WildFact
›
Nature & Conservation
›
Projects, Protected areas & Issues
Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project
Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project
|
Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project
|
Here is the best extensive info I have seen on Lion DNA.
Some parts are past me, maybe @tigerluver can clear up what some of these genetic numbers and ID's mean, but I would assume we need a genetist to explain exactly what each dna code means or how it effects a lion. Here is the part I found quite interesting "Natural History of Lions as Inferred from Lion and FIVPle MarkersThe mtDNA coalescence dating suggested that the East African lineage I (Ken haplotype H4) had an old origin of ~324,000 years (95% CI: 145,000–502,000). Extant East African populations (Ken/Ngc/Ser-I/Ser-II/Ser-III) also showed a slightly significant higher nDNA allelic richness and genetic diversity (Table S4) relative to populations to the south (Kru/Nam/Bot-I/Bot-II) and north (Uga/Gir) (A = 2.43, 2.39, and 1.62, P = 0.021; HO = 0.64, 0.62, and 0.34, P = 0.019; respectively). Moreover, the FIVPle subtype diversity was higher in East African clades (exhibiting four out of the six known viral-strains), including the most divergent FIVPle subtype C (Figure 4B and 4C). These genetic data from lions and FIVPle is consistent with the older origin of extant East African lions, which is further supported by the oldest lion fossils discovered in East Africa [1]. Relative to East Africa, Southern lions have a slightly more recent mtDNA coalescence. Lineage II, found in Nam, Bot-II and Kru has an estimated coalescence of 169,000 years (95% CI: 34,000–304,000) and the more widespread lineage IV found in the Southern populations of Bot-I, Bot-II and Kru as well as the Eastern populations of Ser (I, II, and III), Ngc and Uga, coalesces ~101,000 years ago (95% CI: 11,000–191,000). However, the similar levels of nDNA genetic diversity, the occurrence of an exclusively Southern mtDNA lineage II and highly divergent FIVPle subtypes, FIVPle subtype D found only in Kru and subtype E exclusive to Bot-II, suggests that both East and Southern Africa were important refugia for lions during the Pleistocene. Therefore, the co-occurrence of divergent mtDNA haplotypes (6 to 10 mutations; Figure 1B and 1C) in southern populations may be the consequence of further isolation within refugia during colder climatic periods. Contemporary fragmentation of lion populations could further explain the results of nested-clade phylogeographical analysis (NCPA [27]) (Figure S5), which inferred restricted gene flow with isolation-by-distance between mtDNA haplotypes H9 (Bot-II) and H10 (Kru) (χ2 = 10.00, P = 0.0200), between haplotypes H1 (Bot-II/Nam) and H2 (Kru) (χ2 = 71.00, P≤0.0001), and between haplotypes H9–H10 (Bot-II/Kru) and haplotypes H11–H12 (Bot-I/Kru/Ser/Ngc/Uga) (χ2 = 187.83, P≤0.0001). Further isolation within refugia (sub-refugia) may also have occurred in East Africa. This is suggested by the distinctive mtDNA haplotype H4 and the unique FIVPle subtype F found in the Kenya population, which may have resulted from reduced gene flow across the Rift valley, a scenario that has been suggested for several bovid and carnivore populations (see [28] and references therein). The best example of concordance between host genome markers and viral transmission patterns is observed in the Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. Our previous findings described markedly high levels of FIVPle subtype A, B and C circulating within the Serengeti lion population to such an extent that 43% of the lions sampled were multiply-infected with two or three subtypes [15],[18] and were hypothesized to represent recent admixture of three formerly separated populations. Such result is confirmed here by lion genomic markers (Figure 2). Further, although lions within the Serengeti can be assigned to one of three populations (Ser-I, Ser-II or Ser-III) by host genomic markers, FIVPle subtypes are distributed ubiquitously in all three, characteristic of rapid horizontal retroviral transmission subsequent to host population admixture. The possible isolating mechanism remains to be elucidated as there is no apparent barrier to gene flow in this ecosystem." http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info...en.1000251 What I took from it, is why we may see some lions from the same area be 220-250kg and other lions in the same area be 160kg-180kg. Also may be why no real one area has the largest lion population. A couple of other excerpts I found Interesting "Genomic Signatures Left by MigrationBased on patterns of genetic diversity and phylogenetic analysis of lion nDNA/mtDNA and FIVPle markers, we propose a scenario of a period of refugia/isolation in the Late Pleistocene followed by two major lion expansions across Africa and Asia. The first expansion, supported by the mtDNA NCPA [27] (χ2 = 690.00, P≤0.0001; Figure S5), was a long-distance colonization of mtDNA lineage-III (Gir/Atl/Ang/Zbw) around 118,000 years ago (95% CI: 28,000–208,000), with subsequent fragmentation of haplotypes H5–H6 into Central and North Africa and haplotypes H7–H8 into West Asia (M1- Figure 1A). Support for this initial expansion is also found in nDNA. The ADA haplotype A5 fixed in Gir in also present in Ken, Ser-II, and Ser-III, suggesting that lions likely colonized West Asia from the East Africa refugia (Figure 1B). Such an expansion may have been favored by the start of a warmer and less arid period in Africa 130,000–70,000 years ago [29]. This “out-of-Africa event” would have occurred much later than the initial lion expansion through Eurasia based on fossils (~500,000 years ago) [3]. It is likely that multiple lion expansions occurred in the Pleistocene, as occurred with humans [21]." "Although we did not explicitly try to address the adequacy of lion subspecies designations (currently only one African subspecies is widely recognized) [38],[39], we provided strong evidence that there is no evidence of substantial genetic exchange of matrilines among existing populations as the AMOVA [40] within-population component was uniformly high in all distinct subdivision scenarios (ΦST≈0.920; P<0.0001; three-six groups; Table S6). Similarly, significant population structure was detected from nDNA (FST = 0.18), with low levels of admixture evident from Bayesian analysis [22] (α = 0.033). Therefore, employing a bottom-up perspective that prioritizes populations, rather than large-scale units (e.g. all African lions), might preserve and maintain lion diversity and evolutionary processes most efficiently [41]."
Here are best debates (IMO) that have occured on whether the Lion is native to India or not.
http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/top...IYtA8mmVXI Credit to @Gaute 
Interesting conclusions I see:
- There's a genetic distance and geographic distance correlation. Albeit, the significance of this correlation is null once Asiatic lions are removed from the group, indicating that Asiatic lions are relatively strong in terms of genetic distance. - The statistical tests is that the math is rejecting the genetic equality of lions across Africa, thus some type of genetic isolation has occured with it the history of the African populations. The author does not go all the way to state there is subspeciation within the African lion, but points out that there is diversity between regional populations which must be preserved by focusing on conserving lions area by area rather than looking at the total. - The 95% CI and then range following means that the author is 95% mathematically confident that the species age is somewhere in that range. Looking at the estimates, the modern lion is quite old. - Asiatic lions are unique for H7 and H8 haplotypes compared to the African populations. The closest African populations to Asia's are the Eastern specimens. Geographically, that makes sense. Let's focus on this right here:  *This image is copyright of its original author In all of the classes except 12S/16S, the Asiatic lion shared sequences with the rest of the African population. The major difference that the Asiatic lion shows in these three classes is the lack of variation. Lack of variation and inbreeding go hand in hand, so this can be taken as proof of inbreeding. Now on the 12S/16S class. The Asiatic lion was completed unique here, so I began to think clear subspeciation due to geographic isolation. But there're a few caveats, look at the Kenya population, completely unique in the 12S/16S class as well, while being a next door neighbors to the other east African groups, Ser I-III, NGC, and UGA who all are essentially identical in the 12S/16S class. The south African groups all have significant difference in the 12S/16S class as well even though those groups are in close proximity to one another. My conclusion, the 12S/16S class seems too sensitive to geographic isolation and maybe just too intrinisically volatile of a sequence to be a grounds for subspeciation. Populations in essentially the same area only separated by legal lines are showing significant variablity in this class, and therefore it would be more logical to state that the Asiatic lion's uniqueness in 12S/16S is not a subspeciating factor. Off this study alone, the African population is diverse in the range as one species, but not so diverse that we can subspeciate regional populations. The Asiatic lion shows symptoms of a genetic bottleneck, but what genes it has are for the most part shared with the African populations. Therefore, genetic data here fails to subspeciate the Asiatic lion from the African population, the populations are funtionally equal. Failing to subspeciate does not mean that the lion did not naturally migrate into west Asia, and rather the author accepts such a migration. It's just that lion's seem to be genetically set, and the genomes are not sensitive to changes casued by region. 
Guys, this last study is just ONE in a large collection of DNA studies about lions. If you want hard data, that last one with all the previous included, you most read Dubach et al. (2013) and the new from Barnett et al. (2014). In these two studies, scientist put to rest any doubt about the relation between the North Africa-India lions and those from West Africa and Central Africa.
I am not going to enter in discussion about if the Indian lions are native or not, Valmik Thapar and his colleges (Exotic aliens, 2013) had made an excellent job, and present good points that put heavy doubts about the origin of lion in India. What I am going to state here is that Barbary and India lions (and all the specimens in the middle east too) are THE SAME animal, just like the Caspian and the Amur tigers. The idea of "several different subspecies" from the 19 and early 20 century most be discarded immediately, as none of those "subspecies" have been based in samples of at least 5 specimens, even worst, most of the lions "subspecies" are based in captive specimens that were apparently from specific areas. At the end, there are only two "subspecies" of lions, with at least 2 clades: 1. Barbary-Indian lion (Panthera leo leo): West and Central Africa, North of Africa, middle east and India - no clades. 2. Sub-saharan lion (Panthera leo melanochaita): All the populations from East and Southern Africa - two clades, the East one and the Southern one. On the Indian lion, Dubach et al. (2013) recommended to sustain the denomination P. l. persica for the Indian lion, based in its endangered status, but Barnett et al. (2014) finally accepted the fact of the uniqueness of the Barbary-Indian specimens and recommend to group all the specimens in the first scientific nomenclature P. l. leo, based in the Linnaeus first description, which was based in lions from North Africa. I attach the two documents, read it very well, the information is gold, for any lion-fan. [img]images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]  (12-08-2014, 11:13 PM)'Pckts' Wrote:(12-08-2014, 12:38 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:(12-06-2014, 12:36 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:(12-03-2014, 12:21 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:Like I stated,(12-03-2014, 12:33 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: I assume you are going off of the single weights where the sizes of asiatic lions were equal to the sizes of west african lions. But there are more weights than that, and they show that the average of the asiatic lion is lower.So what are the average weights of west/east/south african lions? Are there differencies? Do these differencies mean that some subspecies is more successful than other? That wasn't my intent when quoting his post. Read it again, hopefully you'll figure it out. See posts # 24 and 25 in this thread.   Quote:Once again, sumatran tigers are a completely different sub species with completely different DNA compared to Bengals and Amurs. Ok, so use malayan, indochineese or chineese tigers instead of sumatrans. Are those tigers less successful than bengals? North african lions (barbary): what was the size of barbary lions? I know, they were said to be huge, but actually we have no reliable data. We don´t know was the size of barbary lions. But what we know is that genetically closest relatives of asiatic lions are west african lions...who are around 170 kg. I absolutely don´t want to compare lions to leopards. I used this example with leopards to demontrate the absurdity of your argumentation with bengal tigers. You missed the boat again (thanks Chaos). Anything else? Quote:Thats cute coming from you two. For example you wrote that asiatic lions are not as successful as other lions. That´s nonsence. LOL (12-09-2014, 07:50 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:Quote:Thats cute coming from you two. After everything Gaute and Tigerluver just posted about Indian lions being generally the same sub species as other lions. This is what you focus on? Like I have stated, since they are the same animal, yet they are weaker in every aspect that makes a lion, it is absolutely possible to consider them less successful or less adapted. Its a very plausible hypothesis and is backed by all of the evidence posted. Also, how come you keep using Sumatran tigers even though its already been discussed that they are a completely different sub species, Not like a the Asiatic lion compared to the N. African lion. Thank you so much, @Gaute and @tigerluver, both explanations are very informative and info provided is much appreciated.
There was never any contention on my behalf as to genetics. It's your claim lions are not as adapted to
Indian terrain as tigers. I disagreed and presented my views why. You seem to have lost sight of that. I stand firm on my claim excessive extermination and subsequent inbreeding has brought the Indian lion populace to where it stands today. If allowed to live free from man's interference, it will take years and many generations to reclaim their status as a healthy lot.
Lost sight?
I point you back to my response directly above yours. Nothing more needs to be said, my point is right there. I have "lost sight" of nothing.
Ok, then why bring in genetics? It has nothing to do with adaptation to terrain.
Means nothing to me that Indian lions are genetically identical to N African lions. Also, you claimed there is no size difference between Siberians of yesteryear and now. Hence, the quoting of Peters post. Now you can dance the Texas two step from now til eternity, but those are the simple facts. You just lacked "the sight" to begin with. (12-10-2014, 02:16 AM)'chaos' Wrote: Ok, then why bring in genetics? It has nothing to do with adaptation to terrain. Genetics are used to show that since they are the same species of Lion, we know what they are capable of. So if they don't reach that capability than its likely because they are not as successful, adapted, or able to in the environment they are foreign to. Hence why its a perfect tool for comparing capability. Also had to do with the ongoing debate with Amnom and brobears question as to when they arrived in India. "Now you can dance the Texas two step from now til eternity, but those are the simple facts." Dance? You mean show proof, give examples and actual facts? Just because you are unable to come up with your own individual examples and misuse others or even comprehend them correctly, has nothing to do with "dancing around a topic".
~~Genetics are used to show that since they are the same species of Lion, we know what they are capable of
History shows before they were slaughtered to near extinction, they thrived in that environ. Genetics are irrelevant. ~~Dance? Just because you are unable to come up with your own individual examples and misuse others or even comprehend them correctly, has nothing to do with "dancing around a topic Lmao. Now thats amusing, given the source. I've more than proven my point. See other posters replies in this thread. Pretty obvious you're in the minority. You made the claim, the onus is yours to prove and you've failed miserably. Not one poster has backed your "they haven't adapted as well" theory. Wow! What a shocker that is. I stated earlier in this thread, I have no desire to go in circles with you, so if you have nothing worthwhile to offer on this particular topic, lets move on.
"History shows before they were slaughtered to near extinction, they thrived in that environ. Genetics are irrelevant. "
Go on, lets see this PROOF. Show me where they "thrived" from when to when, what locations, what lions can you provide as evidence, eye witness accounts, Anything of merit. "I've more than proven my point. See other posters replies in this thread." Really? How so? Tigerluver and Gaute both showed great info on the true DNA of a "Asiatic Lion" and gaute specifically approved of Valmik and Packers ideas. Which of course, back what I am saying. Just keep ignoring actual evidence, and stick to your guns. You and I are done, its pointless to continue discussing this with you. I'll just keep posting actual evidence and related articles to this thread. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |