Estimation of the congruence between morphogenetic and molecular-genetic modules of gray voles Microtus S.L. variability along a climatic gradient

Cover Page

Abstract


Background. The exponential growth of research concerning a role of morphological modularity and integration in evolution has taking place from the beginning of the century. It was especially noted that inter-level integration should manifest itself, first of all, in the congruent variability of the modules of different structural levels. We analyzed congruence between the interspecific variability of the first lower molar (m1) masticatory surface and the mtDNA Cytb gene in ten species of the gray voles Microtus s.l. from the point of view of the modular organization.

Materials and methods. In total, 5306 pairs of chewing surface contours of vole molar m1 were investigated. Thirty one different morphotypes and 187 their different combinations are identified: 30 – symmetric and 157 – asymmetric. 576 sequences of the Cytb mtDNA gene from the GenBank database are used. Climatic data are taken from the website Climate:Date.org. Data are processed using a DJ-method. The morphogenetic matrix of Euclidean distances between species is obtained from the frequencies of m1 morphotypes co-occurrence from the right and left sides of the lower jaw, and the molecular-genetic one from the frequencies of synonymous codon substitutions. The algorithm is realized in the Jacobi 4 package.

Results. A high correlation (r = 0.847) between the first principal component of the molecular-genetic distance matrix and second principal component of the morphogenetic one is found. From the standpoint of the modular organization of the phenotype, the principal components of these matrices are treated as variability modules. The molecular-genetic module is caused by change of frequencies of the codons ACC and GCA along geo-climatic gradient, and morphogenetic one – various aspects of the m1 asymmetry.

Conclusions. The proposed approach allowed to identify two congruently varying modules from different trait systems of the studied species along the geo-climatic gradient.


INTRODUCTION

At present, the modular organization principle of multicellular organisms has a solid conceptual and empirical basis [1–8]. The main criterion for identifying modules is strong consistency of parts inside a module in combination with modules relative independence from each other [9–12]. It enables modular systems not only to function, but evolve in relative autonomy [13, 2, 14–16]. In broad terms, e.g., anatomic units (parts of body and bones), morphometric measurements and also other traits [8] may be considered as constituents (axes) of phenotypic modules.

The attempts to reveal the complexes of integrity-forming phenotypic traits have been taken since the beginning of the last century. The main prerequisite of such investigations consisted in that traits related genetically, ontogenetically or functionally correlate closer than others. Accordingly, the analysis was focused on the matrix of correlation between traits — the method of correlation pleiades [17], which determined the use of the principal components and other latent variables as a way of revealing stable blocks of phenotypic variability [10, 11, 18].

The internal consistency of parts within a module, combined with modules independence from each other, allows modular systems to function and evolve, to some extent, autonomously [2, 9–11, 13–16]. The integrity of morphogenesis imposes some limits on modules excess autonomization. Therefore, the “modularity concept” is closely connected with the concept of “morphological integration” [19, 20]. The traits integrated after E. Olson and R. Miller are such subsets of morphological traits which have a tendency to change jointly during ontogenesis and evolution, opposed to others far less related to each other. The division into subsets is made either formally on the correlation between the traits (r-group), or in the content — on the principle of traits joint functioning (F-group) [19]. Ideally, both divisions should correspond to each other.

One of the consequences of morphological integration is that the variability of organisms is concentrated in some limited directions (more often, in one or two) forming a “space of abilities”, whereas, in other directions, the variability is less [21–24]. It was shown in the work with the quantitative traits of rodent [23] and insectivorous [24] skulls that the first two directions of variability form the size–shape plane. The analysis of congruence with molecular-genetic traits (Cytb) allowed revealing the integrated blocks of two trait systems — morphological and molecular-genetic. Thereat, the quantitative estimates of the congruence between them became considerably higher at the elimination of the size component of variability.

The exponential growth of the research concerning the role of morphological modularity and integration in evolution [3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 25–30] has been observed since the beginning of the century and up to the present.

The presence of the corresponding genetic base is a necessary condition of modular evolution. The genetic base of integration suggests that a selection on some separate structural or functional peculiarities of an organism will always lead to a correlated response in its other parts, whereas the genetic base of modularity will provide a relative independence for evolutionary changes of different parts of an organism [2, 10, 13, 31]. It was particularly noted that inter-level integrations [10] should manifest themselves first in the congruent variability of different structural level modules.

Most of researchers accept that the integration concept is applicable at different biological levels [6, 10] including genetic and ecological integrations [13, 32], left and right sides integration of organisms body [32–37] and evolutionary integration of taxa [38–43].

For the last decades, more perspective methods, in particular, multidimensional scaling and PLS-methods that enable finding out deep joint latent variables belonging to different structural-functional systems and are presented by different types of traits, have become available. This gives an additional opportunity for the inter-level research of integration and modularity, which has just begun and the potential of which is still far from being exhausted [10].

In our work, the search of morphogenetic and molecular-genetic variability modules has been realized, and the quantitative estimation of the congruence between them in ten vole species for the group of genera Microtus in gradient geo-climatic conditions has been made. The choice of trait systems is conditioned by the data on the morphological variability m1 of ten gray vole species Microtus s.l. from the right and left lower jaw sides and the completeness of GenBank database on the mtDNA Cytb gene related to the investigated species. The working hypothesis consisted in that the degree of environmental extremeness will simultaneously affect both the stability of specific morphogeneses of investigated species, and the mtDNA Cytb gene properties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The morphotypic variability of the first lower molar (m1) of ten gray vole species Microtus s.l from the Siberian Zoological Museum of RAS, Zoological Museum of MSU and the Zoological Institute of RAS was studied. The description methods of morphotypic variability were published earlier [44]. It is known that the morphotypes from the right and left jaw sides may be different. As the morphotypes are connected with each other by chains of elementary transitions, the longer minimal chain is, the more different the morphogenetic trajectories of the morphotypes being at the ends of this chain are and, accordingly, the more seldom they can be realized on different sides of one individual [44–47].

In total, 5347 pairs of vole molar (m1) chewing surface contours were observed from the right and left lower jaw sides. Fifty-six morphotypes and their 222 pair combinations (direct and reverse combinations were considered different) were found. Twenty-five morphotypes were encountered (left and right, in total) less than five times and were excluded from the further analysis together with their pairs. Accordingly, 5306 chewing surface contours were left, the number of morphotypes being equal to 31, and the number of different combinations — 187 : 30 — symmetric and 157 — asymmetric. Symmetric combinations were encountered more often (Table 1). The fraction of symmetric and asymmetric pairs, common for all species, equaled 72.3 % and 27.7 %, respectively.

 

Table 1

Frequencies number of symmetric pairs of morphotypes m1 for each species and total for all species

Species

4H5

5H4

5H5

5H6

6H5

1K4

1K5

1K6

2K4

2K5

2K6

2K7

3K5

3K6

4K5

4K6

1M3

2M3

3M3

1M4

2M4

3M4

3M5

4M3

4M4

4M5

5M4

5M5

3P4

2Ma2

Sum

Alexandromys fortis

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

144

22

0

123

64

3

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

359

A. maximowiczii

0

0

1

0

0

0

3

0

0

8

1

0

45

8

4

5

0

20

166

0

4

100

10

3

18

2

0

0

0

0

398

A. middendorffii

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

65

0

0

113

16

2

38

1

0

0

0

0

237

A. mongolicus

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

6

3

0

6

9

0

0

0

4

15

0

14

67

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

127

A. oeconomus

1

0

0

0

0

24

828

56

20

819

51

1

16

4

0

0

0

30

2

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1855

Lasiopodomys gregalis

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

7

68

2

14

213

6

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

317

Microtus agrestis

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

21

0

0

89

40

0

20

5

0

3

2

0

180

M. paradoxus

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

19

0

0

64

1

1

0

0

1

87

M. rossiaemeridionalis

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

70

2

0

108

4

0

1

0

1

188

Neodon juldaschi

2

3

86

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

94

Total

3

3

87

2

1

24

833

56

20

834

55

1

67

22

4

5

4

207

361

2

158

735

78

5

251

13

1

4

3

3

3842

Note: Modal morphotypes for each species according to [52] are shown in bold. Latin species names are given by [53], except absent from the fauna of Russia.

 

The following indices were used for the results interpretation: complexities and absolute asymmetry of the complexities (difference modulus) of closed fields number, labial, lingual sides of morphotypes, also minimal number of elementary transitions and Shannon entro- py [48].

Full nucleotide sequences of gene mtDNA Cytb (1140 bp) of the same gray vole species were chosen from the International GenBank [49] database. In total, 576 sequences were used (see Appendix).

The geographic coordinates and height above the sea level (also their ranks) of the places of collecting most representative samples of each species — total of 6 traits (Fig. 1) — were used as environmental characteristics. Besides, the average monthly climatic norms of these terrains — temperature, its amplitude and norm of precipitation (total of 36 traits) [50] — were analyzed.

 

Fig. 1. The locations of the most representative samples for each species. Species: 1A. fortis, 2A. maximowiczii, 3A. middendorffii, 4A. mongolicus, 5A. oeconomus, 6L. gregalis, 7M. agrestis, 8M. paradoxus, 9M. rossiaemeridionalis, 10N. juldaschi

 

A new algorithm for analyzing the congruence and combining the data based on the matrices of distances between the species, i.e. the DJ–method, was proposed in a number of our publications [23, 24, 51]. If a set of objects has two or more description systems, then it is possible to calculate the pair similarity/dissimilarity index matrix between objects on each of description system. The similarities/dissimilarity matrix can be transformed into the object–trait matrix. It is necessary in order to map the existing set of objects for each description system as the cloud of points in the Euclidean space. Thereafter, the cloud of points (objects) is analyzed for the congruence of their mutual location, e.g. assisted with the PLS–methods [54], generalized Procrustean analysis [55] or common correlation methods. The algorithm was realized in the Jacobi 4 package [56] of applied programs. In this work, the frequencies table of all pairs of morphotypes — symmetric and asymmetric — is normalized at the sum on the rows. The Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards matrix [46, 57] of Euclidean distances was calculated between all species. As this matrix was obtained on the base of differences in the occurrence of common pairs of morphotypes in different species, it reflects the variability of specific morphogenesis [45, 46]. On this basis, further on in the text, we will call it the morphogenetic matrix of distances.

The Cytb nucleotide sequences divided into codons were analyzed in the work. The transformation of nucleotide sequences from the GenBank into the Excel format and splitting into codons were carried out using MEGA7 and Excel packages.

It was believed earlier that, as synonymous nucleotide mutations do not change any amino acid they code, they have no consequences for the protein function or viability of an organism. However, as a result of a comparative analysis of sequences, the non-random synonymous codon frequencies distribution was revealed later in different organisms (individuals and species). This phenomenon was called the “Synonymous Codon Usage Bias” (SCUB) [58]. In our research, at the calculation of evolutionary distances, we used the model in which the substitution of not a nucleotide, but a codon [59, 60] is considered to be an elementary event. These substitutions can be both synonymous and nonsynonymous (replacements).

The matrix of p-distances that reflects the total number of codon substitutions for each pair of sequences was calculated between sequences. If amino acids are used instead of codons, then the p-distance matrix will reflect the number of only nonsynonymous substitutions of codons. The difference between them gives the p-distance matrix of only synonymous substitutions of codons. Any p-distance matrix is a matrix of squared Euclidean distances [51]. Therefore, square roots were extracted from the p-distances for all three molecular-genetic matrices. Then distance matrices were transformed into object–trait matrices with the method of principal coordinates [61]. This way, points in molecular-genetic Euclidean spaces were matched corresponding to all objects. PAST and Jacobi 4 packages were used to calculate distance matrices and principal components with the method of principal coordinates. Note that the method of principal coordinates is the direct method of calculating principal components in case when a matrix of distances between objects is Euclidean [61–64]. The centroid, which represents the species [65], was calculated for each set of points belonging to one species. Further on, matrices of pairwise Euclidean distances were calculated between centroids of all species.

All interspecific distance matrices, including the morphogenetic one, were processed with the method of principal coordinates. As a result of such processing, we obtained a limited set of modules (principal components) that describe their variability in morphogenetic and molecular–genetic spaces [66] for ten gray vole species under investigation.

In order to minimize the number of compared correlation coefficients, both totalities of geo–climatic factors (each separately), after the centering, normalization and calculating of Euclidean distance matrices, were processed with the method of principal coordinates. Part of calculations was carried out independently in different packages to control the correctness of the obtained results. Pearson linear correlation coefficients were calculated in packages Statistica 8, PAST and Jacobi 4, and their significance — in Statistica 8 and PAST packages (Student t-test for Pearson correlation coefficient, df = n-2). Next, the correlations of variability modules with the obtained geo-climatic gradients were analyzed.

RESULTS

Morphogenetic modules of variability. On the plane of the first two principal components of morphogenetic distances matrix (32.7 and 23.8 % of total variance), the species mutual location is determined by the differences of their specific morphogeneses (Fig. 2).

 

Fig. 2. The configuration of ten species of the gray voles Microtus s.l. on the plane of the first two PCs of the morphogenetic distances matrix

 

On the first principal morphogenetic component (mgPC1), N. juldaschi and A. oeconomus are drastically different from all the rest species due to the low average complexity of their morphotypes. Such interpretation of this variability module follows from its high correlations with the traits that characterize the complexity of m1 morphotypes (Table 2).

 

Table 2

Pearson correlation coefficients (×1000) between morphotypes m1 traits of ten species of the gray voles Microtus s.l. and two first PCs of the morphogenetic distances matrix

Trait

mgPC1

mgPC2

Total complexity of the right morphotype

971**

–188

Total complexity of both morphotypes

970**

–191

Total complexity of the left morphotype

969**

–194

Closed fields complexity of the left morphotype

903**

300

Closed fields complexity of the right morphotype

903**

297

Absolute asymmetry of morphotypes complexity

–067

693*

Minimal number of elementary transitions

–060

691*

Shannon entropy

251

682*

Absolute asymmetry of lingual side complexity

019

637*

Fraction of symmetric individuals

143

–632*

Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001.

 

The investigated vole species are arranged along the second principal morphogenetic component (mgPC2) in the order of their increase m1 morphotypes asymmetry and the decrease of symmetric individuals fraction (see Table 2). As asymmetry is traditionally considered as an index of ontogenesis instability [67], it follows from Fig. 2 that species M. paradoxus, M rossiaemeridionalis and N. juldaschi are characterized by the most stable morphogenesis, and A. fortis and A. mongolicus — by the most unstable morphogenesis.

Molecular-genetic modules of variability. It was found out in the investigation process that the principal components of synonymous distances matrix demonstrate the highest congruence with one of the morphogenetic modules of variability out of three considered matrices (total, nonsynonymous and synonymous interspecific distances). Therefore, only they are discussed below. The species mutual location on the plane formed by these principal components (Fig. 3) well agrees to the results obtained with the methods of molecular phylogenetics [68], despite that our result was obtained on the model of replacing synonymous codons, but not single nucleotides.

 

Fig. 3. The configuration of ten species of the gray voles Microtus s.l. on the plane of the first two PCs of the synonymous distances matrix

 

At calculating the codon frequency correlations with the first principal components of synonymous distances matrix (genPC1), the highest correlations were found for two codons: GCA (r = –0.911, n = 10, p = 0.00025) and ACC (r = 0.902, n = 10, p = 0.00036). Thus, there is a significant increase of the ACC codon frequency and a decrease of the GCA codon frequency along the first principal component of genus Alexandromys voles, compared to those of genus Microtus.

Environmental factors. The first principal components of the matrices of geographic (62.2 % of total variance) and climatic (53.4 % of total variance) traits for the locations of capturing the most representative samples of each species highly correlate (r = 0.872, n = 10, p = 0.001) (Table 3). Totally, they build up the geo-climatic gradient “south-west–north-east”. There is a decrease in the average temperature of all months and winter-spring precipitation (from February to April) and an increase of summer precipitation (from June to September) along the gradient.

The congruence of the modules of morphogenetic, molecular–genetic and environmental variabilities was studied with the help of correlations between the first two components of the corresponding matrices (Table 3).

 

Table 3

Pearson correlation coefficients (×1000) between first two PCs of the morphogenetic (mgPC), molecular-genetic (genPC), geographic (geoPC), and climatic (climPC) variability

PCs

mgPC1

mgPC2

genPC1

genPC2

climPC1

climPC2

geoPC1

geoPC2

mgPC1

0

–058

–229

338

049

343

–242

mgPC2

0

847**

–260

695*

325

598

536

genPC1

–058

847**

0

788**

148

759*

472

genPC2

–229

–260

0

–047

–003

133

014

climPC1

338

695*

788**

–047

0

872**

368

climPC2

049

325

148

–003

0

–159

690*

geoPC1

343

598

759*

133

872**

–159

0

geoPC2

–242

536

472

014

368

690*

0

Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001.

 

As is seen in Table 3, one of the strongest correlations (r = 0.847, n = 10, p = 0.002) was obtained between the first molecular-genetic and the second components of morphogenetic variability (Fig. 4).

 

Fig. 4. Correlation (r = 0,847, n = 10, p = 0,002) between PC1 of the synonymous distances matrix and PC2 of the morphogenetic distances matrix

 

The first component of molecular-genetic variability also correlates with the geo-climatic gradient, largely with the first climatic component (r = 0.788, n = 10, p = 0.0068) (Fig. 5). A weaker correlation (r = 0.695, n = 10, p = 0.026) is observed between the second component of the morphogenetic matrix and the first climatic component.

 

Fig. 5. Correlation (r = 0,788, n = 10, p = 0,0068) between PC1 of the climatic variability and PC1 of the synonymous distances matrix

 

The first principal component of the morphogenetic variability does not correlate with anything.

DISCUSSION

The present investigation is a continuation of a series of our articles published on the search of congruent variability of traits from different trait systems, also on the development of the adequate algorithms of such search [23, 24, 69]. An attempt of searching the congruence between the morphotypic and molecular-genetic variability of gray voles Microtus s.l. by analyzing the corresponding matrices of distances with the help of Mantel test [69] was taken earlier with the same material. The test showed the insignificant correlation between the matrices (r = 0.23, p = 0.13, Np = 106), from which a conclusion on the considerable independence of these trait systems of the studied species was made. Nevertheless, this issue has not been cleared out completely, as the 2B–PLS-analysis demonstrated the presence of congruent variability between the indices of morphotypes asymmetry and entropy, and the frequencies of gene Cytb nucleotides and dinucleotides along the geo-climatic gradient. To specify the investigation results, it was decided to use a bit other approach: namely, to split all the total variability of traits of different trait systems into autonomous units, i.e. modules that may contribute to revealing those of them that change jointly. At present, the modular approach to the analysis of variability is widely practiced worldwide. Different criteria (functional, ontogenetic, statistical, evolutionary, etc.) are used to reveal modules. In the present research, we used a statistical approach to pointing out variability modules [10, 11, 18], which are the principal components of two interspecific matrices of Euclidean distances.

The first matrix (morphogenetic) was built up based on the differences in the Microtus s.l. occurrence frequencies of the common pairs of ml; the second matrix (molecular-genetic) — based on the synonymous p-distances between the Cytb codon sequences of the same species. In this article, we consider two first modules for each trait system, as there was no congruent variability found beyond them. They are directions in the corresponding Euclidean spaces. The experience in this field shows that, in most cases, latent variables can be interpreted informatively [70–72].

Concerning the modular approach, ontogenesis is a totality of morphogeneses, which can be presented as discrete blocks or modules that can be changed relatively independently, other events of ontogenesis being unaffected [73, 74]. As, in our research, the interspecific morphogenetic distances matrix was obtained on the base of the difference in the occurrence frequencies of common pairs of m1 morphotypes, both symmetric and asymmetric, it reflects the variability of specific morphogeneses. Calculating the principal components of this matrix allows its decomposition into independent constituents, i.e. modules which are a result of different morphogenetic events. In this case, these modules were interpreted by us as the average morphogenetic complexity, which reflects the complexity of the molar prismatic design, and the asymmetry of the phenotypic complexity which reflects the instability of the morphogenesis of this organ.

The species mutual location in Fig. 2 is determined by the differences of their specific morphogeneses. Two species N. juldaschi and A. oeconomus are characterized by the low average complexity of their morphotypes (separated on the first principal component), which distinguishes them from the rest species that stretch along the second component forming pairs. Thus, the pair of M. paradoxus, M. rossiaemeridionalis has the most stable morphogenesis, and the pair of A. fortis, A. mongolicus has the least stable morphogenesis, as the latter have the highest asymmetry indices of morphotypic complexity and the fraction of asymmetric individuals. Interesting is that no significant correlations with a direction of molecular-genetic or geo-climatic variability were found for the first principal component, which is the main direction of morphogenetic variability and reflects the variability of the average m1 morphotypic complexity in the investigated species.

Next, we obtained the correlation of the second component of the morphogenetic matrix with the “south-west–north-east” geo-climatic gradient (especially with the first climatic principal component (Table 3), which confirms the mophotypes asymmetry at the increase of stress in the “organism–environment” interaction (Table 2). As the first climatic principal component is formed by exclusively the contribution of temperatures, we believe temperature is the main interspecific variability factor of morphogeneses [75–77].

However, the second morphogenetic component demonstrated an even higher correlation with the first component of interspecific molecular-genetic distances matrix calculated on the model of the synonymous substitutions of Cytb codons (Table 3). The fact of SCUB established for a big number of species of living organisms serves as base for the calculation. The ratio of synonymous codons in mRNA is an important fact that influences the translation speed and protein synthesis kinetics [78–81]. Besides, the differences of synonymous codons, actually, serve as additional code of controlling protein folding in vivo and, hence, they are one more source of protein conformation variability [82].

The reasons for SCUB remain the subject of discussions. In particular, the hypotheses of random mutations and directional selection were formulated [83]. The result obtained within our research, namely, the correspondence of the first principal component of interspecific distances matrix to the geo-climatic gradient “south-west–north-east” (Table 3), is the evidence in favor of the selective formation mechanism of the observed SCUB. A significant increase of the ACC codon frequency and a decrease of the GCA codon frequency occur along the geo-climatic gradient in the voles of genus Alexandromys, compared to those of genus Microtus. The obtained SCUB may be conjugated with the fast adaptive changes of the secondary protein structure conditioned by the impact of environmental factors and that, within the present research, is just an assumption.

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by the Fundamental Scientific Research Program (FSR) of State Academies of Sciences for 2013–2020, project № VI.51.1.9. (AAAA-A16-116121410119-4) and RFBR grants №№ 17-04-00269-a, 19-07-00658-a. The material from the collection of Siberian Zoological Museum, Novosibirsk, of the Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals SB RAS (state task № AAAA-A17-117101070002-6), supported by the Program of Bioresource Collections Development of the Ministry of Science of Russia, was used.

APPENDIX

GenBank accession numbers of sequences:

  1. agrestis: AF119271, AF159402, AY167149–AY167213, FJ619746–FJ619786, GU563195–GU563299, JX284248–JX284283, KF218851–KF218952.
  2. fortis: AF163894, EU126809, EU870632, HQ123607, HQ123608, JF906125, KJ081871–KJ081954.
  3. gregalis: AF163895, AY513803, KF839591, KF839592.
  4. juldaschi: AY513808, EF599112, EF599113.
  5. maximowiczii: FJ986303, FJ986311, FJ986312, FJ986319, KJ857275–KJ857280, KJ857287–KJ857291.
  6. middendorffii: AF163898, FJ986314, FJ986315, HM119493.
  7. mongolicus: FJ986304, FJ986305, FJ986309, FJ986310.
  8. oeconomus: AB372193–AB372207, AF163902, AY219981–AY220045, DQ452134–DQ452142.
  9. paradoxus: KC953622, KC953624.
  10. rossiaemeridionalis: AY513819–AY513823, U54472–U54478, U54493, U54495.

Vera Yu. Kovaleva

Federal Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: vkova@ngs.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1685-4820

Russian Federation, 11, Frunze street, Novosibirsk, 630091

DSc, Sen Sci Res, Laboratory of Animal Ecology

Alexandr A. Pozdnyakov

Federal Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: al_ap@mail.ru

Russian Federation, 11, Frunze street, Novosibirsk, 630091

PhD, Sen Sci Res, Laboratory of Animal Ecology

Yuri N. Litvinov

Federal Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: Lyun13@yandex.ru

Russian Federation, 11, Frunze street, Novosibirsk, 630091

DSc, Deputy Director, Laboratory of Animal Ecology

Vadim M. Efimov

Federal Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Novosibirsk State University; Tomsk State University

Email: vmefimov@ngs.ru

Russian Federation, 11, Frunze street, Novosibirsk, 630091; 1, Pirogova street, Novosibirsk, 630090; 34a, Lenina prospect, Tomsk, 634050

DSc, Prof. of Cytology and Genetics Department; Prof. of Vertebrate Zoology and Ecology Department

  1. Ратнер В.А. Внешние и внутренние факторы и ограничения молекулярной эволюции // Современные проблемы теории эволюции / Под ред. Л.П. Татаринова. – М.: Наука; 1993. – С. 60–80. [Ratner VA. Vneshnie i vnutrennie faktory i ogranicheniya molekulyarnoi evolyutsii. In: Sovremennye problemy teorii evolyutsii. Ed by L.P. Tatarinov. Moscow: Nauka; 1993. P. 60-80. (In Russ.)]
  2. Wagner GP, Altenberg L. Complex adaptations and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution. 1996;50(3):967-76. https://doi.org/10.2307/2410639.
  3. Pigliucci M. Phenotypic integration: studying the ecology and evolution of complex phenotypes. Ecol Lett. 2003;6(3):265-272. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00428.x.3.
  4. Инге-Вечтомов С.Г. Поиски периодической системы... в эволюции // Наука из первых рук. – 2004. – № 2. – С. 20–25. [Inge-Vechtomov SG. Poiski periodicheskoi sistemy… w ehwolucii. Nauka iz pervykh ruk. 2004;(2):20-25. (In Russ.)]
  5. Winther RG. Evolutionary developmental biology meets levels of selection: modular integration or competition, or both? In: Modularity: understanding the development and evolution of natural complex systems. Ed. by W. Callebaut, D. Rasskin-Gutman, H.A. Simon. The Vienna Ser. in Theoretical biology. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005. P. 61-90.
  6. Klingenberg CP. Morphological integration and developmental modularity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2008;39:115-132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110054.
  7. Суслов В.В., Колчанов Н.А. Дарвиновская эволюция и регуляторные генетические системы // Информационный вестник ВОГиС. – 2009. – Т. 13. – № 2. – С. 410–439. [Suslov VV. Kolchanov NA. Darwinian evolution and regulatory gene structure. Informatsionnyi vestnik VOGiS. 2009;13(2):410-439. (In Russ.)]
  8. Esteve-Altava B. In search of morphological modules: a systematic review. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2017;92(3):1332-1347. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12284.
  9. Klingenberg CP. Integration, modules, and development: molecules to morphology to evolution. In: Phenotypic integration: studying the ecology and evolution of complex phenotypes. Ed by M. Pigliucci, K. Preston. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004. P. 213-230.
  10. Klingenberg CP. Studying morphological integration and modularity at multiple levels: Concepts and analysis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014;369(1649):20130249. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0249.
  11. Goswami A, Polly PD. Methods for studying morphological integration, modularity and covariance evolution. In: Quantitative methods in paleobiology. Ed by J. Alroy, G.H. Ithaca. NY: Paleontological Society Papers Series; 2010;16:213-243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1089332600001881.
  12. Goswami A, Smaers JB, Soligo C, Polly PD. The macroevolutionary consequences of phenotypic integration: from development to deep time. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014;369(1649):20130254. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0254.
  13. Cheverud JM. Phenotypic, genetic, and environmental morphological integration in the cranium. Evolution. 1982;36(3):499-516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1982.tb05070.x.
  14. Magwene PM. S27-1 Integration and modularity in biological system: a review. Acta Zoologica Sinica. 2006;52(Suppl.):490-493.
  15. Winther RG. Varieties of modules: kinds, levels, origins, and behaviors. J Exper Zool. 2001;291(2):116-129. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1064.
  16. Esteve-Altava B, Marugan-Lobon J, Botella H, et al. Grist for Riedl’s mill: a network model perspective on the integration and modularity of the human skull. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 2013;320(8):489-500. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.22524.
  17. Terentjev PV. Biometrische Untersuchungen über die morphologischen Merkmale von Rana ridibunda pall: (Amphibia, Salientia). Biometrika. 1931;23(1-2):23. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333629.
  18. Haber A. A comparative analysis of integration indices. Evol Biol. 2011;38(4):476-488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-011-9137-4.
  19. Olson EC, Miller RL. Morphological integration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1958. 376 p.
  20. Шмальгаузен И.И. Организм как целое. – М.; Л.: Изд-во АН СССР, 1942. – 211 с. [Shmalgauzen II. Organizm kak tseloe. Moscow; Leningrad: AN SSSR; 1942. 211 p. (In Russ.)]
  21. Schluter D. Adaptive radiation along genetic lines of least resistance. Evolution. 1996;50:1766-1774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb03563.x.
  22. Martinez-Abadias N, Esparza M, Sjovold T, et al. Pervasive genetic integration directs the evolution of human skull shape. Evolution. 2012;66:1010-1023. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01496.x.
  23. Ковалева В.Ю., Абрамов С.А., Дупал Т.А., и др. Анализ соответствия и комбинирование молекулярно-генетических и морфологических данных в зоологической систематике // Известия РАН. Серия биол. – 2012. – № 4. – C. 404–414. [Kovaleva VYu, Abramov SA, Dupal TA, et al. Congruence analysis and combining of molecular genetics and morphological data in zoological systematics. Biology Bulletin. 2012;39(4):335-345. (In Russ.)]. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1062359012030053.
  24. Ковалева В.Ю., Литвинов Ю.Н., Ефимов В.М. Землеройки (Soricidae, Eulipotyphla) Сибири и Дальнего Востока: комбинирование и поиск конгруэнтности молекулярно-генетических и морфологических данных // Зоологический журнал. – 2013. – Т. 92. – № 11. – С. 1383–1398. [Kovaleva VYu, Litvinov YuN, Efimov VM. Shrews (Soricidae, Eulipotyphla) from the Far East and Siberia: combination and search for congruence of molecular-genetic and morphological data. Russian journal of zoology. 2013;92(11):1383-1398. (In Russ.)]. https://doi.org/10.7868/S0044513413110081.
  25. Raff RA, Sly BJ. Modularity and dissociation in the evolution of gene expression territories in development. Evol Dev. 2000;2(2):102-111. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00035.x.
  26. Schlosser G. Modularity and the units of evolution. Theory Biosci. 2002;121(1):1-80. https://doi.org/10.1078/1431-7613-00049.
  27. Wagner GP, Pavlicev M, Cheverud J. The road to modularity. Nat Rev Genet. 2007;8:921-931. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2267.
  28. Kuratani S. Modularity, comparative embryology and Evo-Devo: developmental dissection of evolving body plans. Dev Biol. 2009;332(1):61-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2009.05.564.
  29. Murren CJ. The integrated phenotype. Integr Comp Biol. 2012;52(1):64-76. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/ics043.
  30. Rasskin-Gutman D, Esteve-Altava B. Connecting the dots: anatomical network analysis in morphological EvoDevo. Biol Theory. 2014;9:178-193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-014-0175-x.
  31. Klingenberg CP. Evolution and development of shape: integrating quantitative approaches. Nat Rev Genet. 2010;11(9):623-635. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2829.
  32. Willmore KE, Klingenberg CP, Hallgrímsson B. The relationship between fluctuating asymmetry and environmental variance in rhesus macaque skulls. Evolution. 2005;59(4);898-909. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01763.x.
  33. Klingenberg CP, Zaklan SD. Morphological integration between developmental compartments in the Drosophila wing. Evolution. 2000;54(4);1273-1285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00560.x.
  34. Debat V, Alibert P, David P, et al. Independence between developmental stability and canalization in the skull of the house mouse. Proc Biol Sci. 2000;267(1442):423-30. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1017.
  35. Klingenberg CP, Badyaev AV, Sowry SM, Beckwith NJ. Inferring developmental modularity from morphological integration: analysis of individual variation and asymmetry in bumblebee wings. Am Nat. 2001;157(1):11-23. https://doi.org/10.1086/317002.
  36. Ivanović A, Kalezić ML. Testing the hypothesis of morphological integration on a skull of a vertebrate with a biphasic life cycle: a case study of the alpine newt. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 2010;314(7):527-538. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.21358.
  37. Jojić V, Blagojević J, Vujošević M. B chromosomes and cranial variability in yellow-necked field mice (Apodemus flavicollis). J Mammalogy. 2011;92(2);396-406. https://doi.org/10.1644/10-mamm-a-158.1.
  38. Monteiro LR, Bonato V, dos Reis SF. Evolutionary integration and morphological diversification in complex morphological structures: mandible shape divergence in spiny rats (Rodentia, Echimyidae). Evol Dev. 2005;7(5):429-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-142x.2005.05047.x
  39. Bastir M, Rosas A, Stringer C, et al. Effects of brain and facial size on basicranial form in human and primate evolution. J Hum Evol. 2010;58(5):424-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.03.001.
  40. Hautier L, Lebrun R, Cox PG. Patterns of covariation in the masticatory apparatus of hystricognathous rodents: implications for evolution and diversification. J Morphol. 2012;273(12):1319-1337. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.20061.
  41. Klingenberg CP, Marugán-Lobón J. Evolutionary covariation in geometric morphometric data: analyzing integration, modularity, and allometry in a phylogenetic context. Syst Biol. 2013;62(4):591-610. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syt025.
  42. Chamero B, Buscalioni ÁD, Marugán-Lobón J. Pectoral girdle and forelimb variation in extant Crocodylia: the coracoid-humerus pair as an evolutionary module. Biol J Linn Soc. 2013;108(3):600-618. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.02037.x.
  43. Santana SE, Lofgren SE. Does nasal echolocation influence the modularity of the mammal skull? J Evol Biol. 2013;26(11):2520-2526. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12235.
  44. Поздняков А.А. Структура морфологической изменчивости (на примере морфотипов жевательной поверхности первого нижнего коренного зуба серых полевок) // Журнал общей биологии. – 2011. – Т. 72. – № 2. – С. 127–139. [Pozdnyakov AA. The structure of morphological variability (with the masticatory surface morphotypes of the lower first molar in the voles as an example). Biology Bulletin Reviews. 2011;1(5):471-481. (In Russ.)]. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079086411050070.
  45. Васильев А.Г. Фенетический анализ биоразнообразия на популяционном уровне: Автореф. дис. … д-ра биол. наук. – Екатеринбург, 1996. – 47 с. [Vasil`ev AG. Phenetic analysis of biodiversity at the population level. [dissertation] Yekaterinburg; 1996. 47 p. (In Russ.)]. Доступно по: https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01000128144. Ссылка активна на 14.01.2019.
  46. Ковалева В.Ю., Поздняков А.А., Ефимов В.М. Изучение структуры изменчивости морфотипов коренных зубов полевки-экономки (Microtus oeconomus) через билатеральную асимметрию их проявления // Зоологический журнал. – 2002. – Т. 81. – № 1. – С. 111–117. [Kovaleva VYu, Pozdnyakov AA, Efimov VM. Investigation of variability structure of root vole (Microtus oeconomus Pallas) molar morphotypes using bilateral asymmetry. Russian journal of zoology. 2002;81(1):111-117. (In Russ.)]
  47. Kovaleva VYu, Efimov VM, Litvinov YuN. Directional asymmetry of morphological traits during postnatal ontogeny in root vole Microtus oeconomus Pall. (Rodentia, Cricetidae). J SibFU. Biol. 2013;6(2):115-129. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1389-0111.
  48. Поздняков А.А. Морфологическое разнообразие: характеристика, структура, анализ // Сообщества и популяции животных: экологический и морфологический анализ / Под ред. В.Н. Большакова. Серия: Труды Института систематики и экологии животных СО РАН. – М.: Товарищество научных изданий КМК; 2010. – С. 133–157. [Pozdnyakov AA. Morfologicheskoe raznoobrazie: kharakteristika, struktura, analiz. In: Ser: Trudy Instituta sistematiki i ekologii zhivotnykh SO RAN. Soobshchestva i populyatsii zhivotnykh: ekologicheskii i morfologicheskii analiz. Ed by V.N. Bolshakov. Moscow: Tovarishchestvo nauchnykh izdanii KMK; 2010. P. 133-157. (In Russ.)]
  49. Nucleotide-NCBI. National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine [cited 2018 August 16]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/.
  50. Climate:Data.org. Климатические данные городов по всему миру. [Climate:Data.org. Klimaticheskie dannye gorodov po vsemu miru. (In Russ.)]. Доступно по: http://ru.climate-data.org/. Ссылка активна на 16.02.2019.
  51. Ефимов В.М., Мельчакова М.А., Ковалева В.Ю. Геометрические свойства эволюционных дистанций [электронный ресурс] // Вавиловский журнал генетики и селекции. – 2013. – Т. 17. – № 4/1. – С. 714–723. [Efimov VM, Melchakova MA, Kovaleva VYu. Geometric properties of evolutionary distances (Elektronnyi resurs). Vavilov Journal of Genetics and Breeding. 2013;17(4/1):714-723. (In Russ.)]. Доступно по: https://docplayer.ru/42679204-Geometricheskie-svoystva-evolyucionnyh-distanciy.html. Ссылка активна на 11.01.2019.
  52. Ангерманн Р. Гомологическая изменчивость коренных зубов у полевок (Microtinae) // Проблемы эволюции. Т. 3 / Под ред. Н.Н. Воронцова. – Новосибирск: Наука. Сиб. отд-ние, 1973. – С. 104–118. [Angermann R. The homologous variability of molars in voles (Microtinae). In: Problems of evolution. Ed by N.N. Vorontsov. V. 3. Novosibirsk: Nauka, Sib. otd-nie; 1973. P. 104-118. (In Russ.)]
  53. Абрамсон Н.И., Лисовский А.А. Подсемейство Arvicolinae // Млекопитающие России: систематико-географический справочник / Под ред. И.Я. Павлинова, А.А. Лисовского. –М.: Товарищество научных изданий КМК, 2012. – С. 220–276. [Abramson NI, Lisovskii AA. Subfamily Arvicolinae. In: The mammals of Russia. A taxonomic and geographic reference. Ed by I.Ya. Pavlinov, A.A. Lissovsky. Moscow: Tovarishchestvo nauchnykh izdanii KMK; 2012. P. 220-276. (In Russ.)]
  54. Wold S, Sjöström M, Eriksson L. PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 2001;58(2):109-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7439(01)00155-1.
  55. Gower JC. Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika. 1975;40(1):33-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291478.
  56. Полунин Д.А., Штайгер И.А., Ефимов В.М. Разработка программного комплекса JACOBI 4 для многомерного анализа микрочиповых данных // Вестник НГУ. Серия: Информационные технологии. – 2014. – Т. 12. – № 2. – С. 90–98. [Polunin DA, Shtayger IA, Efimov VM. JACOBI 4 software for multivariate analysis of microarray data. Vestnik NSU. Ser.: Information Technology. 2014;12(2):90-98. (In Russ.)]
  57. Cavalli-Sforza LL, Edwards AW. Phylogenetic analysis. Models and estimation procedures. Am J Hum Genet. 1967;19:233-257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1967.tb03411.x.
  58. Sharp PM, Li WH. An evolutionary perspective on synonymous codon usage in unicellular organisms. J Mol Evol. 1986;24(1-2):28-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02099948.
  59. Goldman N, Yang Z. A codon-based model of nucleotide substitution for protein-coding DNA sequences. Mol Biol Evol. 1994;11(5):725-736. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040153.
  60. Schneider A, Cannarozzi GM, Gonnet GH. Empirical codon substitution matrix. BMC bioinformatics. 2005;6:134. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-6-134.
  61. Torgerson WS. Multidimensional scaling: I. Theory and method. Psychometrika. 1952;17(4):401-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02288916.
  62. Gower JC. Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika. 1966;53:325-338. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/53.3-4.325.
  63. Legendre P, Legendre L. Numerical Ecology: second English edition. In: Developments in Environmental Modelling. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1998. 853 p.
  64. Adams DC. Quantifying and comparing phylogenetic evolutionary rates for shape and other high-dimensional phenotypic data. Syst Biol. 2014;63(2):166-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syt105.
  65. Ефимов В.М., Ковалева В.Ю., Литвинов Ю.Н. Комбинирование генов и оценка конгруэнтности их филогенетических сигналов на основе геометрического подхода // Вавиловский журнал генетики и селекции. – 2016. – Т. 20. – № 6. – С. 816–822. [Efimov VM, Kovaleva VYu, Litvinov YuN. The combination of genes and their assessment of the congruence of phylogenetic signals based on geometric approach. Vavilov Journal of Genetics and Breeding.2016;20(6):816-822. (In Russ.)]. https://doi.org/10.18699/VJ16.153.
  66. Ковалева В.Ю. Блочно-модульная организация фенотипической изменчивости: Автореф. дис. … д-ра биол. наук. – Новосибирск, 2017. – 47 с. [Kovaleva VYu. Blochno-modulnaya organizatsiya fenotipicheskoi izmenchivosti. [dissertation] Novosibirsk; 2017. 47 p. (In Russ.)]. Доступно по: https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01006658833. Ссылка активна на 14.01.2019.
  67. Захаров В.М. Асимметрия животных: популяционно-феногенетический подход. – М.: Наука, 1987. – 216 с. [Zakharov VM. Asimmetriya zhivotnykh populyatsionno-fenogeneticheskii podkhod. Moscow: Nauka; 1987. 216 p. (In Russ.)]
  68. Bannikova AA, Lebedev VS, Lissovsky AA, et al. Molecular phylogeny and evolution of the Asian lineage of vole genus Microtus (Rodentia: Arvicolinae) inferred from mitochondrial cytochrome b sequence. Biol J Linnean Soc. 2010;99(3):595-613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01378.x.
  69. Поздняков А.А., Ковалева В.Ю., Ефимов В.М., Литвинов Ю.Н. Сопряженность морфотипической и молекулярно-генетической изменчивости полевок группы родов МICROTUS // Териофауна России и сопредельных территорий / Международное совещание. X Съезд Териологического общества при РАН, 1–5 февраля 2016 г. – М.: Товарищество научных изданий КМК, 2016. – С. 333. [Pozdnyakov AA, Kovaleva VYu, Efimov VM, Litvinov YuN. Sopryazhennost’ morfotipicheskoi i molekulyarno-geneticheskoi izmenchivosti polevok gruppy rodov MICROTUS. In: Teriofauna of Russia and Adjacent Territories: International Conference. X Congress of the Teriological Society of the Russian Academy of Sciences, February 1-5, 2016. Moscow: Tovarishchestvo nauchnykh izdanii KMK; 2016. Р. 333. (In Russ.)]
  70. Шмидт В.М. Развитие представлений о корреляциях и корреляционной структуре биологических объектов // Исследование биологических систем математическими методами / Труды Биологического НИИ ЛГУ. – Л.: Изд-во Ленинградского ун-та, 1985. – № 37. – С. 5–18. [Shmidt VM. Razvitie predstavlenii o korrelyatsiyakh i korrelyatsionnoi strukture biologicheskikh obektov. In: Issledovanie biologicheskikh sistem matematicheskimi metodami. Tr. Boil. NII LGU. 1985;(37):5-18. (In Russ.)]
  71. Ефимов В.М. Проблемы многомерного анализа экологических данных: Автореф. дис ... д-ра биол. наук. – Томск: ТГУ; 2003. – 39 с. [Efimov VM. Problemy mnogomernogo analiza ekologicheskikh dannykh. [dissertation] Tomsk: TGU; 2003. 39 р. (In Russ.)]. Доступно по: https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01002652594. Ссылка активна на 14.01.2019.
  72. Ефимов В.М., Ковалева В.Ю. Многомерный анализ биологических данных: учебное пособие. – 2-е изд., испр. и доп. – СПб.: ВИЗР РАСХН, 2008. – 87 с. [Efimov VM, Kovaleva VYu. Mnogomernyi analiz biologicheskikh dannykh: uchebnoe posobie. 2nd ed. Saint Petersburg: VIZR RASKHN; 2008. 87 p. (In Russ.)]
  73. Gilbert SF. Developmental biology. 8th ed. Sunderland, MA; 2006. 751 p. https://doi.org/10.1162/biot.2006.1.2.209.
  74. Исаева В.В. Преобразования симметрии в онтогенезе и эволюции [интернет] // Морфогенез в индивидуальном и историческом развитии: симметрия и асимметрия. Серия: Геобиологические процессы в прошлом. – М.: ПИН РАН; 2013. – С. 22–43. [Isaeva VV. Preobrazovaniya simmetrii v ontogeneze i evolyutsii [Internet]. In: Morfogenez v individualnom i istoricheskom razvitii simmetriya i asimmetriya. Seriya: Geobiologicheskie protsessy v proshlom. Moscow: PIN RAN; 2013. P. 22-43. (In Russ.)]. Доступно по: http://os.x-pdf.ru/20biologiya/768960-1-preobrazovaniya-simmetrii-ontogeneze-evolyucii-2013-isaeva-institu.php. Ссылка активна на 12.12.2018.
  75. Ковалева В.Ю., Фалеев В.И. Морфологическая изменчивость полевки-экономки Microtus oeconomus (Rodentia, Cricetidae) в различных температурных условиях среды // Зоологический журнал. – 1994. – Т. 73. – № 9. – С. 139–145. [Kovaleva VYu, Faleev VI. Morphological variability of Microtus oeconomus (Rodentia, Cricetidae) in different temperature conditions. Russian journal of zoology. 1994;73(9):139-145. (In Russ.)]
  76. Ковалева В.Ю., Ефимов В.М., Фалеев В.И. Краниометрическая изменчивость сеголеток водяной полевки Arvicola terrestris (Rodentia, Cricetidae) в связи с факторами среды // Зоологический журнал. – 1996. – Т. 75. – № 10. – С. 1558–1559. [Kovaleva VYu, Efimov VM, Faleev VI. Craniometric variation of non-wintering water voles Arvicola terrestris (Rodentia, Cricetidae) in different environmental conditions. Russian journal of zoology.1996;75(10):1551-1559. (In Russ.)]
  77. Поздняков А.А. Морфотипическая изменчивость серых полевок (Rodentia, Arvicolidae, Microtus) в связи с температурными условиями среды // Успехи современной биологии. – 2003. – Т. 123. – № 2. – С. 187–194. [Pozdnyakov AA. Morphotypical variability of voles of the subgenus Alexandromys (Rodentia, Arvicolidae, Microtus) related to temperature conditions. Biol Bull Reviews. 2003;1:471. (In Russ.)]. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079086411050070.
  78. dos Reis M, Savva R, Wernisch L. Solving the riddle of codon usage preferences: a test for translational selection. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:5036-5044. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh834.
  79. Krisko A, Copic T, Gabaldon T, et al. Inferring gene function from evolutionary change in signatures of translation efficiency. Genome Biol. 2014;15(3):R44. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2014-15-3-r44.
  80. Novoa EM, Ribas de Pouplana L. Speeding with control: codon usage, tRNAs, and ribosomes. Trends Genet. 2012;28(11):574-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2012.07.006.
  81. Pechmann S, Frydman J. Evolutionary conservation of codon optimality reveals hidden signatures of cotranslational folding. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2013;20:237-243. https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2466.
  82. Buhr F, Jha S, Thommen M, et al. Synonymous codons direct cotranslational folding toward different protein conformations. Molecular Cell. 2016;61(3):341-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.01.008.
  83. Hershberg R, Petrov DA. Selection on codon bias. Annu Rev Genet. 2008;42:287-299. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genet.42.110807.091442.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files Action
1. Fig. 1. The locations of the most representative samples for each species. Species: 1 – A. fortis, 2 – A. maximowiczii, 3 – A. middendorffii, 4 – A. mongolicus, 5 – A. oeconomus, 6 – L. gregalis, 7 – M. agrestis, 8 – M. paradoxus, 9 – M. rossiaemeridionalis, 10 – N. juldaschi View (110KB) Indexing metadata
2. Fig. 2. The configuration of ten species of the gray voles Microtus s.l. on the plane of the first two PCs of the morphogenetic distances matrix View (72KB) Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 3. The configuration of ten species of the gray voles Microtus s.l. on the plane of the first two PCs of the synonymous distances matrix View (80KB) Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 4. Correlation (r = 0,847, n = 10, p = 0,002) between PC1 of the synonymous distances matrix and PC2 of the morphogenetic distances matrix View (73KB) Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 5. Correlation (r = 0,788, n = 10, p = 0,0068) between PC1 of the climatic variability and PC1 of the synonymous distances matrix View (73KB) Indexing metadata

Views

Abstract - 188

PDF (Russian) - 83

PDF (English) - 27

Cited-By


PlumX


Copyright (c) 2019 Kovaleva V.Y., Pozdnyakov A.A., Litvinov Y.N., Efimov V.M.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies