Next Article in Journal
Genome Size Variation in Dianthus sylvestris Wulfen sensu lato (Caryophyllaceae)
Next Article in Special Issue
Pattern of Adaptive Divergence in Zingiber kawagoii Hayata (Zingiberaceae) along a Narrow Latitudinal Range
Previous Article in Journal
Microstructure of Croatian Wild Grapevine (Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris Gmel Hegi) Pollen Grains Revealed by Scanning Electron Microscopy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Different Roles of Introgression on the Demographic Change in Two Snakebark Maples, Acer caudatifolium and A. morrisonense, with Contrasted Postglacial Expansion Routes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 11
Issue 11
10.3390/plants11111480
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Genetic Structure of Native Blue Honeysuckle Populations in the Western and Eastern Eurasian Ranges

by
Donatas Naugžemys
1,
Jolanta Patamsytė
2,
Silva Žilinskaitė
1,
Yoichiro Hoshino
3,
Audrius Skridaila
1 and
Donatas Žvingila
2,*
1
Botanical Garden, University of Vilnius, Kairėnų Str. 43, 10239 Vilnius, Lithuania
2
Institute of Biosciences, Life Sciences Center, University of Vilnius, Saulėtekio Av. 7, 10257 Vilnius, Lithuania
3
Field Science Center for Northern Biosphere, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0811, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2022, 11(11), 1480; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11111480
Submission received: 27 April 2022 / Revised: 26 May 2022 / Accepted: 28 May 2022 / Published: 31 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Molecular Evolution and Population Ecology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Blue honeysuckle (Lonicera caerulea L.) is a promising berry crop producing edible early-ripening berries with a valuable chemical composition. We evaluated the genetic diversity of native L. caerulea populations from the western (Baltic states) and eastern (the Russian Far East and Japan) edges of the Eurasian range using inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) and chloroplast DNA (psbA-trnH and trnL-trnF) markers. The genetic relationships of populations and genotypes were analyzed using principal coordinate and cluster analyses (neighbor joining and Bayesian clustering). Sampling was carried out in two disjunct areas of this circumpolar species and the analyses showed clustering of individuals and populations according to geographic origin. The analysis of genetic structure based on ISSR markers showed that the studied populations of L. caerulea were highly differentiated. However, sequence analysis of two chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) regions revealed no phylogeographic structure among the populations. We also found that the eastern populations of blue honeysuckle had significantly greater genetic diversity parameters than the populations from the Baltic region. This finding correlates with the endangered status of blue honeysuckle in the Baltic states.

1. Introduction

Blue honeysuckle, Lonicera caerulea L. s.l. (Caprifoliaceae, Caeruleae), is a highly polymorphic species native to the Northern Hemisphere that exhibits a large range from eastern Scandinavia to Kamchatka in Eurasia and is widespread in North America [1,2]. It is a medium-sized perennial shrub that produces blue edible berries. The economic potential of this species has not yet been sufficiently exploited, although blue honeysuckle has been intensively studied in recent years, and opportunities for its wider use to meet human needs are being sought. Blue honeysuckle attracted the interest of breeders as recently as the middle of the last century [1,3]. Currently, blue honeysuckle is considered a promising berry crop with very strong advantages: stable annual yield, extreme winter hardiness, early fruiting, and good fruit biochemical properties [1,3,4,5]. The berries of blue honeysuckle contain vitamin C and many phenols, flavonoids, anthocyanins, and other phytochemicals that determine their antibacterial, antioxidant, and antidiabetic features [6,7,8]. The cultivation areas of cultivars of this species are constantly growing, and since the end of 2018, these berries have been approved for marketing in the European Union [8,9].
An understanding of the genetic structure of natural and cultivated populations of this widespread polymorphic species would help identify the optimal selective direction for obtaining new stable productive forms and varieties [10]. On the other hand, progress in honeysuckle breeding and improvement of existing cultivars can be made by crossing geographically and genetically distant genotypes of L. caerulea [1,4] or perhaps through interploidy crosses [11].
Phytogeographic studies based on chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) region and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequencing suggest that the clade of Caprifoliaceae, which includes the genus Lonicera, is native to Asia, where species diversification has taken place. Since diversification, there have apparently been multiple dispersal events to Europe and North America [12]. The honeysuckles (genus Lonicera) are thought to have originated and evolved in present-day China, as plants from China are characterized by all the characteristics of plants from Central Asia, Transbaikalia, and Japan [13]. Blue honeysuckle grows in the wild mainly in Russia, Japan, China, Canada, and the USA. According to Plekhanova [1], the richest genetic diversity is concentrated in northeastern Russia. In contrast, at the western border of the range, the Baltic populations of L. caerulea are rare and small. In the Baltics, as a result of anthropogenic activities related to the development of forests and drainage of bogs, this species is threatened with extinction [14,15]. At the western periphery of the range, L. caerulea grows in the wet forests of Latvia (Tukums region: Lake Slokas, Lake Kanieris, and the Slocene river valley) and Estonia (Raple district, Järvakandi). In the central part of Russia, populations of L. caerulea are also rare, and the species is considered endangered [15].
Various studies conducted in the past suggest that populations at the edge (periphery) of the species range often exist under suboptimal conditions [16,17]. A lack of suitable habitat or disturbance may lead to small population sizes, which may cause increased inbreeding and genetic drift. These factors can lead to reduced levels of genetic diversity and loss of alleles important for adaptation [17,18]. As a result, populations may lose the ability to adapt to environmental change caused by global warming and direct human impact.
Natural polymorphisms of blue honeysuckle are characterized by a high level of individual (intrapopulation) variability, which is shown by a number of morphological features, such as shoot color and length, leaf shape, tube, and pedicel lengths, corolla color, and fruit shape [10]. A comparison of geographical populations of blue honeysuckle revealed a pattern of adaptive variability not only in morphological characters but also in the features of morphogenesis, which is associated with climatic zones and high-mountain regions with altitudinal zonation (from forest to alpine belts) [10,13].
Although there have been many taxonomic, biological, and biochemical studies on honeysuckle, rather few reports have been published on the wild population genetic structure of L. caerulea assessed using molecular markers. Holubec et al. [4] studied genotypes from Sakhalin and Kamchatka in terms of morphological and genetic variability, taxonomic reliance, and genetic resources for breeding. Analyses based on amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers revealed significant differences between blue honeysuckle populations from Sakhalin and Kamchatka and supported the results of phenotyping carried out using morphological characters. In a recent study by Smolik et al. [9], 24 accessions with different origins from the Polish, Ukrainian, Estonian, and Russian collections were analyzed according to their genotypic variability, population structure, and genetic relationships. The authors revealed genetic differences between cultivated and wild genotypes. Native genotypes from the Alps and Russian Far East formed separate clades on dendrograms constructed on the basis of ISSR, RAPD, and R-ISSR markers. Previous molecular diversity studies of blue honeysuckle were conducted mainly on germplasm collections based on material from Russia [2,19,20,21,22]. Dominant molecular markers (random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and ISSR markers) were used to assess genetic diversity in these studies, revealing the potential of genetic collections to serve as valuable resources for breeding blue honeysuckle cultivars.
In this study, we evaluated the polymorphism of ISSR and cpDNA markers in blue honeysuckle populations. ISSRs are universal DNA markers that, if carefully optimized, can be used for population studies in any species [23,24]. Markers based on cpDNA sequences are accurate molecular instruments suitable for species identification and phylogenetic assessment [25]. Here, we studied the genetic diversity of blue honeysuckle populations from western (Baltics states) and eastern (the Russian Far East and Japan) regions of the Eurasian range using ISSR and cpDNA (psbA-trnH and trnL-trnF) markers and tested the hypothesis that the genetic diversity of western populations experiencing suboptimal conditions is lower than that of populations in the areas of origin and that are widespread.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Material

A total of 140 individuals of blue honeysuckle were sampled, representing 9 native populations: Japan (Hokkaido and Honshu Islands)—23, Kemeri (Latvia)—12, Kandava (Latvia)—12, Mikeltornis (Latvia)—11, Ventspils (Latvia)—11, Kalli (Estonia)—14, Elizovo (Kamchatka, Russia)—22, Petropalovsk-Kamchatsky 1 (Kamchatka, Russia)—17, and Petropalovsk-Kamchatsky 2 (Kamchatka, Russia)—19 (Table 1; Figure 1).
Samples were taken at random from plants separated by a distance of at least 10 m, except for the Japanese honeysuckle population, where samples were collected from different parts of Hokkaido (19 samples) and Honshu (4 samples) (see [26]).
Table
Table 1. Sampling information, code and habitat characteristics of Lonicera caerulea populations.
Table 1. Sampling information, code and habitat characteristics of Lonicera caerulea populations.
Sample NumberSiteCodeHabitatCoordinates (Latitude N, Longitude E)Altitude, mClimate Zone 1
JAPAN
1Taiki, HokkaidoJP Alder forest, Quercus crispula and Q. dentata forest42.31–42.33, 143.28–143.300–70Dfb
2–3Yokotsu-dake, HokkaidoJP Rocky area around
mountaintop		41.56, 140.461120–1150Dfb
4Taisetsu, HokkaidoJP Around mountainous mire43.36–43.89, 142.531700–1800Dfb
5Betsukai, Hokkaido JP Area drained by agricultural development in Fuhren mire43.16, 145.1120Dfb
6Bekanbe, HokkaidoJP Alder forest43.10, 144.510–10Dfb
7–14Kiritappu, HokkaidoJP Intermediate moor 43.02–43.08, 145.01–145.060–10Dfb
15–18Nikko, Tochigi, HonshuJP Area surrounding Senjogahara mire36.46, 139.261390–1400Dfa
19Tomakomai, HokkaidoJP Area drained by industrial developmentNo dataNo dataDfb
20 Yufutsu, HokkaidoJP Area drained by industrial development42.40,141.45No dataDfb
21–23Apoi-dake, HokkaidoJP Mountain area42.06, 143.01600Dfb
LATVIA
24–35Kemeri LV1Fen with birch and willow 56.97, 23.540–79Dfb
36–47KandavaLV2Abava river valley, open place, shrubs with Pentaphylloides fruticosa57.02, 22.7838–41Dfb
48–58MikeltornisLV3Baltic Sea coastal pinewood57.60, 21.978Dfb
59–69VenspilsLV4Baltic Sea coastal pinewood, dunes57.45, 21.608Dfb
ESTONIA
70–83KalliEEFen with alder and birch58.50, 24.0922Dfb
RUSSIA
84–104ElizovoRU1Swamp, peat soils, bumps, puddles Mossy marsh with thickets of alder and willow53.24 158.4021Dfc
105–121Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky 1RU2Krasnaya Sopka, uphill, southeastern slope. Dry soils, peat, volcanic slag. Forest with birch, alder, willow, wild rose52.99, 158.67200Dfc
122–140Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky 2RU3Zerkalnaya Sopka, on the slope of the hill. Forest with birch, wild rose, alder, rowan53.04, 158.67147Dfc
1 according to the Köppen–Geiger climate classification [27]; Dfa, cold, no dry season, hot summer; Dfb, cold, no dry season, warm summer; Dfc, cold, no dry season, cold summer.

2.2. Genomic DNA Extraction and ISSR-PCR Analysis

Fresh and healthy leaves were collected from plants growing in natural habitats. The leaves were dried in bags with silica gel. DNA was extracted using a modified CTAB method [28] and adjusted for a small amount of plant material. The quantity and quality of DNA were measured by a NanoDrop 2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, Wilmington, DE, USA) and by agarose gel electrophoresis. ISSR-PCR was carried out as described earlier by Butkuvienė et al. [29]. Briefly, blue honeysuckle DNA amplification was carried out in 20 μL reaction mixtures containing the following components: 2 μL of 10 × PCR buffer, 300 μM MgCl2, 200 μM dNTPs, 20 ng of template DNA, each primer at 0.4 μM and 1 U of Taq polymerase (Thermo Fisher Scientific/Baltics, Vilnius, Lithuania). ISSR-PCR was carried out in a Mastercycler ep gradient (Eppendorf AG, Hamburg, Germany) as follows: 94 °C for 7 min; 32 cycles of 94 °C for 30 s, the temperature for each primer (39 °C for ISSR I-28 and ISSR I-32, 42 °C for ISSR I-39a, 44 °C for ISSR O, 45 °C for ISSR I-34, 47 °C for ISSR I-50a and ISSR E, 49 °C for ARCADE 3 and ARCADE 4, and 60 °C for ISSR G) for 45 s, and 72 °C for 2 min; and ending with 72 °C for 8 min. Of the 23 tested ISSR primers, 10 were chosen for further study, all reactions were carried out at least twice in separate experiments, and reliable bands were scored. A negative control (water instead of DNA) was included in each experiment. Amplified DNA fragments were run in 1.5% agarose gels and 0.5 × TBE buffer at a constant voltage of 3.0 V/cm for 5 h. The gels were stained with ethidium bromide and examined under UV light using a BioDocAnalyse System (Biometra, Göttingen, Germany). DNA fragment size adjustment among specimens from different populations and the evaluation of the genotyping error rate were performed as described by Patamsytė et al. [30]. The observed genotyping error was 1.0%. GeneRulerTM DNA Ladder Mix (Thermo Fisher Scientific/Baltics, Vilnius, Lithuania) was used as the DNA fragment size standard.

2.3. Chloroplast DNA Analysis

Two cpDNA regions (psbA-trnH and trnL-trnF) were analyzed by choosing 3–10 randomly selected individuals from each population (63 individuals in total) (Table S1). Amplification of the psbA-trnH and trnL-trnF regions was performed using universal primers previously described by Shaw et al. [31]. DNA sequences of individuals representing different populations were deposited in GenBank under accession numbers ON212105–ON212166 for psbA-trnH and ON212167–ON212228 for trnL-trnF.

2.4. Data Analysis

Scored ISSR-PCR products (DNA bands) were recorded and used to construct a 0/1 (binary) data matrix, which was used for further data analyses. Because blue honeysuckle from the studied populations is tetraploid (2n = 4x = 36), only genotype 0000 was scored as 0, whereas all other genotypes at a particular locus (1000, 1100, 1110, and 1111) were indistinguishable on the gel due to the dominant nature of ISSR markers and were considered as 1. The number of alleles per locus (Na) and the number of effective alleles (Ne) were calculated using GenAlEx v 6.5 [32]. Additionally, the rarefaction procedure was applied for estimations to compensate for uneven population sample sizes, and the number of molecular phenotypes (band richness—Br) was calculated per locus in each population using AFLPDIV [33]. The rarefaction procedure was also used to compute the percentage of polymorphic loci (PLP) at the 5% level. After rarefaction, the standardized sample size was 11 genotypes. Shannon’s information index (I) was calculated using POPGEN 1.32 software [34]. The calculation of expected heterozygosity (Hj) within populations was carried out with AFLP-SURV [35]. We assessed whether it was possible to apply the isolation-by-distance (IBD) model to describe the pattern of genetic diversity variation among the studied populations. For this purpose, the association between genetic (ΦPT) and geographic distance matrices were examined with a Mantel test using GenAlEx v 6.5 [32]. A total of 999 permutations were performed for significance testing.
On the basis of binary data, pairwise genetic distances between individuals were calculated and used in the MEGA 11 [36] software package for neighbor-joining (NJ) [37] dendrogram construction to reveal genetic relationships among individuals and populations. The support for dendrogram branches was evaluated using 1000 bootstrap replications. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) was performed using GenAlEx v.6.5 to assess the genetic relationships among populations from western and eastern Eurasian regions. Nei’s average number of pairwise differences in nine L. caerulea populations was determined by Arlequin 3.5.2.2 [38].
The genetic differentiation of populations was ascertained according to Fst values using AFLP-SURV v.1.0 [35] based on 10,000 random data permutations. Three-level analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) performed in GenAlEx v.6.5 [32] was used to ascertain the partitioning of genetic diversity among regions, among populations within regions, and among individuals within populations. To determine and compare the genetic structures of honeysuckle populations and the distribution of individuals by clusters (K), the STRUCTURE program version 2.3.4 was used [39,40]. To quantify the number of clusters, ten independent runs of K (K = 1–10) were performed with an admixture model, with 100,000 burn-in iterations and 500,000 Markov chain Monte Carlo iterations. The most likely K was identified with the ΔK method of Evanno et al. [41]. The STRUCTURE result files were processed in STRUCTURE HARVESTER, and the output was visualized using DISTRUCT v1.1 [42].
Sequencing data of amplified psbA-trnH and trnL-trnF regions were evaluated with MEGA 11 [36]. Genetic diversity parameters (Shannon’s information index (I), number of alleles per locus (Na), expected heterozygosity (Hj), percentage of polymorphic loci at the 5% level (PLP), and band richness (Br)) were compared between populations from the western and eastern Eurasian regions using the Mann–Whitney U test in IBM SPSS Statistics v.23 for Windows.

3. Results

ISSR analysis was carried out on 140 individuals from nine populations of L. caerulea. A total of 181 scorable bands (loci) were generated for L. caerulea using ten ISSR primers. The percentage of polymorphic bands ranged from 20.4% (37 polymorphic loci, LV4 population) to 53.6% (97 polymorphic loci, JP).
The calculations revealed that the estimates of observed alleles (Na) and effective alleles (Ne) varied between 0.983 and 1.425 (LV3-JP) and 1.123 and 1.348 (LV2-JP), respectively (Table 2).
The average polymorphism per population was 27.62 ± 3.42 (mean ± SE). When the number of individuals per population was rarefied to N = 11, the proportion of polymorphic loci (PLP 5%) varied from 0.204 (LV4) to 0.558 (JP) (mean PLP 5% = 0.283 ± 0.037). The band richness (Br) was also adjusted according to the smallest population size (11 individuals) and ranged from 1.204 (LV4) to 1.512 (JP). The Shannon index (I) ranged from 0.108 (LV2) to 0.3 (JP), with an average of 0.153 ± 0.02. The expected heterozygosity (Hj) varied from 0.076 (LV2) to 0.199 (JP), with an average of 0.104 ± 0.026. Only five population-specific bands were identified. One private band was detected in the RU2 population, and four private bands were identified in the JP population. A Mantel test showed a correlation (R2 = 0.479; p = 0.01) between genetic and geographic distances among populations.
The genetic relationships of L. caerulea populations and genotypes included in our study were analyzed using NJ cluster analysis and PCoA. The NJ cluster analysis grouped all individuals into three main clusters with high bootstrap support (Figure 2).
Populations, in general, were grouped according to geographic origin. The first cluster included samples from the LV1, LV2, LV4, and LV3 populations. Cluster analysis showed that the LV3 and LV4 populations were closely related, and their individuals were mixed in the dendrogram. The EE population was also placed in the first cluster but formed a separate subcluster. All populations in the first cluster were from the Baltic region. The second cluster included populations from the Russian Far East (RU2, RU1, and RU3). The third cluster contained honeysuckles from Japan. Samples collected in mainland Japan (Nikko, Tochigi) were grouped within the Hokkaido Island samples in the dendrogram (not specified).
In the PCoA, the first three axes explained most of the variation (84.54%). PC1 explained 48.44%, PC2 explained 26.7% and PC3 explained 9.4% of the variability. The results of the analysis revealed three clusters of individuals and populations grouped according to geographic origin (Figure 3).
The two-dimensional scatter plot showed the most compact distribution pattern and overlap for Baltic region populations. The graph also revealed the grouping of Russian Far East populations with evident overlap between the RU1 and RU3 populations.
The genetic differentiation between the studied honeysuckle populations was high (Fst = 0.648 ± 0.022). We also evaluated population structure with hierarchical AMOVA to assess how genetic variability is partitioned among regions and populations and within populations. The results revealed similar proportions of variability among regions (30%, p = 0.001), among populations within regions (39%, p = 0.001) and within populations (31%, p = 0.001). The pairwise divergence between the studied L. caerulea populations and the variation within populations is visualized in Figure 4.
The generated pattern of pairwise differences indicated that populations from eastern regions of Eurasia were more diverse than western populations. The Japanese honeysuckle population (JP) possessed the highest within-population diversity.
In assessing population genetic structure extrapolated using STRUCTURE software, we observed a major peak of real structure at K = 2 (Figure 5).
In general, the most likely pattern of clustering separated the populations according to geographic origin, with the exception of the Japanese population (Figure 6).
All western populations and the population from Japan were grouped into the red cluster, while populations from Kamchatka (RU1, RU2, and RU3) were assigned to the green cluster (Figure 6A). Some individuals from Japan showed admixture. Peaks were also observed at K = 4 and at K = 7 (Figure 5). In the case of K = 4, populations were clustered similarly to those in the previous grouping (K = 2), except that the JP population and EE population were separated into single clusters, yellow and green, respectively (Figure 6B). The red cluster encompassed all four Latvian populations, and the blue cluster included all three Russian populations. At K = 7, heterogeneity was revealed among Russian populations by grouping the RU2 population into separate clusters (Figure 6C). Some individuals from Hokkaido (JP population) were admixed and had genomes originating from different gene pools. They were assigned to the yellow cluster with a lower probability (q < 0.8) than other genotypes of the same population.
No polymorphism was detected in the psbA-trnH and trnL-trnF sequences from 63 samples of different populations. The lengths of the psbA-trnH and trnL-trnF regions of L. caerulea were 559 nt and 1015 nt, respectively.

4. Discussion

4.1. Genetic Diversity

Different levels of DNA polymorphism were revealed in the nine studied blue honeysuckle populations. The highest polymorphism (53.6%) was detected in plants from the JP population, which included samples from Hokkaido Island and a few samples from Tochigi Prefecture (Honshu Island). Populations from Kamchatka (RU1, RU2, and RU3) showed a moderate frequency of polymorphic loci (49.7%). The lowest level of polymorphism was observed in populations from Latvia (37.6%). The lowest values of Na, Ne, I, Hj, and Br were also observed for LV populations. Although the EE population showed greater genetic diversity, in general, the populations in the western part of the range were less genetically diverse than those in the eastern part. According to the Mann–Whitney test, populations from the eastern part of the blue honeysuckle range had significantly greater I (U = 1.00, Z = −2.205, p < 0.05), Br (U = 1.00, Z = −2.205, p < 0.05), and PLP 5% (U = 1.00, Z = −2.214, p < 0.05) values than populations from the Baltic region. L. caerulea is a fairly widespread species on the Kamchatka Peninsula and usually forms large populations [4], while in the Baltic region, it is an endangered species with only a few fragmented populations known. In addition to the negative effects of anthropogenic factors, climate warming with frequent thaws in winter can also have a negative impact on the populations of the Baltic region. Nevertheless, the populations of Kamchatka are also facing increasing anthropogenic impacts, leading to fragmentation and overexploitation of some populations [4]. By means of the AFLP assay, higher values of population polymorphism in Kamchatka (83.6%) and Sakhalin (69.9%) were detected by previous authors. However, the collection of samples was more geographically scattered than in our study.

4.2. Genetic Structure of Populations

Our study shows that populations from different edges of the Eurasian blue honeysuckle range are highly differentiated. Similar patterns of genetic structure were obtained using different statistics (PCoA, NJ, and AMOVA). For example, PCoA revealed a divergence between remote populations and reliably subdivided all individuals into three groups. NJ analysis also showed three main clusters. Additionally, AMOVA showed a strong genetic structure in blue honeysuckle. Based on molecular and morphological data analyses, Holubec et al. [4] revealed a divergence (FST = 0.19) between native blue honeysuckle populations from Sakhalin and Kamchatka. Polymorphism of AFLP markers allowed these populations to be separated into different clusters in a PCoA plot and an NJ dendrogram. In general, the genetic structure of plant populations indicates the interplay among various evolutionary factors (genetic drift, mutations, natural selection, habitat fragmentation and isolation, mating systems, gene flow, and migration) in the context of many years of species evolution [43]. The dispersed distribution of L. caerulea across the very large circumpolar range of the Northern Hemisphere implies such complex evolutionary processes. Our results indicate that most of the genetic diversity occurs among populations. High genetic differentiation among populations is usually not characteristic of perennial outcrossing plant species [44,45]. However, some of the abovementioned factors associated with the evolution and ecology of particular species can cause deviations from typical patterns of genetic variability [43,44,46,47,48]. For example, Shrestha et al. [44] explained high differentiation among populations of the outcrosser Acacia raddiana by genetic drift and local adaptation. Vashishtha et al. [47] detected high genetic differentiation among populations of the tropical tree Butea monosperma independent of the marker assay used, i.e., RAPD, ISSR, or sequence-related amplified polymorphism (SRAP). The authors of this study noticed that substantial population divergence may be determined by a low level of gene flow among the studied populations due to geographic distance, heterogeneity of ecological conditions, and possibly mixed breeding systems. The strong population differentiation of Juniperus communis in Lithuania (GST = 0.491) was dependent on habitat fragmentation and heterogeneity [49]. Low gene flow among the studied blue honeysuckle populations (indicated by high Fst) may be responsible for the increased genetic heterogeneity among them [50]. The geographic distance among populations and ecological differences in the habitats of some L. caerulea populations may be the causative factors of low gene flow among them. The western and eastern populations included in our study are separated by large distances. Moreover, honeysuckle populations in Japan (Hokkaido and Honshu Islands) are separated from continental populations located on the Kamchatka Peninsula. The Mantel test showed that geographic distance is important for population divergence. Our results indicate significant IBD (p = 0.01). In addition, differences in the ecological environments of habitats among populations may also be important for population differentiation [4,47,51,52]. Anthropogenic activities and perhaps climatic fluctuations caused fragmentation of L. caerulea populations (especially in the Baltic region). In such situations, populations may be impacted by genetic drift, which increases population differences and decreases variation within populations. The divergence between the studied populations is caused mainly by differences in allele frequencies. Only two populations (JP and RU1) possessed a few private bands. Three western populations (LV3, LV4, and EE) also did not show bands of low frequency (≤25%). The remaining populations had only one or two bands in this frequency range. Another interesting aspect of the obtained results is that the Japanese population grouped separately from the eastern populations (according to NJ and PCoA results; Figure 2 and Figure 3) and, according to Bayesian cluster analysis, showed some similarity to the Baltic populations (Figure 6A). Geographically, the Kamchatka (Russia) populations (RU1, RU2, and RU3) are closer to the JP population than populations from the Baltic region. This discrepancy could be the result of adaptation to local environmental conditions [44,53,54]. For example, Kamchatka populations experience a more severe climate with colder winters and shorter summers than the other studied populations. Notably, according to the Köppen–Geiger climate classification, the Baltic region and the northern part of Japan (including Hokkaido) are assigned to the Dfb climate subtype, and the northern part of Honshu is assigned to Dfa, while the climate of the Kamchatka Peninsula is assigned to the Dfc subtype [27]. The studies of various authors [55,56,57,58] have revealed great morphological diversity of honeysuckle populations situated in different parts of the range, which also resulted in an ambiguous taxonomic assessment of blue honeysuckle. Recently, however, there has been a return to Rehder’s [59] idea [4,60,61,62] that blue honeysuckle is a polymorphic species with complex intraspecific taxonomy and that the morphological differences found among isolated populations are likely the result of local adaptation. This point of view is corroborated by our finding from a cpDNA analysis, which showed no phylogeographic structure among the studied populations. No polymorphism was detected in the two cpDNA regions frequently used in barcoding analyses [31,63,64]. However, we cannot exclude the occurrence of microevolutionary processes at the species level. Authors currently recognize that within L. caerulea there exists a taxonomically complex intraspecific structure, which manifests itself in the existence of morphological, physiological, and genetic differences [4,60,65,66]. Thus, the large degree of population differentiation that we found based on ISSR markers may also reflect the processes of intraspecific divergence resulting from the adaptive evolution of populations [51]. Differences in the genetic structure of populations evaluated using ISSR and cpDNA markers could also be explained by different rates of evolution of nuclear and chloroplast genomes, as it is known that the nuclear genome evolves faster than the chloroplast genome [25]. ISSR markers are associated with microsatellites. The mutability of microsatellite loci is significantly higher than that of most other types of DNA sequences [67]. Recently, Garshasbi et al. [68] revealed 75% of genetic variability among seven Lonicera species in Iran on the basis of ISSR polymorphisms. In this regard, the parameters of population genetic differentiation established by us indicate the presence of pronounced genetic structure within L. caerulea, which suggests that speciation processes are taking place.

5. Conclusions

Our study of DNA polymorphisms in populations confirmed the opinion of other authors that geographically separated blue honeysuckle populations are genetically divergent. In this study, this was determined at the level of noncoding DNA (ISSRs). The revealed high population differentiation reflects the complex intraspecific taxonomic structure of this honeysuckle species. On the other hand, the lack of polymorphism at the cpDNA level indicates the integrity of diverged populations or subspecies of one species. Populations on the western edge of the species range (especially in Latvia) are genetically less diverse than blue honeysuckle populations on the opposite edge of Eurasia. This correlates with their current endangered status in the Baltic states. As economic interest in L. cerulea continues to increase, studies on the genetic structure of blue honeysuckle will provide information about processes occurring in geographically isolated populations that are potential sources of genetic diversity and may contribute to the correct assessment of population divergence. More extensive studies of genomic polymorphisms are needed to develop a complete picture of the evolution of the species.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants11111480/s1; Table S1: Lonicera caerulea sample codes and NCBI GenBank accession numbers of corresponding psbA-trnH and trnL-trnF region sequences.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.Ž.; Methodology, D.Ž., D.N. and J.P.; Software, D.N. and J.P.; Validation, J.P. and D.N.; Investigation, D.N. and J.P.; Resources, S.Ž. and Y.H.; Data Curation, S.Ž. and D.N.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, D.Ž.; Writing—Review & Editing, J.P., Y.H., S.Ž. and A.S.; Visualization, J.P. and D.N.; Supervision, D.Ž.; Funding Acquisition, D.Ž., D.N. and A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Lithuanian Government Science Program “Scientific Research of the Plant Genetic Resource in Lithuania” and by Vilnius University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The chloroplast DNA sequences are available on NCBI GenBank (accession numbers psbA-trnH: ON212105–ON212166; trnL-trnF: ON212167–ON212228).

Acknowledgments

We thank Nina Sedova (Kamchatka State Technical University, Russia) for collecting and providing samples of Kamchatka populations. We are also very grateful to Lavinš M. and Svilans A. for their help in collecting samples of Latvian honeysuckle populations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Plekhanova, M.N. Blue honeysuckle (Lonicera caerulea L.) a new commercial berry crop for temperate climate: Genetic resources and breeding. Acta Hortic. 2000, 538, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lamoureux, D.; Sorokin, A.; Lefebre, I.; Alexanian, S.; Eyzaguirre, P.; Hausman, J.F. Investigation of genetic diversity in Russian collection of raspberry and blue honeysuckle. Plant Genet. Res. 2011, 9, 202–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gerbrandt, E.M.; Bors, R.H.; Chibbar, R.N.; Baumann, T.E. Spring phenological adaptation of blue honeysuckle (Lonicera caerulea L.) foundation germplasm in a temperate climate. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2018, 98, 569–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Holubec, V.; Smekalova, T.; Leisova-Svobodova, L. Morphological and molecular evaluation of the Far East fruit genetic resources of Lonicera caerulea L.—Vegetation, ethnobotany, use and conservation. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2019, 66, 121–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kithma, A.B.; Rupasinghe, H.P.V. Polyphenols composition and anti-diabetic properties in vitro of haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.) berries in relation to cultivar and harvesting date. Food Compos. Anal. 2020, 88, 103402. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chaovanalikit, A.; Thompson, M.M.; Ronald, W.E. Characterization and quantification of anthocyanins and polyphenolics in blue honeysuckle (Lonicera caerulea L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 848–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Rupasinghe, H.P.V.; Arumuggam, N.; Amararathna, M.; De Silva, A.B.K.H. The potential health benefits of haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.): Role of cyanidin-3-O-glucoside. J. Funct. Foods 2018, 44, 24–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gawroński, J.; Żebrowska, J.; Pabich, M.; Jackowska, I.; Kowalczyk, K.; Dyduch-Siemińska, M. Phytochemical characterization of blue honeysuckle in relation to the genotypic diversity of Lonicera sp. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Smolik, M.; Ochmian, I.; Bobrowska-Chwat, A.; Chwat, G.; Arus, L.; Banaszczak, P.; Bocianowski, J.; Milczarski, P.; Ostrowska, K. Fingerprinting, structure, and genetic relationships among selected accessions of blue honeysuckle (Lonicera caerulea L.) from European collections. Biotechnol. Rep. 2022, 34, e00721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kuklina, A.G. The Nature of the Variability of Blue Honeysuckle in Natural and Cultural Populations. In New and Non-Traditional Plants and Prospects for Their Use, Proceedings of the V International Symposium, Pushchino, Russia, 9–14 June 2003; RAAS: Moscow-Pushchino, Russia, 2003; pp. 342–344. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  11. Miyashita, T.; Hoshino, Y. Interploid and intraploid hybridizations to produce polyploid Haskap (Lonicera caerulea var. emphyllocalyx) plants. Euphytica 2015, 201, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Smith, S.A. Taking into account phylogenetic and divergence-time uncertainty in a parametric biogeographical analysis of the Northern Hemisphere plant clade Caprifolieae. J. Biogeogr. 2009, 36, 2324–2337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Skvortsov, A.K. Blue honeysuckles (Lonicera subsect. Caeruleae) of Eurasia: Distribution, taxonomy, chromosome numbers, domestication. Acta Univ. Ups. Symb. Bot. Ups. 1986, 27, 95–105. [Google Scholar]
  14. Birkmane, K.Y.; Tabaka, L.V. Protected Plant Species of the Latvian SSR; Zinatne: Riga, Russia, 1974; p. 61. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  15. Kuklina, A.G. Rare Isolated Populations of Blue Honeysuckle (Lonicera caerulea L.) in Central Russia. In The Role of Botanical Gardens and Protected Natural Areas in the Study and Conservation of Plant and Fungal Diversity, Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific Conference, Yaroslavl, Russia, 13–16 October 2011; YaSPU Publishing House: Yaroslavl, Russia, 2011; pp. 74–75. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  16. Brown, J.H. On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. Am. Nat. 1984, 124, 255–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Beatty, G.E.; McEvoy, P.M.; Sweeney, O.; Provan, J. Range-edge effects promote clonal growth in peripheral populations of the one-sided wintergreen (Orthilia secunda). Divers. Distrib. 2008, 14, 546–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hirsch, H.; Wagner, V.; Danihelka, J.; Ruprecht, E.; Sánchez-Gómez, P.; Seifert, M.; Hensen, I. High genetic diversity declines towards the geographic range periphery of Adonis vernalis, a Eurasian dry grassland plant. Plant Biol. 2015, 17, 1233–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Naugžemys, D.; Žilinskaitė, S.; Denkovskij, J.; Patamsytė, J.; Literskis, J.; Žvingila, D. RAPD based study of genetic variation and relationships among Lonicera germplasm accession. Biologija 2007, 53, 34–39. [Google Scholar]
  20. Smolik, M.; Ochmian, I.; Grajkowski, J. Genetic variability of Polish and Russian accessions of cultivated blue honeysuckle (Lonicera caerulea). Rus. J. Genet. 2010, 46, 960–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Naugžemys, D.; Žilinskaitė, S.; Kleizaitė, V.; Skridaila, A.; Žvingila, D. Assessment of genetic variation among elite and wild germplasm of blue honeysuckle (Lonicera caerulea L.). Balt. For. 2011, 17, 8–16. [Google Scholar]
  22. Naugžemys, D.; Žilinskaitė, S.; Skridaila, A.; Žvingila, D. Phylogenetic analysis of the polymorphic 4x species complex Lonicera caerulea (Caprifoliaceae) using RAPD markers and noncoding chloroplast DNA sequences. Biologia 2014, 69, 585–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Weising, K.; Nybom, H.; Wolff, K.; Kahl, G. DNA Fingerprinting in Plants: Principles, Methods, and Applications, 2nd ed.; CRC Press; Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005; pp. 47–49. [Google Scholar]
  24. Krokaitė, E.; Janulionienė, R.; Jocienė, L.; Rekašius, T.; Rajackaitė, G.; Paulauskas, A.; Marozas, V.; Kupčinskienė, E. Relating invasibility and invasiveness: Case study of Impatiens parviflora. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 10, 845947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, Y.; Iaffaldano, B.J.; Zhuang, X.; Cardina, J.; Cornish, K. Chloroplast genome resources and molecular markers differentiate rubber dandelion species from weedy relatives. BMC Plant Biol. 2017, 17, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Miyashita, T.; Araki, H.; Hoshino, Y. Ploidy distribution and DNA content variations of Lonicera caerulea (Caprifoliaceae) in Japan. J. Plant Res. 2011, 124, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Beck, H.; Zimmermann, N.; McVicar, T.; Vergopolan, N.; Berg, A.; Wood, E. Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution. Sci. Data 2018, 5, 180214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Doyle, J.J.; Doyle, J.L. Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue. Focus 1990, 12, 39–40. [Google Scholar]
  29. Butkuvienė, J.; Sinkevičienė, Z.; Naugžemys, D.; Patamsytė, J.; Žvingila, D. Genetic diversity of Batrachium (Ranunculaceae) species reveals the necessity of their protection in Lithuanian rivers. Aquat. Bot. 2017, 142, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Patamsytė, J.; Rančelis, V.; Čėsnienė, T.; Kleizaitė, V.; Tunaitienė, V.; Naugžemys, D.; Vaitkūnienė, V.; Žvingila, D. Clonal structure and reduced diversity of the invasive alien plant Erigeron annuus in Lithuania. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 2013, 8, 898–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shaw, J.; Lickey, E.B.; Beck, J.T.; Farmer, S.B.; Liu, W.S.; Miller, J.; Siripun, K.C.; Winder, C.T.; Schilling, E.E.; Small, R.L. The tortoise and the hare II: Relative utility of 21 noncoding chloroplast DNA sequences for phylogenetic analysis. Am. J. Bot. 2005, 92, 142–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Peakall, R.; Smouse, P.E. GenAlEx 6.5: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research—An update. Bioinformatics 2012, 28, 2537–2539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Coart, E.; Van Glabeke, S.; Petit, R.J.; Van Bockstaele, E.; Roldan-Ruiz, I. Range wide versus local patterns of genetic diversity in hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.). Conserv. Genet. 2005, 6, 259–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yeh, F.C.; Yang, R.; Boyle, T. POPGENE: Microsoft Windows-Based Freeware for Population Genetic Analysis: Release 1.31; University of Alberta: Edmonton, AB, Canada, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  35. Vekemans, X.; Beauwens, T.; Lemaire, M.; Roldan-Ruiz, I. Data from amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers show indication of size homoplasy and of a relationship between degree of homoplasy and fragment size. Mol. Ecol. 2002, 11, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Tamura, K.; Stecher, G.; Kumar, S. MEGA 11: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 11. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2021, 38, 3022–3027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Saitou, N.; Nei, M. The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1987, 4, 406–425. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  38. Excoffier, L.; Lischer, H.E.L. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: A new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2010, 10, 564–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Pritchard, J.K.; Stephens, M.; Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 2000, 155, 945–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Falush, D.; Stephens, M.; Pritchard, J.K. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: Dominant markers and null alleles. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2007, 7, 574–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Evanno, G.; Regnault, S.; Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: A simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14, 2611–2620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Rosenberg, N.A. Distruct: A program for the graphical display of population structure. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2004, 4, 137–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ge, X.J.; Zhang, L.B.; Yuan, Y.M.; Hao, G.; Chiang, T.Y. Strong genetic differentiation of the East-Himalayan Megacodon stylophorus (Gentianaceae) detected by Inter-Simple Sequence Repeats (ISSR). Biodivers. Conserv. 2005, 14, 849–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Shrestha, M.K.; Golan-Goldhirsh, A.; Ward, D. Population genetic structure and the conservation of isolated populations of Acacia raddiana in the Negev Desert. Biol. Conserv. 2002, 108, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nybom, H. Comparison of different nuclear DNA markers for estimating intraspecific genetic diversity in plants. Mol. Ecol. 2004, 13, 1143–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zeng, X.; Michalski, S.G.; Fischer, M.; Durka, W. Species diversity and population density affect genetic structure and gene dispersal in a subtropical understory shrub. J. Plant Ecol. 2012, 5, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Vashishtha, A.; Jehan, T.; Lakhanpaul, S. Genetic diversity and population structure of Butea monosperma (Lam.) Taub.—A potential medicinal legume tree. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2013, 19, 389–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Abbasi, S.; Afsharzadeh, S.; Dinarvand, M. Genetic structure of Zannichellia, L. populations according to mountain barriers in Iran as revealed by ISSR and SRAP markers. Turk. J. Bot. 2021, 45, 328–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Vilcinskas, R.; Jociene, L.; Rekasius, T.; Marozas, V.; Paulauskas, A.; Kupcinskiene, E. Genetic diversity of Lithuanian populations of Juniperus communis L. in relation to abiotic and biotic factors. Dendrobiology 2016, 76, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lavergne, S.; Molofsky, J. Increased genetic variation and evolutionary potential drive the success of an invasive grass. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 3883–3888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Kim, B.; Nakamura, K.; Tamura, S.; Lee, B.Y.; Kwak, M. Genetic diversity and population structure of Lychnis wilfordii (Caryophyllaceae) with newly developed 17 microsatellite markers. Genes Genom. 2019, 41, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Liu, L.; Wang, Z.; Su, Y.; Wang, T. Population transcriptomic sequencing reveals allopatric divergence and local adaptation in Pseudotaxus chienii (Taxaceae). BMC Genom. 2021, 22, 388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gillies, A.C.M.; Cornelius, J.P.; Newton, A.C.; Navarro, C.; Hernández, M.; Wilson, J. Genetic variation in Costa Rican populations of the tropical timber species Cedrela odorata L., assessed using RAPDs. Mol. Ecol. 1997, 6, 1133–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Patamsytė, J.; Kleizaitė, V.; Čėsnienė, T.; Rančelis, V.; Žvingila, D. The genetic structure of red raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) populations in Lithuania. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 2010, 5, 496–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bochkarnikova, N.M. A new species of honeysuckle. Proc. Appl. Bot. Genet. Breed. 1975, 54, 41–45. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  56. Poyarkova, A.I. Caprifoliaceae Juss.—Honeysuckle. In Flora of the European Part of the USSR; Fedorov, A.A., Ed.; Nauka: Leningrad, Russia, 1978; Volume 3, pp. 10–21. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  57. Nedoluzhko, V.A. Systematic and geographical review of honeysuckle in the North East of Eurasia. Komar. Read. 1986, 33, 54–109. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  58. Voroshilov, V.I. Stage-chorological analysis of the honeysuckle Lonicera, L. (Caprifoliaceae) from the subsection Caerulea Rehd. sections (Adans) Rehd. Bull. MOIP Div. Biol. 1992, 97, 89–94. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  59. Rehder, A. Synopsis of the genus Lonicera. Mo. Bot. Gard. Ann. Rep. 1903, 14, 27–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Plekhanova, M.N.; Rostova, N.S. The analysis of variability of morphological, anatomical and biochemical characters of Lonicera in subsection caerulea (Caprifoliaceae) with the help of the method of principal components. Bot. Zhurnal 1994, 79, 45–64. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  61. Skvortsov, A.K.; Kuklina, A.G. Problems of the formation of a new cultivated plant. Bull. Main Bot. Gard. 2002, 184, 3–7. [Google Scholar]
  62. Plekhanova, M.N. On the specific composition of the blue honeysuckle Lonicera subsect. Caeruleae (fam. Caprifoliaceae). Genetic resources of fruit, small fruit crops and grape: Keeping and study. Bull. Appl. Bot. Genet. Plant Breed. 2007, 161, 57–68. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  63. Ben-Meni Schuler, S.; Picazo-Aragonés, J.; Rumsey, F.J.; Romero-García, A.T.; Suárez-Santiago, V.N. Macaronesia acts as a museum of genetic diversity of relict ferns: The case of Diplazium caudatum (Athyriaceae). Plants 2021, 10, 2425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Boltenkov, E.V.; Artyukova, E.V.; Trias-Blasi, A. Taxonomic composition of Iris Subser. Chrysographes (Iridaceae) inferred from chloroplast DNA and morphological analyses. Plants 2021, 10, 2232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kuklina, A.; Brindza, J.; Stehlikova, B. Opportunities for the development of genetic resources of blue honeysuckle in Slovakia. Fruit Grow. Berry Grow. Russ. 2012, 34, 414–419. [Google Scholar]
  66. Grygorieva, O.; Klymenko, S.; Kuklina, A.; Vinogradova, Y.; Vergun, O.; Sedláčková, V.H.; Brindza, J. Evaluation of Lonicera caerulea L. genotypes based on morphological characteristics of fruits germplasm collection. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2021, 45, 850–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Reddy, M.P.; Sarla, N.; Siddiq, E.A. Inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR) polymorphism and its application in plant breeding. Euphytica 2002, 128, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Garshasbi, S.; Iranbakhsh, A.; Asri, Y.; Bostanabad, S.Z. Genetic diversity and population structure analysis in Lonicera L. (Caprifoliaceae) with the use of ISSR molecular markers. Genetika 2021, 53, 1273–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 11 01480 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of the locations of the studied Lonicera caerulea populations. Different colors indicate different countries of origin of the populations. Red–Latvia, green–Estonia, blue–Russia and yellow–Japan. The population codes are explained in Table 1.
Figure 1. Map of the locations of the studied Lonicera caerulea populations. Different colors indicate different countries of origin of the populations. Red–Latvia, green–Estonia, blue–Russia and yellow–Japan. The population codes are explained in Table 1.
Plants 11 01480 g001
Plants 11 01480 g002 550
Figure 2. NJ dendrogram of the genetic relationships between nine Lonicera caerulea populations. Bootstrap values (%) obtained after 1000 iterations are shown as numbers above the branches. Only values above 60% are shown. The scale at the bottom shows the genetic distance. I, II, and III—clusters.
Figure 2. NJ dendrogram of the genetic relationships between nine Lonicera caerulea populations. Bootstrap values (%) obtained after 1000 iterations are shown as numbers above the branches. Only values above 60% are shown. The scale at the bottom shows the genetic distance. I, II, and III—clusters.
Plants 11 01480 g002
Plants 11 01480 g003 550
Figure 3. PCoA of Lonicera caerulea individuals from nine populations based on Nei’s genetic distance. Two coordinates are shown, which explained 75.14% of the variation.
Figure 3. PCoA of Lonicera caerulea individuals from nine populations based on Nei’s genetic distance. Two coordinates are shown, which explained 75.14% of the variation.
Plants 11 01480 g003
Plants 11 01480 g004 550
Figure 4. Pattern of the average number of pairwise differences between nine populations of Lonicera caerulea. Blue colors under the diagonal indicate Nei’s distance between populations; orange colors on the diagonal indicate differences within populations; green colors above the diagonal indicate differences between populations.
Figure 4. Pattern of the average number of pairwise differences between nine populations of Lonicera caerulea. Blue colors under the diagonal indicate Nei’s distance between populations; orange colors on the diagonal indicate differences within populations; green colors above the diagonal indicate differences between populations.
Plants 11 01480 g004
Plants 11 01480 g005 550
Figure 5. Application of the Evanno et al. [41] approach to identify the true cluster number (K) from STRUCTURE analyses. The graph shows peaks of ΔK values at K = 2, K = 4, and K = 7.
Figure 5. Application of the Evanno et al. [41] approach to identify the true cluster number (K) from STRUCTURE analyses. The graph shows peaks of ΔK values at K = 2, K = 4, and K = 7.
Plants 11 01480 g005
Plants 11 01480 g006 550
Figure 6. STRUCTURE graphs showing Bayesian assignments of Lonicera caerulea individuals to K genetic clusters. (A) K = 2, (B) K = 4, and (C) K = 7. The nine populations are separated by black vertical lines. The population codes are the same as those described in Table 1.
Figure 6. STRUCTURE graphs showing Bayesian assignments of Lonicera caerulea individuals to K genetic clusters. (A) K = 2, (B) K = 4, and (C) K = 7. The nine populations are separated by black vertical lines. The population codes are the same as those described in Table 1.
Plants 11 01480 g006
Table
Table 2. Genetic diversity parameters of the studied Lonicera caerulea populations by region based on ISSR markers.
Table 2. Genetic diversity parameters of the studied Lonicera caerulea populations by region based on ISSR markers.
PopNPLP (5%) [11]NaNeIHjBr [11]
JP230.5581.4251.3480.3000.1991.512
LV1120.2321.0221.1370.1190.0791.226
LV2120.2100.9891.1230.1080.0761.206
LV3110.2100.9831.1360.1140.0781.210
LV4110.2040.9891.1340.1110.0791.204
EE140.2711.0441.1850.1540.1111.263
RU1210.3151.1101.1950.1680.1101.284
RU2170.2931.0941.1790.1580.1101.274
RU3190.2541.0001.1670.1410.0901.234
Eastern region (JP + RU1 + RU2 + RU3)
Mean ± SE800.355 ± 0.0621.157 ± 0.0931.222 ± 0.0420.192 ± 0.0360.127 ± 0.0221.326 ± 0.056
Baltic region (LV1 + LV2 + LV3 + LV4 + EE)
Mean ± SE600.225 ± 0.0141.006 ± 0.0121.143 ± 0.0110.121 ± 0.0080.085 ± 0.0081.222 ± 0.013
Overall
Mean ± SE1400.283 ± 0.0771.073 ± 0.0471.178 ± 0.0230.153 ± 0.0200.104 ± 0.0261.268 ± 0.068
N, number of plants studied per population; PLP (5%), percentage of polymorphic loci at the 5% level for population size rarefied to 11 individuals; Na, number of alleles per locus; Ne, number of effective alleles; I, Shannon’s information index; Hj, expected heterozygosity; Br, band richness based on 11 individuals.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Naugžemys, D.; Patamsytė, J.; Žilinskaitė, S.; Hoshino, Y.; Skridaila, A.; Žvingila, D. Genetic Structure of Native Blue Honeysuckle Populations in the Western and Eastern Eurasian Ranges. Plants 2022, 11, 1480. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11111480

AMA Style

Naugžemys D, Patamsytė J, Žilinskaitė S, Hoshino Y, Skridaila A, Žvingila D. Genetic Structure of Native Blue Honeysuckle Populations in the Western and Eastern Eurasian Ranges. Plants. 2022; 11(11):1480. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11111480

Chicago/Turabian Style

Naugžemys, Donatas, Jolanta Patamsytė, Silva Žilinskaitė, Yoichiro Hoshino, Audrius Skridaila, and Donatas Žvingila. 2022. "Genetic Structure of Native Blue Honeysuckle Populations in the Western and Eastern Eurasian Ranges" Plants 11, no. 11: 1480. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11111480

APA Style

Naugžemys, D., Patamsytė, J., Žilinskaitė, S., Hoshino, Y., Skridaila, A., & Žvingila, D. (2022). Genetic Structure of Native Blue Honeysuckle Populations in the Western and Eastern Eurasian Ranges. Plants, 11(11), 1480. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11111480

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop