), pp. 59-67

[8] S.K. Subbarao Anopheline species complexes in South-East Asia, WHO, Tech. Pub. Ser., Volume 18 (1998), pp. 1-82

[9] W. Choochote; A. Saeung Systematic techniques for the recognition of Anopheles species complexes (S. Manguin, ed.), Anopheles mosquitoes – New insights into malaria vectors, InTech, Rijeka, Croatia, 2013, pp. 57-79

[10] R. Rattanarithikul; B.A. Harrison; R.E. Harbach; P. Panthusiri; R.E. Coleman Illustrated keys to the mosquitoes of Thailand IV. Anopheles, Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health, Volume 37 (2006) no. suppl. 2, pp. 1-128

[11] A. Saeung; Y. Otsuka; V. Baimai; P. Somboon; B. Pitasawat; B. Tuetun; A. Junkum; H. Takaoka; W. Choochote Cytogenetic and molecular evidence for two species in the Anopheles barbirostris complex (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand, Parasitol. Res., Volume 101 (2007), pp. 1337-1344

[12] N.W. Beebe; A. Saul Discrimination of all members of the Anopheles punctulatus complex by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis, Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., Volume 53 (1995), pp. 478-481

[13] O. Folmer; M. Black; W. Hoeh; R. Lutz; R. Vrijenhoek DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates, Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol., Volume 3 (1994), pp. 294-299

[14] R.G. Sharpe; R.E. Harbach; R.K. Butlin Molecular variation and phylogeny of members of the Minimus group of Anopheles subgenus Cellia (Diptera: Culicidae), Syst. Entomol., Volume 25 (2000), pp. 263-272

[15] J.D. Thompson; D.G. Higgins; T.J. Gibson CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, positions-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice, Nucleic Acids Res, Volume 22 (1994), pp. 4673-4680

[16] T.A. Hall BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT, Nucl. Acids. Symp. Ser., Volume 41 (1999), pp. 95-98

[17] M. Kimura Simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitution through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences, J. Mol. Evol., Volume 16 (1980), pp. 111-120

[18] N. Saitou; M. Nei The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees, Mol. Biol. Evol., Volume 4 (1987), pp. 406-425

[19] K. Tamura; G. Stecher; D. Peterson; A. Filipski; S. Kumar MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 6.0, Mol. Biol. Evol., Volume 30 (2013), pp. 2725-2729

[20] F. Ronquist; M. Teslenko; P. van der Mark; D.L. Ayres; A. Darling; S. Höhna; B. Larget; L. Liu; M.A. Suchard; J.P. Huelsenbeck MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space, Syst. Biol., Volume 61 (2012), pp. 539-542

[21] J.A.A. Nylander MrModeltest v2. Program distributed by the author, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Sweden, 2004

[22] V. Baimai Heterochromatin accumulation and karyotypic evolution in some dipteran insects, Zool. Stud., Volume 37 (1998), pp. 75-88

[23] T. Kanda; K. Takai; G.L. Chiang; W.H. Cheong; S. Sucharit Hybridization and some biological facts of seven strains of the Anopheles leucosphyrus group (Reid, 1968), Jpn. J. Sanit. Zool., Volume 32 (1981), pp. 321-329

[24] V. Baimai; R.G. Andre; B.A. Harrison; U. Kijchalao; L. Panthusiri Crossing and chromosomal evidence for two additional sibling species within the taxon Anopheles dirus Peyton and Harrison (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand, Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash., Volume 89 (1987), pp. 157-166

[25] A. Junkum; N. Komalamisra; A. Jitpakdi; N. Jariyapan; G.S. Min; M.H. Park; K.H. Cho; P. Somboon; P.A. Bates; W. Choochote Evidence to support two conspecific cytological races on Anopheles aconitus in Thailand, J. Vector. Ecol., Volume 30 (2005), pp. 213-224

[26] P. Somboon; D. Thongwat; W. Choochote; C. Walton; M. Takagi Crossing experiments of Anopheles minimus species C and putative species E, J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc., Volume 21 (2005), pp. 5-9

[27] A. Saeung; V. Baimai; Y. Otsuka; R. Rattanarithikul; P. Somboon; A. Junkum; B. Tuetun; H. Takaoka; W. Choochote Molecular and cytogenetic evidence of three sibling species of the Anopheles barbirostris Form A (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand, Parasitol. Res., Volume 102 (2008), pp. 499-507

[28] D. Thongwat; K. Morgan; M.S. O′loughlin; C. Walton; W. Choochote; P. Somboon Crossing experiment supporting the specific status of Anopheles maculatus chromosomal form K, J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc., Volume 24 (2008), pp. 194-202

[29] S. Suwannamit; V. Baimai; Y. Otsuka; A. Saeung; S. Thongsahuan; B. Tuetun; C. Apiwathnasorn; N. Jariyapan; P. Somboon; H. Takaoka; W. Choochote Cytogenetic and molecular evidence for an additional new species within the taxon Anopheles barbirostris (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand, Parasitol. Res., Volume 104 (2009), pp. 905-918

[30] S. Thongsahuan; V. Baimai; Y. Otsuka; A. Saeung; B. Tuetun; N. Jariyapan; S. Suwannamit; P. Somboon; A. Jitpakdi; H. Takaoka; W. Choochote Karyotypic variation and geographic distribution of Anopheles campestris-like (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand, Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz., Volume 104 (2009), pp. 558-566

[31] W. Choochote Evidence to support karyotypic variation of the mosquito, Anopheles peditaeniatus in Thailand, J. Insect Sci., Volume 11 (2011), p. 10

[32] A. Saeung; V. Baimai; S. Thongsahuan; G.S. Min; M.H. Park; Y. Otsuka; W. Maleewong; V. Lulitanond; K. Taai; W. Choochote Geographic distribution and genetic compatibility among six karyotypic forms of Anopheles peditaeniatus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand, Trop. Biomed., Volume 29 (2012), pp. 613-625

[33] N.P. Kumar; A.R. Rajavel; R. Natarajan; P. Jambulingam DNA barcodes can distinguish species of Indian mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae), J Med Entomol., Volume 44 (2007), pp. 1-7

[34] W. Choochote; A. Jitpakdi; K.L. Sukontason; U. Chaithong; S. Wongkamchai; B. Pitasawat; N. Jariyapan; T. Suntaravitun; E. Rattanachanpichai; K. Sukontason; S. Leemingsawat; Y. Rongsriyam Intraspecific hybridization of two karyotypic forms of Anopheles vagus (Diptera: Culicidae) and the related egg surface topography, Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health, Volume 33 (2002) no. suppl. 3, pp. 29-35

[35] S.J. Park; W. Choochote; A. Jitpakdi; A. Junkum; S.J. Kim; N. Jariyapan Evidence for a conspecific relationship between two morphologically and cytologically different Forms of Korean Anopheles pullus mosquito, Mol. Cells, Volume 16 (2003), pp. 354-360

[36] W. Choochote; A. Jitpakdi; Y. Rongsriyam; N. Komalamisra; B. Pitasawat; K. Palakul Isoenzyme study and hybridization of two forms of Anopheles sinensis (Diptera: Culicidae) in Northern Thailand, Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health., Volume 29 (1998), pp. 841-847

[37] G.S. Min; W. Choochote; A. Jitpakdi; S.J. Kim; W. Kim; J. Jung; A. Junkum Intraspecific hybridization of Anopheles sinensis (Diptera: Culicidae) strains from Thailand and Korea, Mol. Cells, Volume 14 (2002), pp. 198-204

[38] M.H. Park; W. Choochote; A. Junkum; D. Joshi; B. Tuetan; A. Saeung; J.H. Jung; G.S. Min Reproductive isolation of Anopheles sinensis from Anopheles lesteri and Anopheles sineroides in Korea, Genes & Genomics, Volume 30 (2008), pp. 245-252

[39] M.H. Park; W. Choochote; S.J. Kim; P. Somboon; A. Saeung; B. Tuetan; Y. Tsuda; M. Takagi; D. Joshi; Y.J. Ma; G.S. Min Nonreproductive isolation among four allopatric strains of Anopheles sinensis in Asia, J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc., Volume 24 (2008), pp. 489-495

[40] K. Taai; V. Baimai; S. Thongsahuan; A. Saeung; Y. Otsuka; W. Srisuka; P. Sriwichai; P. Somboon; N. Jariyapan; W. Choochote Metaphase karyotypes of Anopheles paraliae (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand and evidence to support five cytological races, Trop. Biomed., Volume 30 (2013), pp. 238-249

[41] R.C. Wilkerson; P.G. Foster; C. Li; M.A. Sallum Molecular phylogeny of neotropical Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus) albitarsis species complex (Diptera: Culicidae), Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am., Volume 98 (2005), pp. 918-925

[42] I. Dusfour; J.R. Michaux; R.E. Harbach; S. Manguin Speciation and phylogeography of the Southeast Asian Anopheles sundaicus complex, Infect. Genet. Evol., Volume 7 (2007), pp. 484-493

[43] K. Morgan; S.M. O′Loughlin; F. Mun-Yik; Y.M. Linton; P. Somboon; S. Min; P.T. Htun; S. Nambanya; I. Weerasinghe; T. Sochantha; A. Prakash; C. Walton Molecular phylogenetics and biogeography of the Neocellia Series of Anopheles mosquitoes in the Oriental Region, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., Volume 52 (2009), pp. 588-601

[44] C. Paredes-Esquivel; M.J. Donnelly; R.E. Harbach; H. Townson A molecular phylogeny of mosquitoes in the Anopheles barbirostris Subgroup reveals cryptic species: implications for identification of disease vectors, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., Volume 50 (2009), pp. 141-151

[45] N. Nanda; O.P. Singh; V.K. Dua; A.C. Pandey; B.N. Nagpal; T. Adak; A.P. Dash; S.K. Subbarao Population cytogenetic and molecular evidence for existence of a new species in Anopheles fluviatilis complex (Diptera: Culicidae), Infect. Genet. Evol., Volume 13 (2013), pp. 218-223

[46] B. Chen; R.E. Harbach; R.K. Butlin Molecular and morphological studies on the Anopheles minimus group of mosquitoes in southern China: taxonomic review, distribution and malaria vector status, Med, Vet. Entomol., Volume 16 (2002), pp. 253-265

[47] B. Chen; R.K. Butlin; R.E. Harbach Molecular phylogenetics of the Oriental members of the Myzomyia Series of Anopheles subgenus Cellia (Diptera: Culicidae) inferred from nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences, Syst. Entomol., Volume 28 (2003), pp. 57-69

[48] C. Garros; R.E. Harbach; S. Manguin Morphological assessment and molecular phylogenetics of the Funestus and Minimus groups of Anopheles (Cellia), J. Med. Entomol., Volume 42 (2005), pp. 522-536

[49] C.T. Ngo; R.E. Harbach; C. Garros; D. Parzy; H.Q. Le; S. Manguin Taxonomic assessment of Anopheles crawfordi and An. dangi of the Hyrcanus Group of subgenus Anopheles in Vietnam, Acta. Trop., Volume 128 (2013), pp. 623-629

[50] K. Taai; V. Baimai; A. Saeung; S. Thongsahuan; G.S. Min; Y. Otsuka; M.H. Park; M. Fukuda; P. Somboon; W. Choochote Genetic compatibility between Anopheles lesteri from Korea and An. paraliae from Thailand, Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz, Volume 108 (2013), pp. 312-320

Commentaires - Politique

Ces articles pourraient vous intéresser

DNA barcoding for the identification of eight species members of the Thai Hyrcanus Group and investigation of their stenogamous behavior

Adulsak Wijit; Atiporn Saeung; Visut Baimai; ...

C. R. Biol (2013)

Cytogenetic data on the threatened leafcutter ant Atta robusta Borgmeier, 1939 (Formicidae: Myrmicinae: Attini)

Luísa Antônia Campos Barros; Hilton Jeferson Alves Cardoso de Aguiar; Gisele Amaro Teixeira; ...

C. R. Biol (2015)