Differentiation and Phylogenetic Relationships of Three Pine Vole Species of the Subgenus Terricola (Rodentia, Arvicolinae, Microtus): Results of Analysis of the BRCA1 and XIST Nuclear Gene Fragments

High molecular variability in three pine vole species of the subgenus Terricola ( Microtus , Arvicolinae) and plausible source of polymorphism

“…The rest of the Caucasus pine voles from Adyl‐Su River valley, together with conspecific specimens from other localities, have similar genotypes and compose a background group and one clade slightly separated from it. The results correspond to those obtained earlier (Bogdanov, Khlyap, et al, 2020). Therefore, not only interspecific differences but also significant intraspecific differentiation (in M .…”

“…Within each species, the XIST gene appeared to be highly polymorphic, and in some cases its population variability was similar with minimal interspecific differences or even exceeded them. In contrast to the BRCA1 and IRBP genes, a clear division between North Caucasian and Trans‐Caucasian Major's pine voles (through two fixed transitions and one transversion, D = 0.0033) with high statistic support was revealed using the XIST gene (Figure 6, Figure ), which confirms the results of the previous study (Bogdanov, Khlyap, et al, 2020). Genotypes of common pine voles from the East European Plain and western Turkey were quite close and grouped in one compact clade in dendrograms.…”

“…For example, significant variability of the BRCA1 gene was detected in M . daghestanicus sample, even among specimens from the same locality, and differentiation between Major's pine voles from the Greater Caucasus and Transcaucasia was traced in XIST gene fragment (Bogdanov, Khlyap, et al, 2020). It can be expected that enlargement of sample size and a set of nuclear markers as well as an analysis of their longer fragments will allow to more accurately determine the patterns of genetic polymorphism.…”

“…daghestanicus , and M . subterraneus differ from each other in their molecular genetic characteristics (Baskevich et al, 2018; Baskevich, Potapov, Khlyap, et al, 2016; Baskevich, Potapov, & Mironova, 2016; Bogdanov, Khlyap, et al, 2020; Jaarola et al, 2004; Macholán et al, 2001; Martínková & Moravec, 2012; Mezhzherin et al, 1995; Tougard, 2017) as well as in their ecological preferences (Baskevich, 1997; Shvarts, 1985; Tembotov & Khatoukhov, 1979; Zagorodnyuk, 1992). Recent taxonomic checklists (Musser & Carleton, 2005; Pavlinov & Lissovsky, 2012) supported the specific status of M .…”

“…These karyotypic peculiarities served as the basis for recognition of all of the forms as distinct species: Microtus majori Thomas, 1906 (Major's pine vole), Microtus daghestanicus Shidlovsky, 1919 (the Caucasus or Daghestan pine vole), and Microtus subterraneus de Selys-Longchamps, 1836 (the common or European pine vole) (Ivanov & Tembotov, 1972;Khatoukhov et al, 1978;Niethammer & Krapp, 1982;Baskevich et al, 1984). Further studies demonstrated that M. majori, M. daghestanicus, and M. subterraneus differ from each other in their molecular genetic characteristics (Baskevich et al, 2018;Baskevich, Potapov, Khlyap, et al, 2016;Baskevich, Potapov, & Mironova, 2016;Bogdanov, Khlyap, et al, 2020;Jaarola et al, 2004;Macholán et al, 2001;Martínková & Moravec, 2012;Mezhzherin et al, 1995;Tougard, 2017) as well as in their ecological preferences (Baskevich, 1997;Shvarts, 1985;Tembotov & Khatoukhov, 1979;Zagorodnyuk, 1992). Recent taxonomic checklists (Musser & Carleton, 2005;Pavlinov & Lissovsky, 2012) supported the specific status of M. majori, M. daghestanicus, and M. subterraneus.…”