http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3215-814X
Figures
Abstract
The hoverfly, Eupeodes corollae, is a worldwide natural enemy of aphids and a plant pollinator. To provide insights into the biology of this species, we examined its population genetic structure by obtaining 1.15-GB random genomic sequences using next-generation sequencing and developing genome-wide microsatellite markers. A total of 79,138 microsatellite loci were initially isolated from the genomic sequences; after strict selection and further testing of 40 primer pairs in eight individuals, 24 polymorphic microsatellites with high amplification rates were developed. These microsatellites were used to examine the population genetic structure of 96 individuals from four field populations collected across southern to northern China. The number of alleles per locus ranged from 5 to 13 with an average of 8.75; the observed and expected heterozygosity varied from 0.235 to 0.768 and from 0.333 to 0.785, respectively. Population genetic structure analysis showed weak genetic differentiation among the four geographical populations of E. corollae, suggesting a high rate of gene flow reflecting likely widespread migration of E. corollae in China.
Citation: Liu M, Wang X, Ma L, Cao L, Liu H, Pu D, et al. (2019) Genome-wide developed microsatellites reveal a weak population differentiation in the hoverfly Eupeodes corollae (Diptera: Syrphidae) across China. PLoS ONE 14(9): e0215888. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215888
Editor: Maohua Chen, Northwest A&F University, CHINA
Received: April 9, 2019; Accepted: August 22, 2019; Published: September 26, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: Financial support was provided by the Applied Foundation of Science & Technology Department of Sichuan Province (2018YYJC0468), the Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality (6184037), the Beijing Key Laboratory of Environmentally Friendly Pest Management on Northern Fruits (BZ0432) and BAAFS-MOU Pest Control Research Joint Laboratory. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Eupeodes corollae is one of the most common hoverflies with a worldwide distribution [1, 2]. The larval stage of this species is mostly insectivorous, feeding mainly on aphids [3–5] while adults are pollinators [6–8]. Many hoverfly species are important biological control agents of aphids due to their rapid dispersal and absence of summer diapause compared with other aphidophaga [9]. Understanding the biology and behavior of hoverflies can help in assessing their potential as biological control agents of aphids.
Hoverflies migrate seasonally as revealed by radar monitoring [10] and isotopic tools [11]. Population genetic analysis is also frequently employed to reveal the migration of species as a complementary approach to traditional methods [12–15]. In populations of the hoverflies Cheilosia longula [16], Blera fallax [17], Sphaerophoria scripta and Episyrphus balteatus [18], population genetic differentiation has not been found between some regions, suggesting migratory movements of these hoverflies between regions including southern and northern regions of Europe [18, 19]. However, some hoverflies, such as E. balteatus and Scaeva selenitica, are only partially migratory [20].
Previous studies reported that E. corollae is a highly migratory species in Europe [21–23], but its migratory behavior of E. corollae remains unclear in other areas. Eupeodes corollae is commonly found across China, but the ecology and biology of this species has rarely been studied [8]. In this study, we conducted a preliminary examination of the population genetic structure of E. corollae in China. First, we obtained random genomic sequences of E. corollae using next-generation sequencing and developed an effective and informative set of microsatellite markers of E. corollae. We used this novel set of microsatellite markers to investigate the genetic structure of four E. corollae populations collected from four representative regions across China.
Materials and methods
Sample collection and DNA extraction
A male adult from a laboratory (Sichuan Academy of Agriculture Sciences)-reared line of E. corollae was used for generating genome sequences. Four field populations of E. corollae were collected from China in March to July 2017 (Table 1, Fig 1A). To avoid the sampling of siblings, adults in a site were collected using insect net with individuals sampled separated by about 20 meters. A total of eight individuals from field collections were used for initial testing of selected primers. Twenty-four individuals from each of the four populations were then used for a population level survey. All samples were stored in absolute ethanol, frozen at −80°C and stored at the Integrated Pest Management Laboratory of the Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences. The thorax from each individual E. corollae was used for genomic DNA extraction using DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany).
Collection sites of Eupeodes corollae (a) and population genetic structure analysis of four geographical populations using BAPS (a) and STRUCTURE (b). The map was drawn in R function map_data. BAPS analysis showed that all population are clustered into one cluster (blue color in figure a). STRUCTURE analysis showed that the optimal delta K was three and all populations were composed of the three clusters. Codes for the population are shown in Table 1.
Genome sequencing and assembly
The extracted genomic DNA from a laboratory-reared individual was used in constructing a high-throughput sequencing library with 500-bp insert size using the Illumina TruSeq DNA PCR-Free HT Library Prep Kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). The prepared library was sequenced on an Illumina Hiseq4000 Sequencer using the Hiseq Reagent Kit v3 (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) by Beijing BerryGenomics Co., Ltd. The paired-end 150 bp raw data were trimmed by removing the low quality reads using Trimmomatic 0.36 [24] and then the sequences were evaluated by FastQC v 0.11.5 [25]. The genome size of P. solenopsis was estimated by JELLYFISH v2.2.6 software with a K-mer method [26]. IDBA was used to assemble the generated genomic sequences with K-mer from 20 to 140 [27].
Genome-wide microsatellite survey and primer design
Microsatellite markers were developed from genome sequences as in previous publications [28–30]. MSDB was used to search all potential microsatellite loci (repeat units of 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 corresponding to the minimum number of repeats of 7, 5, 4, 4, and 4, respectively) from the assembled genomic sequences of E. corollae [31]. QDD was used to isolate microsatellites and design primers [32]. The outputs of primer pairs from QDD were further filtered by the following criteria [33, 34]: (i) the corresponding microsatellites were pure and specific; (ii) the design strategy of ‘A’ was used to avoid primer secondary structure and repeats; (iii) the minimum distance between the 3′ end of a primer and its target region should be longer than 10 bp; (iv) the annealing temperature for each primer pairs was set between 58°C and 62°C to avoid large differences among primers; (v) the estimated PCR product size of the primer pairs was from 100 to 350 bp.
Polymorphic microsatellite isolation
After screening primers from the QDD program, a universal primer (CAGGACCAGGCTACCGTG) was added to the 5′ end of each selected forward primer to allow efficient combining with the fluorescent label [35]. Amplifications were performed using the GoTaq Green Master Mix (Promega, USA) in a final volume of 10 μl system with 0.5 μl of template DNA (5–20 ng/μl), 5 μl of Master Mix (Promega, Madison, WI, USA), 3.94 μl of ddH2O, 0.08 μl forward primer, 0.16 μl reverse primer and 0.32 μl universal primer labeled with fluorescence (FAM, HEX, and ROX sequencing dyes). The PCR protocol was set as: 5 min for 95°C, 35 cycles of amplification with 95°C for 30s, 56°C for 40s, and 72°C for 40s. Final extension was with 72°C for 15 min. PCR products were analyzed on an ABI 3730xl DNA Analyzer (Applied Biosystems, USA) using the GeneScan 500 LIZ size standard (Applied Biosystems, USA). Genotyping was conducted by GENEMAPPER 4.0 (Applied Biosystems, USA). Those primer pairs with amplification efficiency lower than 75%, showing monomorphism in eight individuals, or producing more than two peaks (non-specific amplification) were discarded.
Genetic diversity and population genetic structure analyses
GENEPOP version 4.0.11 [36] was used to test the likelihood of deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) and the linkage disequilibrium (LD) at each microsatellite locus, the inbreeding coefficient (FIS) and pairwise population differentiation (FST). Allele frequencies, expected heterozygosity (HE) and observed heterozygosity (HO) were calculated with the macros Microsatellite Tools [37].
Population genetic structure was analyzed by STRUCTURE version 2.3.4 [38]. The clustering test was replicated 30 times for each K value ranging from 1 to 5 with a burn-in of 100,000 iterations followed by 200,000 Markov Chain Monte Carlo iterations. The Delta (K) method was used to estimate optimal K values by submitting the STRUCTURE output to Structure Harvester Web 0.6.94 [39]. Visualization of the results was handled by CLUMPP version 1.1.2 [40] and DISTRUCT version 1.1 [41]. Additional, BAPS version 6.0 software (Bayesian analysis of population structure) was used to incorporate spatial information into clustering of individuals.
Results and discussion
Genomic sequences of E. corollae
The genomic size of E. corollae was estimated to be 12,315 Mb. A total of 51.53 Gb paired-end (PE) sequences (184,394,506 reads each with a length of 150 bp) was obtained. Trimmed reads were assembled into 2,563,327 scaffolds with a total length of 1.15 Gb ranging from 100 bp to 437.63 KB, with an N50 of 1510 bp. These contigs were used for microsatellite discovery.
Microsatellite characteristics of E. corollae
In total 79,138 microsatellite loci were isolated from the randomly sequenced genome sequences of E. corollae with 5000 (6.32%) dinucleotide repeat (DNR) sites, 29221 (36.92%) trinucleotide repeat (TNR) sites, 30988 (39.16%) tetranucleotide repeat (TTNR) sites, 6635 (8.38%) pentanucleotide repeats (PNR) sites and 7294 (9.22%) hexanucleotide repeat (HNR) sites. The frequency of dinucleotide repeats in E. corollae is unusually low when compared with other insect species such as Grapholita molesta [34] (Lepidoptera), Aphis glycines (Hemiptera) [42] and Obolodiplosis robiniae (Diptera) [43], which shows the distribution of microsatellites to vary among species [44, 45].
Development of variable microsatellite markers
The QDD program initially generated 18114 primer pairs (S1 Table); we selected those corresponding to tri- and tetra-nucleotide microsatellites for further filtering under criteria listed in the methods and obtained 40 primer pairs (S2 Table). These primer pairs were validated in eight individuals of E. corollae; six pairs with no polymorphism (S12, S15, S30, S32, S34, S40) and ten pairs (S30, S35, S32, S04, S10, S19, S20, S27, S37, S38) with low amplification efficiency (< 75%) were discarded. The remained 24 primer pairs that generated polymorphic genotypes were used for population-level examination.
Development of an appropriate set of markers is often the first step in population genetic and evolutionary studies. The recent development of genomic sequencing technology has made it relatively easy to isolate powerful microsatellites from large numbers of candidates at a genome-wide scale [46]. This method has been used in population structure analyses in many species, such as Grapholita molesta [34], Frankliniella occidentalis [47] and Carposina sasakii [33]. In our study, the 24 microsatellites developed are highly efficient in terms of amplification and polymorphism, enabling us to assess the population genetic structure of E. corollae (Table 2).
Population genetic diversity
A total of 96 individuals with 24 individuals from each of the four populations was used for the genetic diversity study. The number of alleles per locus for all individuals ranged from five to 13 with an average of 8.75, which showed the level of polymorphism of the selected loci. The observed (HO) and expected (HE) heterozygosity values ranged from 0.235 to 0.768 and from 0.333 to 0.785, respectively. Four loci (S01, S07, S24, S39) showed a significant gap between observed and expected values, while the inbreeding coefficient (FIS = (HE-HO)/HE) calculated by GENEPOP for these loci was relatively high (Table 3).
FIS, inbreeding coefficient; He, expected heterozygosity; Ho, observed heterozygosity; HWE, average P-value of Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium.
Significant deviations from HWE after sequential Bonferroni correction [48] (P < 0.05) were detected in 9 of 24 loci (S01, S02, S07, S11, S14, S24, S25, S33&S39), and three of the 24 loci (S07, S24 & S39) deviated in all populations. None of the loci were in linkage disequilibrium (LD) in the four populations.
Population genetic structure
Pairwise FST analysis showed no significant differentiation between each pair of populations with FST values ranging from -0.007 to 0.001 (Table 4). BAPS analysis showed all populations clustered into one group (Fig 1A) while STRUCTURE analysis showed an optimal value of K = 3. All populations were evenly spread across the three clusters, indicating a lack of genetic differentiation among populations (Fig 1B). This pattern of genetic structure is congruent with an estimated pairwise FST values among populations. Pairs of nearby populations had relatively small FST value while pairs of populations with large geographical distance had relatively larger FST values (Table 4).
A lack of population differentiation is common in hoverflies. For example, a previous study on the hoverfly Cheilosia naruska from Finland showed that the species lacks differentiation at both the genetic and phenotypic levels [49]. Another study of two hoverfly species (Episyrphus balteatus and Sphaerophoria scripta) in Europe using 12 species-specific microsatellite markers also revealed a lack of genetic differentiation within species [18]. High levels of genetic diversity associated with a lack of structuring at a large spatial scale may indicate a high tolerance to environmental variability and a high migration rate [50]. Our study indicated that E. corollae in China may be highly mobile. The geographically related pattern of population structure may indicate that migration is restricted by geographical barriers. Our study provides preliminary insight into the biology and ecology of E. corollae. Further denser sampling is required to assess the population genetic structure of this species as well as other approaches to investigate its migration pattern.
Microsatellite markers are popular and powerful DNA markers because they are cost-effective and with a high diversity [45]. With the development of next-generation sequencing, genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are becoming more powerful to screen genome-wide polymorphisms in a rapid and cost-effective manner [51]. Incorporating high-density SNPs in population genetic analysis may provide information on biology and ecology, such migration routes, of E. corollae, and help to understand adaptive evolution in this species [52].
Conclusions
We developed 24 microsatellite markers in E. corollae at a genome-wide scale which provides genetic markers for population genetic analyses of this species. Our preliminary examination of four geographical populations of E. corollae across China suggested weak but geographically lined population differentiation. The results provide insight into migration of E. corollae in China.
Supporting information
S1 Table. All primers pairs design in the study.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215888.s001
(XLSX)
S2 Table. Forty primer pairs used for initial evaluation.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215888.s002
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
We thank Prof. Ary Hoffmann from The University of Melbourne for his revisions and suggestions on the manuscript, Xu-Bo Wang and Hua-Yan Chen for their help on the collection of specimens, Yan-Jie Lv for her help on the molecular works.
References
- 1.
Van Veen MP, Moore SJ. Hoverflies of Northwest Europe: identification keys to the Syrphidae: KNNV Publishing Utrecht; 2004.
- 2. Rojo S, Isidro P, Perez-Bañón M, Marcos-García M. Revision of the hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) from the Azores archipelago with notes on Macaronesian Syrphid fauna. ARQUIPÉLAGO Ciências Biológicas e Marinhas = Life and Marine Sciences. 1997;15:65–82.
- 3. Rojo S, Hopper KR, Marcos‐García MA. Fitness of the hover flies Episyrphus balteatus and Eupeodes corollae faced with limited larval prey. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 1996;81(1):53–9.
- 4. Mengual X, Ståhls G, Rojo S. Molecular phylogeny of Allograpta (Diptera, Syrphidae) reveals diversity of lineages and non-monophyly of phytophagous taxa. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution. 2008;49(3):715–27. pmid:18848633
- 5. Scott S, Barlow C. Effect of hunger on the allocation of time among pea plants by the larvae of an aphidophagous hover fly, Eupeodes corollae [Dipt: Syrphidae]. Entomophaga. 1990;35(2):163–72.
- 6. Barbir J, Dorado J, Fernández-Quintanilla C, Blanusa T, Maksimovic C, Badenes-Pérez FR. Wild rocket–effect of water deficit on growth, flowering, and attractiveness to pollinators. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B—Soil & Plant Science. 2014;64(6):482–92.
- 7. Jauker F, Wolters V. Hover flies are efficient pollinators of oilseed rape. Oecologia. 2008;156(4):819–23. pmid:18438687.
- 8. Dq Pu, Shi M, Wu Q, Gao Mq, Liu JF, Ren Sp, et al. Flower‐visiting insects and their potential impact on transgene flow in rice. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2014;51(5):1357–65.
- 9. Putra NS, Yasuda H. Effects of prey species and its density on larval performance of two species of hoverfly larvae, Episyrphus balteatus de Geer and Eupeodes corollae Fabricius (Diptera: Syrphidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology. 2006;41(3):389–97.
- 10. Hu G, Lim KS, Horvitz N, Clark SJ, Reynolds DR, Sapir N, et al. Mass seasonal bioflows of high-flying insect migrants. Science. 2016;354(6319):1584–7. pmid:28008067
- 11. Raymond L, Vialatte A, Plantegenest M. Combination of morphometric and isotopic tools for studying spring migration dynamics in Episyrphus balteatus. Ecosphere. 2014;5(7):1–16.
- 12. Wei SJ, Shi BC, Gong YJ, Jin GH, Chen XX, Meng XF. Genetic structure and demographic history reveal migration of the diamondback moth Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) from the southern to northern regions of China. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e59654. pmid:23565158; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3614937.
- 13. Liedvogel M, Akesson S, Bensch S. The genetics of migration on the move. Trends Ecol Evol. 2011;26(11):561–9. pmid:21862171.
- 14. Zhan S, Merlin C, Boore JL, Reppert SM. The monarch butterfly genome yields insights into long-distance migration. Cell. 2011;147(5):1171–85. pmid:22118469; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3225893.
- 15. Zhan S, Zhang W, Niitepold K, Hsu J, Haeger JF, Zalucki MP, et al. The genetics of monarch butterfly migration and warning coloration. Nature. 2014;514(7522):317. pmid:25274300
- 16. Milankov V, Francuski L, Ludoski J, Ståhls G, Vujic A. Genetic structure and phenotypic diversity of two northern populations of Cheilosia aff. longula (Diptera: Syrphidae) has implications for evolution and conservation. European Journal of Entomology. 2010;107(3):305.
- 17. Rotheray E, Lepais O, Nater A, Krützen M, Greminger M, Goulson D, et al. Genetic variation and population decline of an endangered hoverfly Blera fallax (Diptera: Syrphidae). Conservation genetics. 2012;13(5):1283–91.
- 18. Raymond L, Plantegenest M, Vialatte A. Migration and dispersal may drive to high genetic variation and significant genetic mixing: the case of two agriculturally important, continental hoverflies (E pisyrphus balteatus and S phaerophoria scripta). Molecular ecology. 2013;22(21):5329–39. pmid:24138027
- 19. Raymond L, Plantegenest M, Gauffre B, Sarthou JP, Vialatte A. Lack of genetic differentiation between contrasted overwintering strategies of a major pest predator Episyrphus balteatus (Diptera: Syrphidae): implications for biocontrol. PloS one. 2013;8(9):e72997. pmid:24023799; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3759392.
- 20. Odermatt J, Frommen JG, Menz MH. Consistent behavioural differences between migratory and resident hoverflies. Animal Behaviour. 2017;127:187–95.
- 21. Stubbs AE, Falk SJ. British hoverflies: An illustrated identification guide: British Entomological and Natural History Society; 2002.
- 22. Svensson BG, Janzon LÅ. Why does the hoverfly Metasyrphus corollae migrate? Ecological entomology. 1984;9(3):329–35.
- 23. Speight MC. A mass migration of Episyrphus balteatus and Eupeodes corollae arriving in the south-west and remarks on other migrant hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) in Ireland. Irish Naturalists' Journal. 1996;25(5):182–3.
- 24. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(15):2114–20. pmid:24695404
- 25. Andrews S. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. 2010.
- 26. Marçais G, Kingsford C. A fast, lock-free approach for efficient parallel counting of occurrences of k-mers. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(6):764. pmid:21217122
- 27.
Peng Y, Leung HCM, Yiu SM, Chin FYL, editors. IDBA–A practical iterative de bruijn graph De Novo assembler2010; Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
- 28. Castoe TA, Poole AW, Gu W, Jason de Koning A, Daza JM, Smith EN, et al. Rapid identification of thousands of copperhead snake (Agkistrodon contortrix) microsatellite loci from modest amounts of 454 shotgun genome sequence. Molecular Ecology Resources. 2010;10(2):341–7. pmid:21565030
- 29. Gardner MG, Fitch AJ, Bertozzi T, Lowe AJ. Rise of the machines–recommendations for ecologists when using next generation sequencing for microsatellite development. Molecular Ecology Resources. 2011;11(6):1093–101. pmid:21679314
- 30. Abdelkrim J, Robertson BC, Stanton J-AL, Gemmell NJ. Fast, cost-effective development of species-specific microsatellite markers by genomic sequencing. BioTechniques. 2009;46(3):185–92. pmid:19317661
- 31. Du L, Li Y, Zhang X, Yue B. MSDB: A user-friendly program for reporting distribution and building databases of microsatellites from genome sequences. Journal of Heredity. 2013;104(1):154–7. pmid:23144492
- 32. Meglécz E, Costedoat C, Dubut V, Gilles A, Malausa T, Pech N, et al. QDD: a user-friendly program to select microsatellite markers and design primers from large sequencing projects. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(3):403–4. pmid:20007741
- 33. Wang YZ, Cao LJ, Zhu JY, Wei SJ. Development and characterization of novel microsatellite markers for the peach fruit moth Carposina sasakii (Lepidoptera: Carposinidae) using next-generation sequencing. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2016;17(3):362. pmid:26999103
- 34. Song W, Cao LJ, Wang YZ, Li BY, Wei SJ. Novel microsatellite markers for the oriental fruit moth Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and effects of null alleles on population genetics analyses. Bulletin of entomological research. 2017;107(3):349–58. Epub 2016/11/08. pmid:27819214.
- 35. Blacket MJ, Robin C, Good RT, Lee SF, Miller AD. Universal primers for fluorescent labelling of PCR fragments—an efficient and cost‐effective approach to genotyping by fluorescence. Molecular ecology resources. 2012;12(3):456–63. pmid:22268566
- 36. Raymond M. GENEPOP: population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenism. Vers. 1.2. J Hered. 1995;86:248–9.
- 37. Cao LJ, Wang ZH, Gong YJ, Zhu L, Hoffmann AA, Wei SJ. Low genetic diversity but strong population structure reflects multiple introductions of western flower thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) into China followed by human‐mediated spread. Evolutionary applications. 2017;10(4):391–401. pmid:28352298
- 38. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P. Inference of Population Structure Using Multilocus Genotype Data. Genetics. 2000;155(2):945–59. pmid:10835412
- 39. Earl DA, vonHoldt BM. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conservation Genetics Resources. 2012;4(2):359–61.
- 40. Jakobsson M, Rosenberg NA. CLUMPP: a cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics. 2007;23(14):1801–6. pmid:17485429
- 41. Rosenberg NA. DISTRUCT: a program for the graphical display of population structure. Molecular Ecology Notes. 2004;4(1):137–8.
- 42. Bai X, Zhang W, Orantes L, Jun T-H, Mittapalli O, Mian MAR, et al. Combining next-generation sequencing strategies for rapid molecular resource development from an invasive aphid species, Aphis glycines. PloS one. 2010;5(6):e11370. pmid:20614011
- 43. Yao Y, Zhao W, Shang X. Development of polymorphic microsatellite markers of Obolodiplosis robiniae (Haldeman) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), a North American pest invading asia. Journal of insect science. 2015;15(1):127-. pmid:26386040
- 44. Ellegren H. Microsatellites: simple sequences with complex evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2004;5:435. pmid:15153996
- 45. Selkoe KA, Toonen RJ. Microsatellites for ecologists: a practical guide to using and evaluating microsatellite markers. Ecology letters. 2006;9(5):615–29. pmid:16643306
- 46. Queirós J, Godinho R, Lopes S, Gortazar C, De la Fuente J, Alves P. Effect of microsatellite selection on individual and population genetic inferences: an empirical study using cross‐specific and species‐specific amplifications. Molecular ecology resources. 2015;15(4):747–60. pmid:25403329
- 47. Cao LJ, Li ZM, Wang ZH, Zhu L, Gong YJ, Chen M, et al. Bulk development and stringent selection of microsatellite markers in the western flower thrips Frankliniella occidentalis. Scientific Reports. 2016;6:26512. pmid:27197749
- 48. Rice WR. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution; international journal of organic evolution. 1989;43(1):223–5. pmid:28568501
- 49. Milankov V, Francuski L, Ludoški J, Ståhls G, Vujić A. Estimating genetic and phenotypic diversity in a northern hoverfly reveals lack of heterozygosity correlated with significant fluctuating asymmetry of wing traits. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2010;14(1):77–88.
- 50. Verhoeven KJ, Macel M, Wolfe LM, Biere A. Population admixture, biological invasions and the balance between local adaptation and inbreeding depression. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 2011;278(1702):2–8.
- 51. Behura SK. Molecular marker systems in insects: current trends and future avenues. Molecular ecology. 2006;15(11):3087–113. pmid:16968257
- 52. Ball AD, Stapley J, Dawson DA, Birkhead TR, Burke T, Slate J. A comparison of SNPs and microsatellites as linkage mapping markers: lessons from the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). BMC genomics. 2010;11(1):218.