Cicero Ellis posted an update 6 months, 4 weeks ago
batatas haplotypes are distributed on two distinct branches in the tree (Figure 3a and S2).as well as the genetic distinction in between Southern and Northern genepools isn’t clearly identifiable with this representation. For the DAPC clustering analysis (Figure four), the suitable quantity of clusters was five. This grouping also rather nicely reflects species boundaries: I. trifida accessions are represented by Title Loaded From File cluster K4 and I. triloba accessions by cluster K5. I. batatas accessions have been associated to three distinctive clusters, K1, K2 and K3. Some Ipomoea sp. were attributed to I. trifida cluster (K4) and others to the I. batatas cluster (K1 and K3; Figure four). Most of the I. batatas accessions from the Southern region (48/56) had been grouped in cluster K1 (with 1 Ipomoea sp. from Ecuador as well as some I. batatas from the Northern area (5/83)). I. batatas accessions in the Northern area were subdivided in two clusters, cluster K2 including a sizable a part of these Northern accessions (50/83) and cluster K3 like some accessions from the Northern region (19/83) and some Ipomoea sp. (23/42). With all the model-based clustering analysis (STRUCTURE, Figure S3), the optimal quantity of clusters to describe the information was unclear. Consequently, clustering results were significantly less informative (taxon boundaries were not clearly identifiable and a lot of folks had a mixed genetic constitution; Figure S2). The top Bayesian grouping to become compared with DAPC outcomes was obtained for K = 6, a clustering answer which distinguished cultivated I. batatas accessions from wild relatives, as well as separated varieties from the Northern and Southern region (Figure S3).Congruence among cpDNA haplotype groups and nuclear SSR genetic structureBoth types of markers identified diploid I. trifida and I. triloba as two distinct and uniform genetic groups (Figure five and Table 2). Regarding I. batatas, we did not sequence all the 139 varieties for the rpl32-trnL(UAG) marker. As a result, we employed cpDNA lineage details from Roullier et al.  to finish our dataset. As described in Roullier et al. , i) nuclear markers reflect a stronger phylogeographic signal than chloroplast markers but ii) phylogeographic patterns revealed by both sets of information have been globally congruent. Certainly, Southern varieties had been mainly related to chloroplast lineage 1 and nuclear cluster 1 (39/54 in total). In the Northern area, both signals were also congruent considering that 43/84 sweet potato accessions were connected to nuclear clusters K2 and K3 and chloroplast lineage 2. Nonetheless, 23 Northern varieties have been related to nuclear clusters K2 and K3, however carried a chloroplast lineage1 haplotype. Ipomoea sp. specimens that grouped with all the I. trifida cluster K2 harbored the Northern chloroplast haplotype (or the unclassified uncommon haplotype 1) and have been all located within the Southern region (Ecuador and South Colombia). These in the Northern region carried the Northern chloroplast haplotype and had been grouped with nuclear cluster K3 (Figure five and Table 2).Interspecific relationships as inferred from SSR markersSSRs may very well be amplified for all loci and all species, leading to a total of 137 alleles. The amount of alleles NA, rarefied allelic richness Ar, and expected heterozygosity He, were similar in I. trifida, I. batatas and Ipomoea sp.