Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Insect Science logoLink to Journal of Insect Science
. 2014 Jan 1;14:287. doi: 10.1093/jisesa/ieu149

Evidence to Support a Conspecific Nature of Allopatric Cytological Races of Anopheles nitidus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand

Siripan Songsawatkiat 1, Visut Baimai 2, Sorawat Thongsahuan 3, Yasushi Otsuka 4, Kritsana Taai 1, Chayanit Hempolchom 1, Wichai Srisuka 5, Petchaboon Poolphol 6, Wej Choochote 1, Atiporn Saeung 1,7
PMCID: PMC5657971  PMID: 25527592

Abstract

Metaphase karyotype investigation on two allopatric strains of Anopheles nitidus Harrison, Scanlon, and Reid (Diptera: Culicidae) was conducted in Thailand during 2011–2012. Five karyotypic forms, i.e., Form A (X 1 , Y 1 ), Form B (X 1 , Y 2 ), Form C (X 2 , Y 3 ), Form D (X 1 , X 3 , Y 4 ), and Form E (X 1 , X 2 , X 3 , Y 5 ) were obtained from a total of 21 isofemale lines. Forms A, B, and C were confined to Phang Nga Province, southern Thailand, whereas Forms D and E were restricted to Ubon Ratchathani Province, northeastern Thailand. Cross-mating experiments among the five isofemale lines, which were representative of five karyotypic forms of An. nitidus , revealed genetic compatibility by providing viable progenies and synaptic salivary gland polytene chromosomes through F 2 generations. The results suggest that the forms are conspecific, and An . nitidus comprises five cytological races. The very low intraspecific sequence variations (average genetic distances = 0.002–0.008) of the nucleotide sequences in ribosomal DNA (internal transcribed spacer 2) and mitochondrial DNA (cytochrome c oxidase subunits I and II) among the five karyotypic forms were very good supportive evidence.

Keywords: Anopheles nitidus, metaphase karyotype, cross-mating experiment, rDNA, mtDNA

Anopheles ( Anopheles ) nitidus Harrison, Scanlon, and Reid (Diptera: Culicidae) is a foothill anopheline species that belongs to the Nigerrimus Subgroup and Hyrcanus Group of the Myzorhynchus Series and has a wide distribution range extending from India (Assam) to Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand (a cosmopolitan species), Malaysia (Malaysian Peninsular and Sarawak), and Indonesia (Sumatra) ( Reid 1968 , Harrison and Scanlon 1975 , Rattanarithikul et al. 2006 , Harbach 2014 ). Although An. nitidus acts as a vicious biter of humans in some localities of Thailand, it has never been incriminated as a natural or suspected vector of any human diseases, unlike other species members of the Thai Anopheles hyrcanus group (e.g., Anopheles nigerrimus , Anopheles peditaeniatus , and Anopheles sinensis that one suspected vectors of Plasmodium vivax [ Baker et al. 1987 , Harbach et al. 1987 , Gingrich et al. 1990 , Rattanarithikul et al. 1996 ); and An. nigerrimus , a potentially natural vector of Wuchereria bancrofti in Phang Nga Province, southern Thailand ( Division of Filariasis 1998 ]). Nevertheless, An. nitidus is considered an economic pest of cattle because of its vicious biting behavior ( Reid et al. 1962 , Reid 1968 , Harrison and Scanlon 1975 ).

Regarding cytogenetic investigations of An. nitidus by Baimai et al. (1993a) , their results revealed that at least two types of X (X 1 , X 2 ) and one type of Y chromosomes were obtained in two isoline colonies caught from Muang district, Phang Nga Province and Sadao district, Songkhla Province, southern Thailand. As emphasized by the above information, genetic proximity among the karyotypic variants of An. nitidus is obviously lacking. Thus, the main aim of this study was to determine whether the five karyotypic variants, from two allopatric populations of An. nitidus , exist as a single or distinct species by performing cross-mating experiments among them that relating to DNA sequence analyses of internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) of ribosomal DNA, and cytochrome c oxidase subunits I (COI) and II (COII) of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).

Materials and Methods

Field Collections and Establishment of Isoline Colonies

Wild-caught, fully engorged female mosquitoes of An. nitidus were collected from cow-baited traps at two locations, i.e., Muang district, Phang Nga Province and Nachaluai district, Ubon Ratchathani Province in southern and northeastern Thailand, respectively ( Fig. 1 ; Table 1 ). In total, 21 isolines were established successfully and maintained in our insectary using the techniques described by Choochote and Saeung (2013) . Exact species identification was performed by using intact morphology of egg, larval, pupal, and adult stages from the F 1 progenies of isolines, following standard keys ( Reid 1968 , Harrison and Scanlon 1975 , Rattanarithikul et al. 2006 ). These isolines were used for studies on the metaphase karyotype, cross-mating experiments, and molecular analyses.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Open in a new tab

Map of Thailand showing two provinces where specimens of An. nitidus were collected and the number of isolines of the five karyotypic forms (A–E) detected in each location.

Table 1.

Isolines of five karyotypic forms (A–E) of An. nitidus and their GenBank accession numbers

Location, geographical coordinate Code of isoline a Karyotypic form Region GenBank accession number
Reference
ITS2 COI COII
An. nitidus
 Ubon Ratchathani (15° 31′ N, 105° 35′ E) Ur2D a D (X 3 , Y 4 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777782 AB777803 AB777824 This study
Ur5E a E (X 2 , Y 5 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777783 AB777804 AB777825 This study
Ur8E E (X 1 , Y 5 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777784 AB777805 AB777826 This study
Ur11D D (X 3 , Y 4 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777785 AB777806 AB777827 This study
Ur12D D (X 1 , Y 4 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777786 AB777807 AB777828 This study
Ur15D D (X 3 , Y 4 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777787 AB777808 AB777829 This study
Ur16E E (X 1 , Y 5 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777788 AB777809 AB777830 This study
Ur19D D (X 1 , Y 4 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777789 AB777810 AB777831 This study
Ur22E E (X 2 , Y 5 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777790 AB777811 AB777832 This study
Ur23E E (X 3 , Y 5 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777791 AB777812 AB777833 This study
Ur24D D (X 3 , Y 4 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777792 AB777813 AB777834 This study
Ur25D D (X 1 , Y 4 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777793 AB777814 AB777835 This study
Ur27D D (X 1 , Y 4 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777794 AB777815 AB777836 This study
Ur28E E (X 3 , Y 5 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777795 AB777816 AB777837 This study
Ur30E E (X 1 , Y 5 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777796 AB777817 AB777838 This study
Ur31D D (X 3 , Y 4 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777797 AB777818 AB777839 This study
Ur33E E (X 2 , Y 5 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777798 AB777819 AB777840 This study
Ur34D D (X 3 , Y 4 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777799 AB777820 AB777841 This study
 Phang Nga (08° 27′ N, 98 31′ E) Pg2A a A (X 1 , Y 1 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777800 AB777821 AB777842 This study
Pg4C a C (X 2 , Y 3 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777801 AB777822 AB777843 This study
Pg5B a B (X 1 , Y 2 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB777802 AB777823 AB777844 This study
 Hyrcanus Group TR2 — ITS2 HM488273 — — Paredes-Esquivel et al. (2011)
TR3 — ITS2 HM488272 — — Paredes-Esquivel et al. (2011)
TR6 — ITS2 HM488268 — — Paredes-Esquivel et al. (2011)
An. belenrae — — ITS2 EU789794 — — Park et al. (2008a)
An. crawfordi Pg4A A (X 1 , Y 1 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB779142 AB779171 AB779200 A.S., unpublished data
An. kleini — — ITS2 EU789793 — — Park et al. (2008a)
An. lesteri — — ITS2 EU789791 — — Park et al. (2008a)
ilG1 — COI, COII — AB733028 AB733036 Taai et al. (2013a)
An. paraliae Sk1B B (X 1 , Y 2 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB733487 AB733503 AB733519 Taai et al. (2013b)
An. peditaeniatus RbB B (X 3 , Y 2 ) ITS2, COI, COII AB539061 AB539069 AB539077 Choochote (2011)
An. pullus — — ITS2 EU789792 — — Park et al. (2008a)
COI, COII — AY444348 AY444347 Park et al. (2003)
An. sinensis i2ACM A (X, Y 1 ) ITS2 AY130473 — — Min et al. (2002)
— — COI — AY444351 — Park et al. (2003)
i1BKR B (X, Y 2 ) COII — — AY130464 Min et al. (2002)
Open in a new tab

a Used in cross-mating experiments.

Metaphase Karyotype Preparation

Metaphase chromosomes were prepared from 10 early fourth-instar larval brains of F 1 progenies of each isoline, using techniques previously described by Saeung et al. (2007) . Identification of karyotypic forms followed the standard cytotaxonomic systems of Baimai et al. (1993a) .

Cross-Mating Experiments

The five laboratory-raised isolines of An. nitidus were selected arbitrarily from the 21 isoline colonies as representatives of the five karyotypic forms, i.e., Form A (Pg2A), B (Pg5B), C (Pg4C), D (Ur2D), and E (Ur5E) ( Table 1 ). These isolines were used for cross-mating experiments to determine postmating barriers by employing the techniques previously reported by Saeung et al. (2007) .

DNA Extraction and Amplification

Molecular analyses of three specific genomic loci (ITS2, COI, and COII) were performed to determine intraspecific sequence variation within An. nitidus . Individual F 1 progeny adult female of each isoline of An. nitidus (Ur2D, Ur5E, Ur8E, Ur11D, Ur12D, Ur15D, Ur16E, Ur19D, Ur22E, Ur23E, Ur24D, Ur25D, Ur27D, Ur28E, Ur30E, Ur31D, Ur33E, Ur34D, Pg2A, Pg4C, and Pg5B; Table 1 ) was used for DNA extraction and amplification. Genomic DNA was extracted from each mosquito using DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (QIAgen, Japan). Primers for amplification of the ITS2, COI, and COII regions followed previous studies by Saeung et al. (2007) . Each polymerase chain reaction (PCR) reaction was carried out in 20 µl containing 0.5 U Ex Taq (Takara, Japan), 1X Ex Taq DNA polymerase buffer, 2 mM of MgCl 2 , 0.2 mM of each dNTP, 0.25 µM of each primer, and 1 µl of the extracted DNA. For ITS2, the conditions for amplification 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% tris-acetate-EDTA agarose gels and stained with ethidium bromide. Finally, the PCR products were purified using the QIAquick PCR Purification Kit (QIAgen, Japan) and their sequences directly determined using the BigDye V3.1 Terminator Cycle Sequencing Kit and 3130 genetic analyzer (Applied Biosystems, www.appliedbiosystems.com ). The sequence data obtained have been deposited in the DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank nucleotide sequence database under accession numbers AB777782–AB777844 ( Table 1 ). The ITS2, COI, and COII sequences obtained from this study were compared with published sequences available in GenBank using the BLAST search ( http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi ).

Sequencing Alignment and Phylogenetic Analysis

Sequences of ITS2, COI, and COII were aligned using the CLUSTAL W multiple alignment program ( Thompson et al. 1994 ) and edited manually in BioEdit version 7.0.5.3 ( Hall 1999 ). Gap sites were excluded from the following analysis. The Kimura two-parameter model was employed to calculate genetic distances ( Kimura 1980 ). Using the distances, construction of neighbor-joining (NJ) trees ( Saitou and Nei 1987 ) and the bootstrap test with 1,000 replications were performed with the MEGA version 6.0 program ( Tamura et al. 2013 ). Bayesian analysis was conducted with MrBayes 3.2 ( Ronquist et al. 2012 ) 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 MrModeltest version 2.3 ( Nylander 2004 ). 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 combined COI and COII sequences. Bayesian posterior probabilities were calculated from the consensus tree after excluding the first 25% trees as burn-in.

Results

Metaphase Karyotype

Cytogenetic observations of F 1 progenies of the 21 isolines of An. nitidus revealed different types of sex chromosomes due to the addition of extra block(s) of heterochromatin. There were three types of X (small metacentric X 1 , submetacentric X 2 , and large submetacentric X 3 ) and five types of Y chromosomes (small telocentric Y 1 , small subtelocentric Y 2 , large subtelocentric Y 3 , submetacentric Y 4, and small metacentric Y 5 ) ( Figs. 2 and 3 ). The X 1 chromosome has a small metacentric with one arm euchromatic and the opposite one totally heterochromatic. The X 2 chromosome is different from the X 1 chromosome in having an extra block of heterochromatin in the heterochromatic arm, making it a long arm of submetacentric. The X 3 chromosome has a large submetacentric that was slightly different from the X 2 chromosome in having an extra block of heterochromatin at the distal end of the long heterochromatic arm. A good comparison of the size and morphology between X 2 and X 3 chromosomes could be made easily in heterozygous females ( Fig. 2 I). Similar to the situation in the X chromosome, the Y chromosome also exhibited extensive variation in size and morphology, due to differing amounts and distribution of heterochromatic block. Thus, the Y 1 chromosome is an apparently small telocentric, which represents the ancestral form ( Fig. 2 A). The Y 2 chromosome has a small subtelocentric or acrocentric that slightly differs from the Y 1 chromosome, which has a very small portion of the short arm present ( Fig. 2 B). Chromosome Y 3 has a large subtelocentric that obviously differs from the Y 2 chromosome in having an extra block of heterochromatin at the distal end of the long heterochromatic arm ( Fig. 2 C). The Y 4 chromosome is clearly submetacentric, with the short arm ∼one-third the length of the long arm ( Fig. 2 D and E). It appears to have derived from the Y 3 chromosome by means of adding an extra block of heterochromatin onto the short arm and transferring it to a submetacentric. Chromosome Y 5 had a small metacentric, which was quite different from chromosomes Y 1 , Y 2 , Y 3 , and Y 4 by having an equal heterochromatic block on each arm ( Fig. 2 F and G). Based on uniquely different characteristics of Y chromosome from each isoline colony, they were designated as Form A (X 1 , Y 1 ), Form B (X 1 , Y 2 ), Form C (X 2 , Y 3 ), Form D (X 1 , X 3 , Y 4 ), and Form E (X 1 , X 2 , X 3 , Y 5 ). Forms A, B, and C were found in Phang Nga Province, and Forms D and E were obtained in Ubon Ratchathani Province.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Open in a new tab

Metaphase karyotypic forms of An. nitidus . Phang Nga Province (A–C) (A) Form A (X 1 , Y 1 ), (B) Form B (X 1 , Y 2 ), and (C) Form C (X 2 , Y 3 ). Ubon Ratchathani Province (D–I) (D) Form D (X 1 , Y 4 ), (E) Form D (X 3 , Y 4 ), (F) Form E (X 1 , Y 5 ), (G) Form E (X 2 , Y 5 ), (H) Form E (homozygous X 2 , X 2 ), and (I) Form E (heterozygous X 2 , X 3 ).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Open in a new tab

Diagrams of representative metaphase karyotypes of Forms A, B, C, D, and E of An. nitidus .

Cross-Mating Experiments

Details of hatchability, pupation, emergence, and adult sex-ratio of parental, reciprocal, and F 1 -hybrid crosses among the five isolines of An. nitidus Forms A, B, C, D, and E are listed in Table 2 . All crosses yielded viable progenies through F 2 generations. No evidence of genetic incompatibility and/or postmating reproductive isolation was observed among these crosses. The salivary gland polytene chromosomes of the fourth-stage larvae from all crosses showed synapsis without any inversion loops along the whole length of all autosomes and the X chromosome ( Fig. 4 ).

Table 2.

Cross-mating experiments of five isolines of An. nitidus

Crosses (female x male) Total eggs (number) a Embryonation rate b Hatched, n (%) Pupation, n (%) Emergence, n (%) Total emergence, n (%)
Female Male
Parental cross
 Pg2A x Pg2A 244 (125, 119) 88 210 (86.06) 195 (92.86) 195 (100.00) 103 (52.82) 92 (47.18)
 Pg5B x Pg5B 277 (130, 147) 91 238 (85.92) 226 (94.96) 221 (97.79) 107 (48.42) 114 (51.58)
 Pg4C x Pg4C 283 (118, 165) 84 218 (77.03) 218 (100.00) 211 (96.79) 106 (50.24) 105 (49.76)
 Ur2D x Ur2D 292 (109, 183) 92 263 (90.07) 258 (98.10) 247 (95.74) 131 (53.04) 116 (46.96)
 Ur5E x Ur5E 301 (148, 153) 88 256 (85.05) 251 (98.05) 221 (88.05) 111 (50.23) 110 (49.77)
Reciprocal cross
 Pg2A x Pg5B 289 (147, 142) 94 260 (89.97) 257 (98.85) 239 (93.00) 117 (48.95) 122 (51.05)
 Pg5B x Pg2A 298 (158, 140) 90 220 (73.83) 202 (91.82) 198 (98.02) 97 (48.99) 101 (51.01)
 Pg2A x Pg4C 299 (131, 168) 92 260 (86.96) 231 (88.85) 226 (97.84) 112 (49.56) 114 (50.44)
 Pg4C x Pg2A 313 (162, 151) 80 225 (71.88) 218 (96.89) 209 (95.87) 112 (53.59) 97 (46.41)
 Pg2A x Ur2D 211 (103, 108) 86 175 (82.94) 159 (90.86) 159 (100.00) 64 (40.25) 95 (59.75)
 Ur2D x Pg2A 224 (111, 113) 91 202 (90.18) 196 (97.03) 171 (87.24) 81 (47.37) 90 (52.63)
 Pg2A x Ur5E 243 (118, 125) 87 207 (85.19) 207 (100.00) 197 (95.17) 100 (50.76) 97 (49.24)
 Ur5E x Pg2A 264 (139, 125) 91 235 (89.02) 235 (100.00) 204 (86.81) 108 (52.94) 96 (47.06)
F 1 -hybrid cross
 (Pg2A x Pg5B)F 1 x (Pg2A x Pg5B)F 1 308 (118, 190) 85 246 (79.87) 234 (95.12) 229 (97.86) 111 (48.47) 118 (51.53)
 (Pg5B x Pg2A)F 1 x (Pg5B x Pg2A)F 1 312 (186, 126) 87 250 (80.13) 235 (94.00) 225 (95.74) 110 (48.89) 115 (51.11)
 (Pg2A x Pg4C)F 1 x (Pg2A x Pg4C)F 1 308 (147, 161) 92 271 (87.99) 268 (98.89) 257 (95.90) 135 (52.53) 122 (47.47)
 (Pg4C x Pg2A)F 1 x (Pg4C x Pg2A)F 1 329 (194, 135) 80 250 (75.99) 230 (92.00) 225 (97.83) 115 (51.11) 110 (48.89)
 (Pg2A x Ur2D)F 1 x (Pg2A x Ur2D)F 1 347 (157, 190) 90 295 (85.01) 289 (97.97) 265 (91.70) 141 (53.21) 124 (46.79)
 (Ur2D x Pg2A)F 1 x (Ur2D x Pg2A)F 1 287 (125, 162) 90 250 (87.11) 222 (88.80) 220 (99.10) 112 (50.91) 108 (49.09)
 (Pg2A x Ur5E)F 1 x (Pg2A x Ur5E)F 1 350 (167, 183) 88 280 (80.00) 272 (97.14) 266 (97.79) 126 (47.37) 140 (52.63)
 (Ur5E x Pg2A)F 1 x (Ur5E x Pg2A)F 1 339 (194, 145) 84 268 (79.06) 263 (98.13) 242 (92.02) 124 (51.24) 118 (48.76)
Open in a new tab

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

b Dissection from 100 eggs; n  = number.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

Open in a new tab

Synapsis in all arms of salivary gland polytene chromosome of F 1 -hybrids fourth larvae of An. nitidus . (A) Pg2A female x Pg5B male; (B) Pg2A female x Pg4C male; (C) Pg2A female x Ur2D male; (D) Pg2A female x Ur5E male. Note: small common gap of homosequential asynapsis (arrow) was found on chromosome 2L, 2R, and 3R; 2L and 2R; and 3L from the crosses between Pg2A female x Pg5B male; Pg2A female x Pg4C male; and Pg2A female x Ur5E male, respectively.

DNA Sequences and Phylogenetic Analysis

DNA sequences were determined and analyzed for the ITS2, COI, and COII of the 21 isolines of An. nitidus Forms A, B, C, D, and E. They showed various lengths of ITS2, at 480 bp in 18 isolines from Ubon Ratchathani Province and 481 bp in 3 isolines from Phang Nga Province. The An. nitidus from Ubon Ratchathani Province differed from that in Phang Nga Province by a deletion of T at position 421. They all showed the same length in COI (658 bp) and COII (685 bp). NJ and Bayesian trees were constructed to reveal the evolutionary relationship of the five karyotypic forms. Both phylogenetic methods showed similar tree topologies, thus only the Bayesian tree is shown in Figs. 5 and 6 . The results showed that all sequences of An. nitidus Forms A, B, C, D, and E were monophyletic in both trees, with high support (NJ = 99–100%, BPP = 100%). The average genetic distances within the five karyotypic forms (21 isolines) of An . nitidus were 0.002, 0.008, and 0.006 for ITS2, COI, and COII sequences, respectively. Furthermore, all karyotypic forms of An. nitidus were well separated from other species members ( Anopheles belenrae , Anopheles crawfordi , Anopheles kleini , Anopheles lesteri , Anopheles paraliae , An. peditaeniatus , Anopheles pullus, and An. sinensis ) of the Hyrcanus Group ( Figs. 5 and 6 ). The three published ITS2 sequences (GenBank accession numbers HM488268, HM488272, and HM488273; Table 1 ), which were identified previously as the Hyrcanus Group, also were placed within the same clade of An. nitidus ( Fig. 5 ).

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5.

Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic relationships of the five karyotypic forms of An. nitidus using Bayesian analysis based on ITS2 sequences compared with three specimens from Trat Province ( Paredes-Esquivel et al. 2011 ) and eight species of the Hyrcanus Group. Codes for the specimens are listed in Table 1 . Numbers on branches are bootstrap values (%) of NJ analysis and Bayesian posterior probabilities (%). Only the values >50% are shown. Branch lengths are proportional to genetic distance (scale bar).

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6.

Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic relationships among the five karyotypic forms of An. nitidus using Bayesian analysis based on combined COI and COII sequences compared with six species of the Hyrcanus Group. Codes for the specimens are listed in Table 1 . Numbers on branches are bootstrap values (%) of NJ analysis and Bayesian posterior probabilities (%). Only the values higher than 50% are shown. Branch lengths are proportional to genetic distance (scale bar).

Discussion

A cytogenetic investigation of An. nitidus in Thailand was documented first by Baimai et al. (1993a) . The results indicated that this anopheline species exhibited genetic diversity at the chromosomal level via a gradual increase in the extra block(s) of constitutive heterochromatin in the X chromosome (X 1 , X 2 ), whereas this event was not detected in the Y chromosomes, possibly due to the limited number of isolines used. Herein, the 21 An. nitidus isolines from two allopatric locations (Phang Nga Province, southern region; Ubon Ratchathani Province, northeastern region) in Thailand revealed three types of X (X 1 , X 2 , X 3 ) and five types of Y (Y 1 , Y 2 , Y 3 , Y 4 , Y 5 ) chromosomes, which were designated as Form A (X 1 , Y 1 ), Form B (X 1 ,Y 2 ), Form C (X 2 , Y 3 ), Form D (X 1 , X 3 , Y 4 ), and Form E (X 1 , X 2 , X 3 , Y 5 ), depending upon the uniquely distinct characteristics of Y chromosomes. The five different karyotypic forms of An. nitidus found in this study were due clearly to the addition of extra block(s) of constitutive heterochromatin on sex chromosomes (X, Y), which is in keeping with Baimai’s (1998) hypothesis. Baimai et al. ( 1984a , b , 1988 , 1993b ) suggested that the quantitative differences in heterochromatin of mitotic chromosomes could be used as a genetic marker for further identification of cryptic (isomorphic) or closely related species, as exemplified in the population cytogenetic studies of the Anopheles dirus complex and the Maculatus Group. Interestingly, investigation of the 18 isolines from Ubon Ratchathani Province, northeastern region, revealed only two karyotypic forms (Form D: 10 isolines; Form E: 8 isolines), whereas that of the three isolines from Phang Nga Province, southern region, yielded three distinct karyotypic forms (Forms A, B, and C) in each isoline, even though these two allopatric locations were placed ∼800 km apart. The climate of these two provinces is quite different, i.e., Ubon Ratchathani Province has a tropical wet and dry climate, whereas Phang Nga Province is located on the shore to the Andaman Sea, and has heavy rain. Our results are in accordance with Saeung et al. (2014) . These authors showed that An . crawfordi Form A was detected only in Phang Nga Province, whereas Forms A, B, C, and D were found from eight isolines in Trang Province, which placed ∼190 km apart. This phenomenon appeared to elucidate the difference in ecological diversity, which favored specific microhabitats for the karyotypic forms of An. nitidus . However, additional surveys are expected to obtain greater numbers of isolines from both provinces and/or other locations across six regions (northern, western, central, northeastern, eastern, and southern) of Thailand. This would bring about understanding of the population-genetic structure of this anopheline species.

Cross-mating experiments using anopheline isoline-colonies, relating to information on cytology and molecular analysis to determine postmating barriers, have been proven so far as an effective classical technique for recognizing sibling species and/or subspecies (cytological races) within Anopheles ( Kanda et al. 1981 ; Baimai et al. 1987 ; Subbarao 1998 ; Junkum et al. 2005 ; Somboon et al. 2005 ; Saeung et al. 2007 , 2008 ; Thongwat et al. 2008 ; Suwannamit et al. 2009 ; Thongsahuan et al. 2009 ; Choochote 2011 ). Cross-mating experiments among the five karyotypic forms of An. nitidus showed no postmating reproductive isolation. They yielded viable progenies through F 2 generations and synaptic salivary gland polytene chromosomes, along the entire length of autosomes and the X chromosome. Thus, our results indicated that the five karyotypic forms were conspecific. Quantitative changes in constitutive heterochromatin in mitotic chromosomes of An. nitidus observed in this study were likely intraspecific chromosomal variation, which may lead to interspecific difference in the process of speciation. Our results are agreed with previous cross-mating experiments among sympatric and/or allopatric karyotypic forms of other anopheline species, i.e., Anopheles vagus ( Choochote et al. 2002 ), An. pullus (= An . yatsushiroensis ) ( Park et al. 2003 ), An. sinensis ( Choochote et al. 1998 , Min et al. 2002 , Park et al. 2008b ), Anopheles aconitus ( Junkum et al. 2005 ), Anopheles barbirostris A1 and A2 ( Saeung et al. 2007 , Suwannamit et al. 2009 ); Anopheles campestris -like ( Thongsahuan et al. 2009 ), An. peditaeniatus ( Choochote 2011 , Saeung et al. 2012 ), and An . paraliae ( Taai et al. 2013b ).

Furthermore, this study incorporated a nuclear DNA and mtDNA sequence to increase the exact identification of this species from other species members of the Hyrcanus Group ( Min et al. 2002 ; Park et al. 2003 , 2008a ; Choochote 2011 ; Taai et al. 2013a ). The monophyletic trees and very low intraspecific sequence variations (average genetic distances = 0.002–0.008) of the ITS2, COI, and COII of the five karyotypic forms are good supportive evidence, which confirms that these forms represent a single species of An . nitidus . It is interesting to note that the three specimens (TR2, TR3, and TR6) collected from Trat Province, eastern Thailand, and identified as the Hyrcanus Group by Paredes-Esquivel et al. (2011) , based on ITS2 sequences, were clustered together with five karyotypic forms of An. nitidus , and are presumed to belong to that species.

In conclusion, this is the first report to clarify the species status of five karyotypic variants of An. nitidus collected from two locations in Thailand by using multidisciplinary approaches (cytogenetic investigations, cross-mating experiments, and molecular analyses) and indicate that these forms are of the same species.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by The Thailand Research Fund to W.C. and A.S. (TRF Senior Research Scholar: RTA5480006), the Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. Program to Wej Choochote (W.C.), Atiporn Saeung (A.S.) and Siripan Songsawatkiat (S.S.) (PHD/0356/2552), and Faculty of Medicine Research Fund, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

References Cited

  1. Baimai V . 1998. . Heterochromatin accumulation and karyotypic evolution in some dipteran insects . Zool. Stud. 37 : 75 – 88 . [Google Scholar]
  2. Baimai V., Andre R. G., Harrison B. A. . 1984a. . Heterochromatin variation in the sex chromosomes in Thailand populations of Anopheles dirus A (Diptera: Culicidae) . Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 26 : 633 – 636 . [Google Scholar]
  3. Baimai V., Green C. A., Andre R. G., Harrison B. A., Peyton E. L. . 1984b. . Cytogenetic studies of some species complexes of Anopheles in Thailand and Southeast Asia . Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 15 : 536 – 546 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baimai V., Harbach R. E., Kijchalao U. . 1988. . Cytogenetic evidence of the fifth species within the taxon Anopheles dirus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand . J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 4 : 333 – 338 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baimai V., Andre R. G., Harrison B. A., Kijchalao U., Panthusiri L. . 1987. . 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. 89 : 157 – 166 . [Google Scholar]
  6. Baimai V., Rattanarithikul R., Kijchalao U. . 1993a. . Metaphase karyotypes of Anopheles of Thailand and Southeast Asia: I. The hyrcanus group . J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 9 : 59 – 67 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Baimai V., Rattanarithikul R., Kijchalao U., Green C. A. . 1993b. . Metaphase karyotypes of Anopheles of Thailand and Southeast Asia. II. The maculatus group, Neocellia series, subgenus Cellia . Mosq. Syst. 25 : 116 – 123 . [Google Scholar]
  8. Baker E. Z., Beier J. C., Meek S. R., Wirtz R. A. . 1987. . Detection and quantification of Plasmodium falciparum and P. vivax infections in Thai Kampuchean Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae) by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay . J. Med. Entomol. 24 : 537 – 541 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Choochote W . 2011. . Evidence to support karyotypic variation of the mosquito, Anopheles peditaeniatus in Thailand . J. Insect Sci. 11 : 10 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Choochote W., Saeung A. . 2013. . Systematic techniques for the recognition of Anopheles species complexes , pp. 57 – 79 . InManguin S. (ed.), Anopheles mosquitoes—new insights into malaria vectors . InTech; , Rijeka, Crotia: . [Google Scholar]
  11. Choochote W., Jitpakdi A., Rongsriyam Y., Komalamisra N., Pitasawat B., Palakul K. . 1998. . Isoenzyme study and hybridization of two forms of Anopheles sinensis (Diptera: Culicidae) in Northern Thailand . Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 29 : 841 – 847 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Choochote W., Jitpakdi A., Sukontason K. L., Chaithong U., Wongkamchai S., Pitasawat B., Jariyapan N., Suntaravitun T., Rattanachanpichai E., Sukontason K., et al. . 2002. . Intraspecific hybridization of two karyotypic forms of Anopheles vagus (Diptera: Culicidae) and the related egg surface topography . Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 33 : 29 – 35 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Division of Filariasis . 1998. . Department of Communicable Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health; , pp. 1 – 33 . [Google Scholar]
  14. Gingrich J., Weatherhead A., Sattabongkot J., Pilakasiri C., Wirtz R. A. . 1990. . Hyperendemic malaria in Thai village: dependence of year-round transmission on focal and seasonally circumscribed mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) habitats . J. Med. Entomol. 27 : 1016 – 1026 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hall T. A. 1999. . BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT . Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser. 41 : 95 – 98 . [Google Scholar]
  16. Harbach R. E. 2014. . Mosquito taxonomic inventory . Anopheles classification. ( http://mosquito-taxonomic-inventory.info/anophelesclassification ) (accessed 1 June 2014) . [Google Scholar]
  17. Harbach R. E., Gingrich J. B., Pang L. W. . 1987. . Some entomological observations on malaria transmission in a remote village in northwestern Thailand . J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 3 : 296 – 301 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Harrison B. A., Scanlon J. E. . 1975. . Medical entomology studies II. The subgenus Anopheles in Thailand (Diptera: Culicidae) . Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. 12 : 78 . [Google Scholar]
  19. Junkum A., Komalamisra N., Jitpakdi A., Jariyapan N., Min G. S., Park M. H., Cho K. H., Somboon P., Bates P. A., Choochote W. . 2005. . Evidence to support two conspecific cytological races on Anopheles aconitus in Thailand . J. Vector Ecol. 30 : 213 – 224 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kanda T., Takai K., Chiang G. L., Cheong W. H., Sucharit S. . 1981. . Hybridization and some biological facts of seven strains of the Anopheles leucosphyrus group (Reid, 1968) . Jpn. J. Sanit. Zool. 32 : 321 – 329 . [Google Scholar]
  21. Kimura M. 1980. . Simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitution through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences . J. Mol. Evol. 16 : 111 – 120 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Min G. S., Choochote W., Jitpakdi A., Kim S. J., Kim W., Jung J., Junkum A. . 2002. . Intraspecific hybridization of Anopheles sinensis (Diptera: Culicidae) strains from Thailand and Korea . Mol. Cells 14 : 198 – 204 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Nylander J.A.A. 2004. . MrModeltest v2. Program distributed by the author . Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University; , Sweden: . [Google Scholar]
  24. Paredes-Esquivel C., Harbach R. E., Townson H. . 2011. . Molecular taxonomy of members of the Anopheles hyrcanus group from Thailand and Indonesia . Med. Vet. Entomol. 25 : 348 – 352 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Park S. J., Choochote W., Jitpakdi A., Junkum A., Kim S., Jariyapan N. . 2003. . Evidence for a conspecific relationship between two morphologically and cytologically different forms of Korean Anopheles pullus mosquito . Mol. Cells 16 : 354 – 360 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Park M. H., Choochote W., Junkum A., Joshi D., Tuetan B., Saeung A., Jung J. H., Min G. S. . 2008a. . Reproductive isolation of Anopheles sinensis from Anopheles lesteri and Anopheles sineroides in Korea . Genes Genomics 30 : 245 – 252 . [Google Scholar]
  27. Park M. H., Choochote W., Kim S. J., Somboon P., Saeung A., Tuetan B., Tsuda Y., Takagi M., Joshi D., Ma Y. J., et al. . 2008b. . Nonreproductive isolation among four allopatric strains of Anopheles sinensis in Asia . J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 24 : 489 – 495 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Rattanarithikul R., Konishi E., Linthicum K. J. . 1996. . Detection of Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoites antigen in anopheline mosquitoes collected in southern Thailand . Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 54 : 114 – 121 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Rattanarithikul R., Harrison B. A., Harbach R. E., Panthusiri P., Coleman R. E. . 2006. . Illustrated keys to the mosquitoes of Thailand IV. Anopheles . Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 37 : 1 – 128 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Reid J. A. 1968. . Anopheline mosquitoes of Malaya and Borneo . Stud. Inst. Med. Res. Malaysia 31 : 1 – 520 . [Google Scholar]
  31. Reid J. A., Wilson T., Ganapathipillai A. . 1962. . Studies on filariasis in Malaya: the mosquito vectors of periodic Brugia malayi in North-West Malaya . Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 56 : 323 – 336 . [Google Scholar]
  32. Ronquist F., Teslenko M., der Mark P. van, Ayres D. L., Darling A., Höhna S., Larget B., Liu L., Suchard M. A., Huelsenbeck J. P. . 2012. . MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space . Syst. Biol. 61 : 539 – 542 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Saeung A., Otsuka Y., Baimai V., Somboon P., Pitasawat B., Tuetun B., Junkum A., Takaoka H., Choochote W. . 2007. . Cytogenetic and molecular evidence for two species in the Anopheles barbirostris complex (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand . Parasitol. Res. 101 : 1337 – 1344 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Saeung A., Baimai V., Otsuka Y., Rattanarithikul R., Somboon P., Junkum A., Tuetun B., Takaoka H., Choochote W. . 2008. . Molecular and cytogenetic evidence of three sibling species of the Anopheles barbirostris Form A (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand . Parasitol. Res. 102 : 499 – 507 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Saeung A., Baimai V., Thongsahuan S., Min G. S., Park M. H., Otsuka Y., Maleewong W., Lulitanond V., Taai K., Choochote W. . 2012. . Geographic distribution and genetic compatibility among six karyotypic forms of Anopheles peditaeniatus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand . Trop. Biomed. 29 : 613 – 625 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Saeung A., Baimai V., Thongsahuan S., Otsuka Y., Srisuka W., Taai K., Somboon P., Suwankerd W., Sochanta T., Choochote W. . 2014. . Cytogenetic, cross-mating and molecular evidence of four cytological races of Anopheles crawfordi (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand and Cambodia . C. R. Biologies 337 : 625 – 634 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Saitou N., Nei M. . 1987. . The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees . Mol. Biol. Evol. 4 : 406 – 425 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Somboon P., Thongwat D., Choochote W., Walton C., Takagi M. . 2005. . Crossing experiments of Anopheles minimus species C and putative species E . J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 21 : 5 – 9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Subbarao S.K . 1998. . Anopheline species complexes in South-East Asia . World Health Organ. Tech. Pub. Searo 18 : 1 – 82 . [Google Scholar]
  40. Suwannamit S., Baimai V., Otsuka Y., Saeung A., Thongsahuan S., Tuetun B., Apiwathnasorn C., Jariyapan N., Somboon P., Takaoka H., et al. . 2009. . Cytogenetic and molecular evidence for an additional new species within the taxon Anopheles barbirostris (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand . Parasitol. Res. 104 : 905 – 918 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Taai K., Baimai V., Saeung A., Thongsahuan S., Min G. S., Otsuka Y., Park M. H., Fukuda M., Somboon P., Choochote W. . 2013a. . Genetic compatibility between Anopheles lesteri from Korea and Anopheles paraliae from Thailand . Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 108: 312–320 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Taai K., Baimai V., Thongsahuan S., Saeung A., Otsuka Y., Srisuka W., Sriwichai P., Somboon P., Jariyapan N., Choochote W. . 2013b. . Metaphase karyotypes of Anopheles paraliae (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand and evidence to support five cytological races . Trop. Biomed. 30 : 238 – 249 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Tamura K., Stecher G., Peterson D., Filipski A., Kumar S. . 2013. . MEGA6: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0 . Mol. Biol. Evol. 30 : 2725 – 2729 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Thompson J. D., Higgins D. G., Gibson T. J. . 1994. . CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, positions-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice . Nucleic Acids Res. 22 : 4673 – 4680 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Thongsahuan S., Baimai V., Otsuka Y., Saeung A., Tuetun B., Jariyapan N., Suwannamit S., Somboon P., Jitpakdi A., Takaoka H., et al. . 2009. . Karyotypic variation and geographic distribution of Anopheles campestris- like (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand . Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 104 : 558 – 566 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Thongwat D., Morgan K., O’loughlin M. S., Walton C., Choochote W., Somboon P. . 2008. . Crossing experiment supporting the specific status of Anopheles maculatus chromosomal form K . J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 24 : 194 – 202 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Insect Science are provided here courtesy of University of Wisconsin Libraries

RESOURCES