title: A comparison of above-ground and below-ground populations of Culex pipiens pipiens in Chicago, Illinois, and New York City, New York, using 2 microsatellite assays.
abstract: Aboveground and belowground populations of the mosquito Culex pipiens pipiens are traditionally classified as form (f.) pipiens and f. molestus, respectively, and gene flow between forms is thought to be limited. Relatively few f. molestus populations have been found in the United States, which has hindered their study in North America. In this investigation, we used microsatellites to characterize a recently discovered population of f. molestus in Chicago, IL, and compared levels of genetic diversity and differentiation in above-ground and below-ground populations from Chicago and New York City, NY. Levels of genetic diversity were markedly lower in both f. molestus populations. Pairwise F(ST) values between populations indicated that f. molestus populations were highly divergent from each other, as well as from their associated aboveground populations. The most likely number of genetic clusters depended on the number of loci used; we began with a set of 8, and reanalyzed the specimens with 17. Using a panel of 17 loci, there were 4 clusters, 1 for each below-ground population, and 1 for each pair of above-ground populations. Our findings are supportive of the hypothesis that f. molestus populations in Chicago and New York City arose from local aboveground populations.
authors: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Arbovirus Disease Branch, 3150 Rampart Road, Building 401, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA.
authors: Linda
authors: L
authors: Kothera
authors: Marvin
authors: M
authors: Godsey
authors: John-Paul
authors: JP
authors: Mutebi
authors: Harry M
authors: HM
authors: Savage
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D002641:Chicago; D003465:Culex / Q000235:genetics*; D014644:Genetic Variation; D005838:Genotype; D018895:Microsatellite Repeats; D009519:New York City; D010802:Phylogeny; D016133:Polymerase Chain Reaction
references: Mol Ecol Resour. 2012 Mar;12(2):374-6
references: 22296658
references: Am J Hyg. 1964 Sep;80:175-83
references: 14215828
references: Annu Rev Entomol. 2008;53:61-81
references: 17645411
references: Pest Manag Sci. 2004 Apr;60(4):359-68
references: 15119598
references: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008 Oct;79(4):518-27
references: 18840738
references: Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2007 Fall;7(3):365-86
references: 17767413
references: Am J Hyg. 1957 May;65(3):404-25
references: 13424524
references: Genetics. 2003 Aug;164(4):1567-87
references: 12930761
references: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007 Oct;77(4):667-71
references: 17978068
references: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1955 Nov;4(6):1015-27
references: 13268808
references: J Med Entomol. 2009 Mar;46(2):236-48
references: 19351074
references: Genet Res. 1995 Oct;66(2):147-57
references: 8522156
references: J Med Entomol. 2007 Jan;44(1):50-9
references: 17294920
references: J Med Entomol. 1971 Dec 15;8(5):555-61
references: 5160262
references: J Med Entomol. 2010 Sep;47(5):805-13
references: 20939375
references: Evolution. 1975 Mar;29(1):1-10
references: 28563291
references: J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2009 Dec;25(4):500-3
references: 20099597
references: Evol Bioinform Online. 2007 Feb 23;1:47-50
references: 19325852
references: Mosq News. 1946 Jun;6(2):71
references: 20283804
references: J Med Entomol. 1973 Jul 31;10(4):319-24
references: 4744029
references: Genetics. 2000 Jun;155(2):945-59
references: 10835412
references: J Med Entomol. 2006 Mar;43(2):296-300
references: 16619614