Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:50:26.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identification and structure analysis of three tilapia species using microsatellite markers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Song Hong-Mei ,
Bai Jun-Jie ,
Quan Ying-Chun  and
Li Sheng-Jie
Song Hong-Mei
Affiliation:
Pearl River Fisheries Research Institute, Key Laboratory of Tropical and Subtropical Fish Breeding and Cultivation, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510380, China College of Aqua-life Science and Technology, Shanghai Fisheries University, Shanghai 200090, China
Bai Jun-Jie*
Affiliation:
Pearl River Fisheries Research Institute, Key Laboratory of Tropical and Subtropical Fish Breeding and Cultivation, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510380, China
Quan Ying-Chun
Affiliation:
Pearl River Fisheries Research Institute, Key Laboratory of Tropical and Subtropical Fish Breeding and Cultivation, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510380, China
Li Sheng-Jie
Affiliation:
Pearl River Fisheries Research Institute, Key Laboratory of Tropical and Subtropical Fish Breeding and Cultivation, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510380, China
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Seventeen special loci were selected from 77 microsatellite markers to distinguish three varieties of tilapias, including the six differential loci UNH636, UNH117, UNH172, UNH738, UNH878 and UNH896 in Oreochromis aureus; five differential loci UNH913, UNH907, UNH222, UNH980 and UNH880 in O. niloticus; and six differential loci of UNH876, UNH899, UNH853, UNH932, UNH933 and UNH773 in O. mossambicus. Any one of the 17 loci could amplify particular bands to distinguish one tilapia from the other two. The genetic structure of O. aureus, O. niloticus and O. mossambicus stocks and their phylogenetic relationships were also analysed using these 17 loci. In total 142 alleles were detected, and the average number of alleles per locus was 8.35. Additionally, a clustering analysis was performed based on the result of the Popgen32 software package and phylogenetic trees were constructed by MEGA4 using the unweighted pair group method using arithmetic average (UPGMA). The results showed that the mean value of observed heterozygosity was 0.0941, 0.5490 and 0.2588, the mean value of expected heterozygosity was 0.1089, 0.7230 and 0.1965, and the polymorphism information content was 0.0869, 0.7149 and 0.1643, in O. aureus, O. niloticus and O. mossambicus, respectively. The UPGMA tree demonstrated that O. aureus was more closely related to O. mossambicus than to O. niloticus.

Keywords

Oreochromis aureusOreochromis niloticusOreochromis mossambicusmicrosatellitegermplasm identificationgenetic structure
Type
Research Papers
Information
Chinese Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , August 2009 , pp. 119 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © China Agricultural University 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bardakci, F and Skibinski, DOF (1994) Application of the RAPD technique in tilapia fish: species and subspecies identification. Hereditas 73: 117–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botstein, D, White, RL and Skolnick, M (1980) Construction of genetic linkage map in man using restriction fragment length polymorphism. American Journal of Human Genetics 32: 314–341.Google Scholar
Carleton, KL, Streelman, JT, Lee, BY, Garnhart, N, Kidd, M and Kocher, TD (2002) Rapid isolation of CA microsatellites from the tilapia genome. Animal Genetics 33(2): 140–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huo, JL, Zeng, R, Pan, WR, et al. (2005) Analysis and study of influence factors about microsatellite PCR-polyacrylamide gel–silver staining. Journal of Yunnan Agricultural University 20(1): 11–15.Google Scholar
Li, JL, Li, SF, Li, Y, Wang, WM and Zhu, ZW (1999) Morphology and discrimination of hybrid Oreochromis niloticus (♀)×Oreochromis aureus (♂) and their parents. Journal of Fisheries of China 23(3): 261–265.Google Scholar
Li, L, Sun, ZX, Yang, SD, Chang, LR and Yang, LH (2006) Analysis of genetic variation of abalone (Haliotis discus hannai) populations with microsatellite markers. Hereditas 28(12): 1549–1554.Google ScholarPubMed
Li, RS, Chen, ZW, Song, DG, Ren, WW and Luan, RH (2001) Rat gene polymorphism using PCR-analyzed microsatellites. Hereditas 23(6): 539–543.Google Scholar
Li, SF and Cai, WQ (1995) Introgression in hatchery stocks of tilapia nilotica and tilapia aurea in China. Journal of Fisheries of China 19(2): 106–112.Google Scholar
Li, ZZ, Wu, TT and Yang, H. (2000) Genetic mark of Oreochromis aureus and Oreochromis niloticus. Journal of Gansu Agricultural University 35(1): 29–32.Google Scholar
Liang, YE and Dai, FS (1983) Comparison of growth performance of Fushou tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus and O. mossambicus. Selected Works of Thesis Reports of Pearl River Fisheries Research Institute (1979–1983), pp. 16–23.Google Scholar
Liu, YF, Bai, JJ and Li, KB (2007) Application of microsatellite markers in genetic monitoring of RR-B strain Xiphophorus helleri. Journal of Fisheries of China 31(3): 280–286.Google Scholar
Pan, F, Hu, M and Wang, HH (1993). Studies on tissue specificity and serum albumin of isozyme printing in Oreochromis aureus. Freshwater Fisheries 23(2): 7–10.Google Scholar
Quan, YC, Sun, XW and Liang, LQ (2005) Microsatellite variation among four breeding populations of common carps. Zoological Research 26(6): 595–602.Google Scholar
Sambrook, J and Russell, DW (2002) Molecular cloning: A laboratory manual, 3rd ed.Beijing: Science Press.Google Scholar
Tang, GP, Zeng, CF, Qi, ZX, Xu, WY and Zhao, YJ (2006) Biological characteristics and aquaculture prospects of the Fushou tilapia. Reservoir Fishes 26(6): 70–71, 81.Google Scholar
Xie, ZM (1995) Culture and proliferation technology of freshwater fish. Beijing: Agriculture Press, pp. 265–269.Google Scholar
Yang, S, Ye, X, Lu, MX, Huang, ZH and Bai, JJ (2006) AFLP analysis of two species of tilapia, O. mossambicus and O. hornorum. Periodical of Ocean University of China 36(6): 973–940.Google Scholar
Zhan, AB, Bao, ZM, Lu, W, Wang, XL and Hu, JJ (2006) Microsatellite markers of Apostichopus japonicus. Journal of Fisheries of China 30(2): 192–196.Google Scholar
Zhang, LJ, Yang, CS, Chen, H, Yan, HX, Luo, J and Zhang, BJ (2005) Application of 10 microsatellite loci to line identification of white egg-type chickens. Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology 13(1): 72–76.Google Scholar
Zhu, HP, Huang, ZH, Lu, MS and Liu, CW (2003) Advances of studies on genetic background of tilapia. Journal of Zhanjiang Ocean University 23(1): 79–84.Google Scholar