Ns shared (or are grouped with) I. batatas haplotypes, except for

batatas Fosfluconazole site accessions have been related to three unique clusters, K1, K2 and K3. It really should also be noted that I. batatas haplotypes are distributed on two distinct branches inside the tree (Figure 3a and S2).along with the genetic distinction in between Southern and Northern genepools is just not clearly identifiable with this representation. For the DAPC clustering evaluation (Figure 4), the acceptable quantity of clusters was five. This grouping also quite well reflects species boundaries: I. trifida accessions are represented by cluster K4 and I. triloba accessions by cluster K5. I. batatas accessions were associated to three different clusters, K1, K2 and K3. Some Ipomoea sp. have been attributed to I. trifida cluster (K4) and others towards the I. batatas cluster (K1 and K3; Figure four). The majority of the I. batatas accessions from the Southern region (48/56) were grouped in cluster K1 (with one Ipomoea sp. trifida accessions are represented by cluster K4 and I. triloba accessions by cluster K5. I. batatas accessions have been connected to three unique clusters, K1, K2 and K3. Some Ipomoea sp. had been attributed to I. trifida cluster (K4) and other people for the I. batatas cluster (K1 and K3; Figure four). The majority of the I. batatas accessions in the Southern region (48/56) had been grouped in cluster K1 (with one particular Ipomoea sp. from Ecuador and also some I. batatas from the Northern area (5/83)). I. batatas accessions from the Northern area were subdivided in two clusters, cluster K2 which includes a big a part of these Northern accessions (50/83) and cluster K3 which includes some accessions from the Northern area (19/83) and a few Ipomoea sp. (23/42). With the model-based clustering evaluation (STRUCTURE, Figure S3), the optimal number of clusters to describe the data was unclear. Consequently, clustering results were much less informative (taxon boundaries weren't clearly identifiable and many individuals had a mixed genetic constitution; Figure S2). The very best Bayesian grouping to become compared with DAPC outcomes was obtained for K = six, a clustering answer which distinguished cultivated I. batatas accessions from wild relatives, as well as separated varieties in the Northern and Southern region (Figure S3).Congruence among cpDNA haplotype groups and nuclear SSR genetic structureBoth kinds of markers identified diploid I. trifida and I. triloba as two distinct and uniform genetic groups (Figure five and Table two). Regarding I. batatas, we didn't sequence each of the 139 varieties for the rpl32-trnL(UAG) marker. Hence, we employed cpDNA lineage data from Roullier et al. [29] to complete our dataset. As described in Roullier et al. [29], i) nuclear markers reflect a stronger phylogeographic signal than chloroplast markers but ii) phylogeographic patterns revealed by each sets of data have been globally congruent. Certainly, Southern varieties have been largely associated to chloroplast lineage 1 and nuclear cluster 1 (39/54 in total). Inside the Northern region, both signals have been also congruent due to the fact 43/84 sweet potato accessions were linked to nuclear clusters K2 and K3 and chloroplast lineage two. However, 23 Northern varieties were linked to nuclear clusters K2 and K3, but carried a chloroplast lineage1 haplotype. Ipomoea sp. specimens that grouped with all the I.