This is supported by several observations.

First, both techniques were able to genetically differentiate the populations of Xam between sampled locations. Second, global clustering patterns were constant in both GS 1101 types of markers. For instance, clustering in distance trees and haplotype networks was clearly defined by the geographical origin of isolates, although AFLPs displayed a better geographical clustering (Figure  3). Third, the distribution of haplotypes from Granada (Meta) was congruent between both techniques used. Both of them displayed Granada haplotypes very distant as shown in the Figure  5. This behavior is in contrast to what was expected. Cultural practices such as crop rotation, which is intensively implemented in this location, should have generated a genetic drift event that could have led to a reduction in pathogen diversity [3]. However, the instability of cassava fields due to intensive crop rotation and the reduced number of plants with CBB symptoms in Granada did not allow the constant tracing of the pathogen in order to explain the attained behavior of these isolates. Fourth, a congruent behavior was also observed for the reference strains, which were almost completely grouped in the distance trees and networks from both analyses (Figures  3, 4 and 5). This

suggests a temporal differentiation of Xam populations, a process that is occurring even

in short periods of time, as was evidenced in learn more the recently characterized Caribbean populations and also with populations from the 1990s [9, 16]. There were also contrasting results when analyses from AFLPs and VNTRs were compared. For example, although isolates were clustered according to their geographical origin, the composition of inner clusters changed between techniques. This discrepancy Avelestat (AZD9668) could be explained by the fact that each type of marker evaluates polymorphisms at different scales. AFLPs evaluate differences distributed along the whole genome and those differences must be located in recognition sites for restriction enzymes [34]. Detection of polymorphisms in AFLPs is highly influenced by the combination of restriction enzymes and selective primers used in this technique [44]. In contrast, VNTRs evaluate the variation in restricted genomic areas, where short tandem repeats are located. These repetitive genomic regions promote the Slipped-strand mispairing phenomenon during DNA replication, producing a change in the number of repetitive elements and increasing the mutation rate in a specific locus [21, 45, 46]. In addition, VNTRs could present homoplasy events that could be influencing the clustering process. However, the use of reasonable number of VNTR loci reduces this effect [47].