Gene trees and species trees – mutual influences and interdependences of population genetics and systematics

Both population genetics and systematics are core disciplines of evolutionary biology. While systematics deals with genealogical relationships among taxa, population genetics has mainly been based on allele frequencies and the distribution of genetic variants whose genealogical relations could for a long time, due mainly to methodological constraints, not be inferred. The advent of mitochondrial DNA analyses and modern sequencing techniques in the 1970s revolutionized evolutionary genetic studies and gave rise to molecular phylogenetics. In the wake of this new development systematic approaches and principles were incorporated into intraspecific studies at the population level, e.g. the concept of monophyly which is used to delineate evolutionarily significant units in conservation biology. A new discipline combining phylogenetic analyses of genetic lineages with their geographic distribution ('phylogeography') was introduced as an explicit synthesis of population genetics and systematics. On the other hand, it has increasingly become obvious that discordances between gene trees and species trees not only result from spurious data sets or methodological flaws in phylogenetic analyses, but that they often reflect real population genetic processes such as lineage sorting or hybridization. These processes have to be taken into account when evaluating the reliability of gene trees to avoid wrong phylogenetic conclusions. The present review focuses on the phenomenon of non-phylogenetic sorting of ancestral polymorphisms, its probability and its consequences for molecular systematics.     

Population thinking and tree thinking in systematics

Two new modes of thinking have spread through systematics in the twentieth century. Both have deep historical roots, but they have been widely accepted only during this century. Population thinking overtook the field in the early part of the century, culminating in the full development of population systematics in the 1930s and 1940s, and the subsequent growth of the entire field of population biology. Population thinking rejects the idea that each species has a natural type (as the earlier essentialist view had assumed), and instead sees every species as a varying population of interbreeding individuals. Tree thinking has spread through the field since the 1960s with the development of phylogenetic systematics. Tree thinking recognizes that species are not independent replicates within a class (as earlier group thinkers had tended to see them), but are instead inter-connected parts of an evolutionary tree. It lays emphasis on the explanation of evolutionary events in the context of a tree, rather than on the states exhibited by collections of species, and it sees evolutionary history as a story of divergence rather than a story of development. Just as population thinking gave rise to the new field of population biology, so tree thinking is giving rise to the new field of phylogenetic biology.     

Avian molecular systematics on the rebound: a fresh look at modern shorebird phylogenetic relationships

The study of avian molecular systematics currently lags behind that of mammals in several ways. Little phylogenetic resolution is observed among orders and phylogenetic studies below the ordinal level largely remain based on fast evolving mitochondrial sequences. New papers by Paton et al., Ericson et al., and Thomas et al. provide avian molecular systematics with a badly needed boost. These studies indicate that sampling more taxa and slower evolving nuclear genes yields strong phylogenetic resolution among the major shorebird (order Charadriiformes) families. The new data show surprising overall consensus and converge on certain novel clades. If correct, this newly obtained phylogenetic framework has tremendous implications for our understanding of the evolution of shorebird morphology, ecology and behaviour.     

PHYLOGENETIC SYSTEMATICS AND THE SPECIES PROBLEM

Abstract— A tension has arisen over the primacy of interbreeding versus monophyly in defining the species category. Manifestations of this tension include unnecessary restriction of the concept of monophyly as well as inappropriate attribution of "species" properties, to "higher taxa", and vice versa. Distinctions between systems (wholes) deriving their existence from different underlying. processes have been obscured by failure to acknowledge different interpretations of the concept of individuality. We identify interbreeding (resulting in populations) and evolutionary descent (resulting in monophyletic groups) as two processes of interest to phylogenetic systematists, and explore the relations between the systems resulting from these processes. In the case of sexual reproduction, populations of interbreeding organisms (regardless of whether they are monophyletic) exist as cohesive wholes and play a special role in phylogenetic systematics, being the least inclusive entities appropriate for use as terminal units in phylogenetic analysis of organismal relationships. Both sexual and asexual organisms form monophyletic groups. Accepting the reality and significance of both interbreeding and monophyly emphasizes that a conscious decision must be made regarding which phenomenon should be used to define the species category. Examination of species concepts that focus either on interbreeding or on common descent leads us to conclude that several alternatives are acceptable from the standpoint of phylogenetic systematics but that no one species concept can meet the needs of all comparative biologists.     

Multilocus sequence analysis for assessment of the biogeography and evolutionary genetics of four Bradyrhizobium species that nodulate soybeans on the asiatic continent

A highly supported maximum-likelihood species phylogeny for the genus Bradyrhizobium was inferred from a supermatrix obtained from the concatenation of partial atpD, recA, glnII, and rpoB sequences corresponding to 33 reference strains and 76 bradyrhizobia isolated from the nodules of Glycine max (soybean) trap plants inoculated with soil samples from Myanmar, India, Nepal, and Vietnam. The power of the multigene approach using multiple strains per species was evaluated in terms of overall tree resolution and phylogenetic congruence, representing a practical and portable option for bacterial molecular systematics. Potential pitfalls of the approach are highlighted. Seventy-five of the isolates could be classified as B. japonicum type Ia (USDA110/USDA122-like), B. liaoningense, B. yuanmingense, or B. elkanii, whereas one represented a novel Bradyrhizobium lineage. Most Nepalese B. japonicum Ia isolates belong to a highly epidemic clone closely related to strain USDA110. Significant phylogenetic evidence against the monophyly of the of B. japonicum I and Ia lineages was found. Analysis of their DNA polymorphisms revealed high population distances, significant genetic differentiation, and contrasting population genetic structures, suggesting that the strains in the Ia lineage are misclassified as B. japonicum. The DNA polymorphism patterns of all species conformed to the expectations of the neutral mutation and population equilibrium models and, excluding the B. japonicum Ia lineage, were consistent with intermediate recombination levels. All species displayed epidemic clones and had broad geographic and environmental distribution ranges, as revealed by mapping climate types and geographic origins of the isolates on the species tree.     

中国昆虫分类学研究进展

<正> 中国自然条件复杂,昆虫种类繁多,特别是横断山区、青藏高原和云南西双版纳等热带雨林地区昆虫区系丰富多彩,受到国内、外昆虫分类学家的青睐。根据保守估计,中国应有15万种昆虫。中华人民共和国成立前夕我国仅记载20069种昆虫,其中中国人命名的仅204种,绝大多数模式标本及文献资料均散落于国外;分     

THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROBOSCIDEA: HOW MANY CLADISTIC CLASSIFICATIONS?

Abstract— Hennig conceived a method to build a "phylogenetic system", with the stipulation that a "properly drawn phylogenetic tree must be directly translatable into the language of phylogenetic systematics". Consequently, this system could be the general reference system of biology. A review of the classificatory technical improvements, conventions and rules which have been proposed for the past twenty years together with their application to the classification of the Proboscidea, leads to the conclusion that more than one formal system can be built upon one given cladogram. As words are used more frequently for communication than diagrams, schemes or graphs, the "general reference system of biology1' remains somewhere in Utopia. The "phylogenetic system" is rather more synonymous with a cladogram than with a written classification.     

Foundations of the new phylogenetics

Evolutionary idea is the core of the modern biology. Due to this, phylogenetics dealing with historical reconstructions in biology takes a priority position among biological disciplines. The second half of the 20th century witnessed growth of a great interest to phylogenetic reconstructions at macrotaxonomic level which replaced microevolutionary studies dominating during the 30s-60s. This meant shift from population thinking to phylogenetic one but it was not revival of the classical phylogenetics; rather, a new approach emerged that was baptized The New Phylogenetics. It arose as a result of merging of three disciplines which were developing independently during 60s-70s, namely cladistics, numerical phyletics, and molecular phylogenetics (now basically genophyletics). Thus, the new phylogenetics could be defined as a branch of evolutionary biology aimed at elaboration of "parsimonious" cladistic hypotheses by means of numerical methods on the basis of mostly molecular data. Classical phylogenetics, as a historical predecessor of the new one, emerged on the basis of the naturphilosophical worldview which included a superorganismal idea of biota. Accordingly to that view, historical development (the phylogeny) was thought an analogy of individual one (the ontogeny) so its most basical features were progressive parallel developments of "parts" (taxa), supplemented with Darwinian concept of monophyly. Two predominating traditions were diverged within classical phylogenetics according to a particular interpretation of relation between these concepts. One of them (Cope, Severtzow) belittled monophyly and paid most attention to progressive parallel developments of morphological traits. Such an attitude turned this kind of phylogenetics to be rather the semogenetics dealing primarily with evolution of structures and not of taxa. Another tradition (Haeckel) considered both monophyletic and parallel origins of taxa jointly: in the middle of 20th century it was split into phylistics (Rasnitsyn's term; close to Simpsonian evolutionary taxonomy) belonging rather to the classical realm, and Hennigian cladistics that pays attention to origin of monophyletic taxa exclusively. In early of the 20th century, microevolutionary doctrine became predominating in evolutionary studies. Its core is the population thinking accompanied by the phenetic one based on equation of kinship to overall similarity. They were connected to positivist philosophy and hence were characterized by reductionism at both ontological and epistemological levels. It led to fall of classical phylogenetics but created the prerequisites for the new phylogenetics which also appeared to be full of reductionism. The new rise of phylogenetic (rather than tree) thinking during the last third of the 20th century was caused by lost of explanatory power of population one and by development of the new worldview and new epistemological premises. That new worldview is based on the synergetic (Prigoginian) model of development of non-equilibrium systems: evolution of the biota, a part of which is phylogeny, is considered as such a development. At epistemological level, the principal premise appeared to be fall of positivism which was replaced by post-positivism argumentation schemes. Input of cladistics into new phylogenetics is twofold. On the one hand, it reduced phylogeny to cladistic history lacking any adaptivist interpretation and presuming minimal evolution model. From this it followed reduction of kinship relation to sister-group relation lacking any reference to real time scale and to ancestor-descendant relation. On the other hand, cladistics elaborated methodology of phylogenetic reconstructions based on the synapomorphy principle, the outgroup concept became its part. The both inputs served as premises of incorporation of both numerical techniques and molecular data into phylogenetic reconstruction. Numerical phyletics provided the new phylogenetics with easily manipulated algorithms of cladogram construing and thus made phylogenetic reconstructions operational and repetitive. The above phenetic formula "kinship = similarity" appeared to be a keystone for development of the genophyletics. Within numerical phyletics, a lot of computer programs were elaborated which allow to manipulate with evolutionary scenario during phylogenetic reconstructions. They make it possible to reconstruct both clado- and semogeneses based on the same formalized methods. Multiplicity of numerical approaches indicates that, just as in the case of numerical phenetics, choice of adequate method(s) should be based on biologically sound theory. The main input of genophyletics (= molecular phylogenetics) into the new phylogenetics was due to completely new factology which makes it possible to compare directly such far distant taxa as prokaryotes and higher eukaryotes. Genophyletics is based on the theory of neutral evolution borrowed from microevolutionary theory and on the molecular clock hypothesis which is now considered largely inadequate. The future developments of genophyletics will be aimed at clarification of such fundamental (and "classical" by origin) problems as application of character and homology concepts to molecular structures. The new phylogenetics itself is differentiated into several schools caused basically by diversity of various approaches existing within each of its "roots". Cladistics makes new phylogenetics splitted into evolutionary and parsimonious ontological viewpoints. Numerical phyletics divides it into statistical and (again) parsimonious methodologies. Molecular phylogenetics is opposite by its factological basis to morphological one. The new phylogenetics has significance impact onto the "newest" systematics. From one side, it gives ontological status back to macrotaxa they have lost due to "new" systematics based on population thinking. From another side, it rejects some basical principles of classical phylogenetic (originally Linnean) taxonomy such as recognitions of fixed taxonomic ranks designated by respective terms and definition of taxic names not by the diagnostic characters but by reference to the ancestor. The latter makes the PhyloCode overburdened ideologically and the "newest" systematics self-controversial, as concept of ancestor has been acknowledged non-operational from the very beginning of cladistics. Relation between classical and new phylogenetics is twofold. At the one hand, general phylogenetic hypothesis (in its classical sense) can be treated as a combination of cladogenetic and semogenetic reconstructions. Such a consideration is bound to pay close attention to the uncertainty relation principle which, in case of the phylogenetics, means that the general phylogenetic hypothesis cannot be more certain than any of initial cladogenetic or semogenetic hypotheses. From this standpoint, the new phylogenetics makes it possible to reconstruct phylogeny following epistemological principle "from simple to complex". It elaborates a kind of null hypotheses about evolutionary history which are more easy to test as compared to classical hypotheses. Afterward, such hypotheses are possible to be completed toward the classical, more content-wise ones by adding anagenetic information to the cladogenetic one. At another hand, reconstructions elaborated within the new phylogenetics could be considered as specific null hypotheses about both clado- and semogeneses. They are to be tested subsequently by mean of various models, including those borrowed from "classical" morphology. The future development of the new phylogenetics is supposed to be connected with getting out of plethora of reductionism inherited by it from population thinking and specification of object domain of the phylogenetics. As the latter is a part of an evolutionary theory, its future developments will be adjusted with the latter. Lately predominating neodarwinism is now being replaced by the epigenetic evolutionary theory to which phylistics (one of the modern versions of classical phylogenetics) seems to be more correspondent.     

"Phylogenetic presumptions"--can jurisprudence terms promote comparative biology?

The paper presents the results of a critical analysis of the "phylogenetic presumptions" conception by means of its comparison with the hypothetic-deductive method of the phylogeny reconstruction within the framework of the evolutionary systematics. Rasnitsyn (1988, 2002) suggested this conception by analogy with the presumption of innocence in jurisprudence, where it has only moral grounds. Premises of all twelve the "phylogenetic presumptions" are known for a long time as the criteria of character homology and polarity or as the criteria of relationship between organisms. Many of them are inductive generalizations based on a large body of data and therefore are currently accepted by most of taxonomists as criteria or corresponding rules, but not as presumptions with the imperative "it is true until the contrary is proved". The application of the juristic term "presumption" in phylogenetics introduces neither methodical profits, nor anything to gain a better insight of problems of the phylogenetic reconstruction. Moreover, it gives ill effects as, by analogy with a judicially charged person and his legal defense, it allows a researcher not to prove or substantiate his statements on characters and relationships. Some of Rasnitsyn's presumptions correspond to criteria, which have been recognized as invalid ones on the reason of their non-operationality (presumption "apomorphic state corresponds more effective adaptation") or insufficient ontological grounds (presumptions "are more complex structure is apomorphic", "the most parsimonious cladogram is preferable", and "one should considered every to be inherited").     

Is the 16S-23S rRNA internal transcribed spacer region a good tool for use in molecular systematics and population genetics? A case study in cyanobacteria

We amplified, TA-cloned, and sequenced the 16S-23S internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions from single isolates of several cyanobacterial species, Calothrix parietina, Scytonema hyalinum, Coelodesmium wrangelii, Tolypothrix distorta, and a putative new genus (isolates SRS6 and SRS70), to investigate the potential of this DNA sequence for phylogenetic and population genetic studies. All isolates carried ITS regions containing the sequences coding for two tRNA molecules (tRNA and tRNA). We retrieved additional sequences without tRNA features from both C. parietina and S. hyalinum. Furthermore, in S. hyalinum, we found two of these non-tRNA-encoding regions to be identical in length but different in sequence. This is the first report of ITS regions from a single cyanobacterial isolate not only different in configuration, but also, within one configuration, different in sequence. The potential of the ITS region as a tool for studying molecular systematics and population genetics is significant, but the presence of multiple nonidentical rRNA operons poses problems. Multiple nonidentical rRNA operons may impact both studies that depend on comparisons of phylogenetically homologous sequences and those that employ restriction enzyme digests of PCR products. We review current knowledge of the numbers and kinds of 16S-23S ITS regions present across bacterial groups and plastids, and we discuss broad patterns congruent with higher-level systematics of prokaryotes.     

The individuality thesis (3 ways)

I spell out and update the individuality thesis, that species are individuals, and not classes, sets, or kinds. I offer three complementary presentations of this thesis. First, as a way of resolving an inconsistent triad about natural kinds; second, as a phylogenetic systematics theoretical perspective; and, finally, as a novel recursive account of an evolved character (individuality). These approaches do different sorts of work, serving different interests. Presenting them together produces a taxonomy of the debates over the thesis, and isolates ways it has been (and may continue to be) productive. This goes to the larger point of this paper: a defense of the individuality thesis in terms of its utility, and an update of it in light of recent theoretical developments and empirical work in biology.     

Taxonomic names and phylogenetic trees

This paper addresses the issue of philosophy of names within the context of biological taxonomy, more specifically how names refer. By contrasting two philosophies of names, one that is based on the idea that names can be defined and one that they cannot be defined, I point out some advantages of the latter within phylogenetic systematics. Due to the changing nature of phylogenetic hypotheses, the former approach tends to rob taxonomy from its unique communicative value since a name that is defined refers to whatever fits the definition. This is particularly troublesome should the hypothesis of phylogenetic relationship change. I argue that, should we decide to accept a new phylogenetic hypothesis, it is also likely that our view of what to name may change. A system where names only refer acknowledge this, and accordingly leaves it open whether to keep a name (and accept the way it refers in the new hypothesis) or discard a name and introduce new names for the parts of the tree that we find scientifically interesting. One of the main differences between a phylogenetic system of definition (PSD) and a phylogenetic system of reference (PSR) is that the former is governed by laws of language while the latter by communicative needs of taxonomists. Thus, a PSR tends to give primacy to phylogenetic trees rather than phylogenetic definitions of names should our views of which phylogenetic hypothesis to accept change. © 1998 The Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters     

Aphyly: identifying the flotsam and jetsam of systematics

Many taxon names in any classification will be composed of taxa that have yet to be demonstrated as monophyletic, that is, characterized by synapomorphies. Such taxa might be called aphyletic, the flotsam and jetsam in systematics, simply meaning they require taxonomic revision. The term aphyly is, however, the same as, if not identical to, Hennig's “Restkörper” and Bernardi's merophyly. None of these terms gained common usage. We outline Hennig's use of “Restkörper” and Bernardi's use of merophyly and compare it to aphyly. In our view, application of aphyly would avoid the oft made assumption that when a monophyletic group is discovered from within an already known and named taxon, then the species left behind are rendered paraphyletic. By identifying the flotsam and jetsam in systematics, we can focus on taxa in need of attention and avoid making phylogenetic faux pas with respect to their phylogenetic status.     

Systematics on the threshold of the XXI century. Traditional principles and fundamentals from today's point of view

Systematics as regarded is a purely theoretical domain of biology, and its product, system, as a specific biological theory, or a topologo-genetic model of the biota. Linnaeus was the first to introduce the idea of system and the systematic approach into the natural history. The advent of evolutionism brought new meaning to the old term "affinity", so Linnaeus' slogan of natural system got new life, and Linnaeus taxonomy assimilated the evolutionary ideology quite naturally and much easier than many other departments of biology. The difference between natural and artificial systems is remaining, and it is in their goals, as formulated by Linnaeus: heuristic of the former and cataloguing of the latter. Linnaeus' clairvoyance discovered the existence of an infrageneric level of genetic integration provable by naturalists' experience. He chose for it the designation of "species" and laid it down as primary, basic unit of his system. This is plainly evident from his own writings; the story about Linnaean species being products of a logical division of genera is a pure fiction. Modern populational model of species, by 3 important criteria, appears to be more akin to the Linneaean one than to the ideas of Lamarckism and early Darwinism. Systematic approach focuses rather on the interrelations among elements and their relative position, then on the properties and qualities of separately treated individual elements. In the development of systematics the aspect of "nexification" (study of connections) has been continuously gaining attention especially regarding the nomenclature where connotation has been totally forced out by denotation.     

Species boundaries in gregarine apicomplexan parasites: a case study-comparison of morphometric and molecular variability in Lecudina cf. tuzetae (Eugregarinorida, Lecudinidae)

Trophozoites of gregarine apicomplexans are large feeding cells with diverse morphologies that have played a prominent role in gregarine systematics. The range of variability in trophozoite shapes and sizes can be very high even within a single species depending on developmental stages and host environmental conditions; this makes the delimitation of different species of gregarines based on morphological criteria alone very difficult. Accordingly, comparisons of morphological variability and molecular variability in gregarines are necessary to provide a pragmatic framework for establishing species boundaries within this diverse and poorly understood group of parasites. We investigated the morphological and molecular variability present in the gregarine Lecudina cf. tuzetae from the intestines of Nereis vexillosa (Polychaeta) collected in two different locations in Canada. Three distinct morphotypes of trophozoites were identified and the small subunit (SSU) rDNA was sequenced either from multicell isolates of the same morphotype or from single cells. The aim of this investigation was to determine whether the different morphotypes and localities reflected phylogenetic relatedness as inferred from the SSU rDNA sequence data. Phylogenetic analyses of the SSU rDNA demonstrated that the new sequences did not cluster according to morphotype or locality and instead were intermingled within a strongly supported clade. A comparison of 1,657 bp from 45 new sequences demonstrated divergences between 0% and 3.9%. These data suggest that it is necessary to acquire both morphological and molecular data in order to effectively delimit the "clouds" of variation associated with each gregarine species and to unambiguously reidentify these species in the future.     

卵壳的超微结构特征

本文运用扫描电镜研究了美洲鸵鸟,鹂鹋,非洲鸵鸟,普通家鸡,环颈雉,绿头鸭,王企鹅等七种现生鸟蛋壳和更新世安氏鸵鸟蛋壳以及六种白垩纪恐龙蛋壳（长形长形蛋Ｅｌｏｎｇａｔｏｏｌｉｔｈｕｓｅｌｏｎｇａｔｕｓ,安氏长形蛋Ｅｌｏｎｇａｔｏｏｌｉｔｈｕｓａｎｄｒｅｗｓｉ,瑶屯巨形蛋Ｍａｃｒｏｏｌｉｔｈｕｓｙａｏｔｕｎｅｎｓｉｓ粗皮巨形蛋Ｍａｃｒｏｏｌｉｔｈｕｓｒｕｇｕｓｔｕｓ,将军顶圆形蛋Ｓｐｈｅｒｏｏｌｉｔｈ     

Sophisticated falsification and research cycles: Consequences for differential character weighting in phylogenetic systematics

Practicing phylogenetic systematics as a sophisticated falsification research program provides a basis for claiming increased knowledge of sister species relationships and synapomorphies as evidence for those cladistic propositions. Research in phylogenetic systematics is necessarily cyclic, and the place where the positive shift in understanding occurs is subsequent to discovering the most parsimonious cladogram(s). A priori differential character weighting is inconsistent with seeking the maximally corroborated cladogram (sensu Popper), because weighting adds to background knowledge, the evidence being then less improbable than it would be otherwise. Also, estimating weights from character state frequencies on a cladogram is inconsistent with the view that history is unique. Sophisticated falsification provides the place in the cycle of phylogenetic systematic research where weight of evidence can be evaluated and these inconsistencies do not apply. On balance, phylogenetic systematics appears to achieve greater coherence and generality as a result of focusing on the foundations for claiming increased knowledge and avoiding efforts to differentially weight characters.     

Phylogenetic reconstruction using secondary structures of Internal Transcribed Spacer 2 (ITS2, rDNA): finding the molecular and morphological gap in Caribbean gorgonian corals

Background  

Most phylogenetic studies using current methods have focused on primary DNA sequence information. However, RNA secondary structures are particularly useful in systematics because they include characteristics, not found in the primary sequence, that give "morphological" information. Despite the number of recent molecular studies on octocorals, there is no consensus opinion about a region that carries enough phylogenetic resolution to solve intrageneric or close species relationships. Moreover, intrageneric morphological information by itself does not always produce accurate phylogenies; intra-species comparisons can reveal greater differences than intra-generic ones. The search for new phylogenetic approaches, such as by RNA secondary structure analysis, is therefore a priority in octocoral research.     

一种筛选微卫星位点的改进方法及其在小熊猫微卫星基因文库构建上的应用

微卫星（Simple Sequence Repeat,SSR）基因位点是在各个遗传学领域被广泛使用的分子标记。而对于首次研究的物种,必须筛选出可以应用的微卫星位点。对于分离微卫星位点来说由于只有大约0.5％-2%的重组体含有微卫星位点,所以标准的基因组文库需要至少产生5 000个重组体。传统的筛选方法就是通过检测大量重组体来定位这些少量的位点。近几年来出现了一些新的筛选方法,采用“富集”微卫星序列的技术将包含微卫星位点的重组体比例提高了10-100倍。这样就降低了筛选工作的时间和劳动强度,大大提高了筛选微卫星位点的效率。本文在结合了几种筛选微卫星位点技术路线的基础上,采用生物素标记探针杂交、富集和PCR筛选技术,对原有技术路线进行了改进。主要试验步骤为：1）基因组DNA的提取和消化;2）生物素标记探针富集;3）克隆建库;4）“PCR”筛选;5）引物设计和多态性检测。新的方法在小熊猫微卫星基因文库的构建中取得成功,获得了10个具有多态性的(CA)n重复序列微卫星位点。