{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022478386167146973, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0011527377521613833, 'mean_word_length': 5.4535315985130115, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Microsatellite variation in solitary and social tuco-tucos: molecular properties and population dynamics

Variation at 15 microsatellite loci was characterized for a population of the solitary Patagonian tuco-tuco (Ctenomys haigi) and a population of group-living colonial tuco-tuco (C. sociabilis), both of which were located in the Limay River Valley of south western Argentina. All loci examined were characterized by uninterrupted di- or trinucleotide repeats in both species; seven of these loci had been isolated from C. haigi and eight had been isolated from C. sociabilis. Across all loci, there was a significant tendency for both number of alleles and heterozygosity to be greater in C. haigi than in C. sociabilis. Cloning and sequencing of multiple PCR products per locus per population revealed no significant biases in allele length, suggesting that this difference in variability was not due to ascertainment bias or to population-wide differences in rates of microsatellite evolution. Instead, differences in microsatellite variation between C. haigi and C. sociabilis were more consistent with current demographic and suspected historical differences between these populations. In particular, interpopulation differences in the distribution of microsatellite allele sizes and allele frequencies suggested that C. sociabilis has been more subject to historical reductions in population size (e.g. population bottlenecks) than has C. haigi. These findings indicate that analyses of microsatellite structure can yield important insights into the population-level phenomena that contribute to diversity at these markers, including differences in population history that continue to influence levels of genetic variability.