Genetic Variability of the Grey Wolf Canis lupus in the Caucasus in Comparison with Europe and the Middle East: Distinct or Intermediary Population?

Abstract

Despite continuous historical distribution of the grey wolf (Canis lupus) throughout Eurasia, the species displays considerable morphological differentiation that resulted in delimitation of a number of subspecies. However, these morphological discontinuities are not always consistent with patterns of genetic differentiation. Here we assess genetic distinctiveness of grey wolves from the Caucasus (a region at the border between Europe and West Asia) that have been classified as a distinct subspecies C. l. cubanensis. We analysed their genetic variability based on mtDNA control region, microsatellite loci and genome-wide SNP genotypes (obtained for a subset of the samples), and found similar or higher levels of genetic diversity at all these types of loci as compared with other Eurasian populations. Although we found no evidence for a recent genetic bottleneck, genome-wide linkage disequilibrium patterns suggest a long-term demographic decline in the Caucasian population – a trend consistent with other Eurasian populations. Caucasian wolves share mtDNA haplotypes with both Eastern European and West Asian wolves, suggesting past or ongoing gene flow. Microsatellite data also suggest gene flow between the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. We found evidence for moderate admixture between the Caucasian wolves and domestic dogs, at a level comparable with other Eurasian populations. Taken together, our results show that Caucasian wolves are not genetically isolated from other Eurasian populations, share with them the same demographic trends, and are affected by similar conservation problems.

Combining phylogenetic and demographic inferences to assess the origin of the genetic diversity in an isolated wolf population

“…Genetic analyses indicate that the autosomal genetic diversity in the Italian wolves is c . 30% lower than in other wolf populations in Europe [16]. The mtDNA genetic diversity is limited to a single control-region (CR) haplotype named W14 that is widespread uniquely in the Italian wolves [18], although a recent study suggests that a second rare haplotype named W16 is also naturally present in the population [19].…”

Loss of traditional knowledge aggravates wolf–human conflict in Georgia (Caucasus) in the wake of socio-economic change

“…Bisi et al 2007;Balčiauskas 2008). Georgia is one such country where the existence of viable wolf populations, genetically connected to populations in neighbouring countries, is well documented Pilot et al 2014). The last decade has seen a sharp increase in complaints on wolves killing livestock and even attacking humans in rural Georgia (Kopaliani et al 2009).…”

DNA barcoding of three species ( Canis aureus, Canis lupus and Vulpes vulpes ) of Canidae

“…These countries host more than 150 mammal species (Karami et al 2008;Kry stufek & Vohralik 2001). In Turkey (Randi et al 2000;Pilot et al 2010Pilot et al , 2014Statham et al 2014;_ Ibis¸et al 2014_ Ibis¸et al , 2015 and Iran (Vil a et al 1999;Aghbolaghi et al 2014;Pilot et al 2014), there are few studies on the mitochondrial DNA of canids, such as the golden jackal, grey wolf and red fox. Red foxes have endurance to disperse great distances and overcome geographic barriers.…”

“…One of the two lineages has only haplotypes of Japanese (from Hokkaido) and Turkish (from Southwest part) red foxes, based on partial sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene ( _ Ibis¸et al 2014). The sampling of the Turkish grey wolves, golden jackals and Iranian wolves (Randi et al 2000;Pilot et al 2010Pilot et al , 2014Statham et al 2014;_ Ibis¸et al 2015) has been relatively low so far compared to red foxes ( _ Ibis¸et al 2014). Also, there is no current mitochondrial DNA barcode data from any of the canids from Iran and Turkey.…”

“…DNA barcoding studies including mammal groups such as bovids, primates, bats and other small mammals have demonstrated an increase in COI sequences in recent years (Lorenz et al 2005;Hajibabaei et al 2006b;Clare et al 2007;Robins et al 2007;Borisenko et al 2008;Cai et al 2011;Alvarez-Castañeda et al 2012). Despite the fact that there have been many genetic analyses based on the mitochondrial sequences of the three canid species mentioned above (Wayne et al 1992;Vil a et al 1999;Randi et al 2000;Aggarwal et al 2003Aggarwal et al , 2007Flagstad et al 2003;Valiè re et al 2003;Sharma et al 2004;Kirschning et al 2007;Ishiguro et al 2009;Zachos et al 2009;Fain et al 2010;Gomerčić et al 2010;Rutledge et al 2010;Weckworth et al 2010;Rueness et al 2011;Weckworth et al 2011;Gaubert et al 2012;Aghbolaghi et al 2014;Bray et al 2014;Djan et al 2014;Fabbri et al 2014a,b;Galov et al 2014;Pilot et al 2014;Koepfli et al 2015;Yumnam et al 2015), DNA barcoding studies addressing these three canid species have not been varied out thus far. Specifically, the genetic diversity and species identification of the three canid species found in Turkey (C. aureus, C. lupus and V. vulpes) and the one canid species found in Iran (V. vulpes) have not been previously studied using the mitochondrial COI barcode.…”