Cited by 139Coral and Marine Ecosystems StudiesGenetic diversity and population structureInvertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology

Haplowebs as a graphical tool for delimiting species: a revival of Doyle's "field for recombination" approach and its application to the coral genus Pocillopora in Clipperton

Open access
Flot, Jean-François, Couloux, Arnaud, Tillier, Simon·2010·BMC Evolutionary Biology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Usual methods for inferring species boundaries from molecular sequence data rely either on gene trees or on population genetic analyses. Another way of delimiting species, based on a view of species as "fields for recombination" (FFRs) characterized by mutual allelic exclusivity, was suggested in 1995 by Doyle. Here we propose to use haplowebs (haplotype networks with additional connections between haplotypes found co-occurring in heterozygous individuals) to visualize and delineate single-locus FFRs (sl-FFRs). Furthermore, we introduce a method to quantify the reliability of putative species boundaries according to the number of independent markers that support them, and illustrate this approach with a case study of taxonomically difficult corals of the genus Pocillopora collected around Clipperton Island (far eastern Pacific). RESULTS: One haploweb built from intron sequences of the ATP synthase β subunit gene revealed the presence of two sl-FFRs among our 74 coral samples, whereas a second one built from ITS sequences turned out to be composed of four sl-FFRs. As a third independent marker, we performed a combined analysis of two regions of the mitochondrial genome: since haplowebs are not suited to analyze non-recombining markers, individuals were sorted into four haplogroups according to their mitochondrial sequences. Among all possible bipartitions of our set of samples, thirteen were supported by at least one molecular dataset, none by two and only one by all three datasets: this congruent pattern obtained from independent nuclear and mitochondrial markers indicates that two species of Pocillopora are present in Clipperton. CONCLUSIONS: Our approach builds on Doyle's method and extends it by introducing an intuitive, user-friendly graphical representation and by proposing a conceptual framework to analyze and quantify the congruence between sl-FFRs obtained from several independent markers. Like delineation methods based on population-level statistical approaches, our method can distinguish closely-related species that have not yet reached reciprocal monophyly at most or all of their loci; like tree-based approaches, it can yield meaningful conclusions using a number of independent markers as low as three. Future efforts will aim to develop programs that speed up the construction of haplowebs from FASTA sequence alignments and help perform the congruence analysis outlined in this article.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2148-10-372

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 59 · Cited by 139

Authors
Flot, J.-F., Couloux, A., & Tillier, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Göttingen (DE)
  • Genoscope (FR)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Flot, Jean-François
Venue
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Published
2010
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
372
ISSN
1471-2148 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984047064
Cited by
139
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Evolutionary Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Flanders Marine Institute (Flanders Marine Institute) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • GRO (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
  • Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle (CNRS‐UMS 2700, UMS2700)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
Keywords
species delimitation, Pocillopora, coral taxonomy, ATP synthase beta subunit, ITS sequences, mtDNA haplogroups, reciprocal monophyly, Clipperton Island
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Nucleus, Haplotypes, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Computational Biology, Anthozoa, Genetic Speciation, Genome, Mitochondrial

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review