17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Molecular genetic diversity and differentiation of Nile tilapia ( Oreochromis niloticus, L. 1758) in East African natural and stocked populations

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The need for enhancing the productivity of fisheries in Africa triggered the introduction of non-native fish, causing dramatic changes to local species. In East Africa, the extensive translocation of Nile tilapia ( Oreochromis niloticus) is one of the major factors in this respect. Using 40 microsatellite loci with SSR-GBS techniques, we amplified a total of 664 individuals to investigate the genetic structure of O. niloticus from East Africa in comparison to Ethiopian and Burkina Faso populations.

          Results

          All three African regions were characterized by independent gene-pools, however, the Ethiopian population from Lake Tana was genetically more divergent (F st = 2.1) than expected suggesting that it might be a different sub-species. In East Africa, the genetic structure was congruent with both geographical location and anthropogenic activities (Isolation By Distance for East Africa, R 2 = 0.67 and Uganda, R 2 = 0.24). O. niloticus from Lake Turkana (Kenya) was isolated, while in Uganda, despite populations being rather similar to each other, two main natural catchments were able to be defined. We show that these two groups contributed to the gene-pool of different non-native populations. Moreover, admixture and possible hybridization with other tilapiine species may have contributed to the genetic divergence found in some populations such as Lake Victoria. We detected other factors that might be affecting Nile tilapia genetic variation. For example, most of the populations have gone through a reduction in genetic diversity, which can be a consequence of bottleneck (G-W, < 0.5) caused by overfishing, genetic erosion due to fragmentation or founder effect resulting from stocking activities.

          Conclusions

          The anthropogenic activities particularly in the East African O. niloticus translocations, promoted artificial admixture among Nile Tilapia populations. Translocations may also have triggered hybridization with the native congenerics, which needs to be further studied. These events may contribute to outbreeding depression and hence compromising the sustainability of the species in the region.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals.

          M Nei (1978)
          The magnitudes of the systematic biases involved in sample heterozygosity and sample genetic distances are evaluated, and formulae for obtaining unbiased estimates of average heterozygosity and genetic distance are developed. It is also shown that the number of individuals to be used for estimating average heterozygosity can be very small if a large number of loci are studied and the average heterozygosity is low. The number of individuals to be used for estimating genetic distance can also be very small if the genetic distance is large and the average heterozygosity of the two species compared is low.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes

            Background Fish classifications, as those of most other taxonomic groups, are being transformed drastically as new molecular phylogenies provide support for natural groups that were unanticipated by previous studies. A brief review of the main criteria used by ichthyologists to define their classifications during the last 50 years, however, reveals slow progress towards using an explicit phylogenetic framework. Instead, the trend has been to rely, in varying degrees, on deep-rooted anatomical concepts and authority, often mixing taxa with explicit phylogenetic support with arbitrary groupings. Two leading sources in ichthyology frequently used for fish classifications (JS Nelson’s volumes of Fishes of the World and W. Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes) fail to adopt a global phylogenetic framework despite much recent progress made towards the resolution of the fish Tree of Life. The first explicit phylogenetic classification of bony fishes was published in 2013, based on a comprehensive molecular phylogeny (www.deepfin.org). We here update the first version of that classification by incorporating the most recent phylogenetic results. Results The updated classification presented here is based on phylogenies inferred using molecular and genomic data for nearly 2000 fishes. A total of 72 orders (and 79 suborders) are recognized in this version, compared with 66 orders in version 1. The phylogeny resolves placement of 410 families, or ~80% of the total of 514 families of bony fishes currently recognized. The ordinal status of 30 percomorph families included in this study, however, remains uncertain (incertae sedis in the series Carangaria, Ovalentaria, or Eupercaria). Comments to support taxonomic decisions and comparisons with conflicting taxonomic groups proposed by others are presented. We also highlight cases were morphological support exist for the groups being classified. Conclusions This version of the phylogenetic classification of bony fishes is substantially improved, providing resolution for more taxa than previous versions, based on more densely sampled phylogenetic trees. The classification presented in this study represents, unlike any other, the most up-to-date hypothesis of the Tree of Life of fishes. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12862-017-0958-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Current trends in microsatellite genotyping.

              Microsatellites have been popular molecular markers ever since their advent in the late eighties. Despite growing competition from new genotyping and sequencing techniques, the use of these versatile and cost-effective markers continues to increase, boosted by successive technical advances. First, methods for multiplexing PCR have considerably improved over the last years, thereby decreasing genotyping costs and increasing throughput. Second, next-generation sequencing technologies allow the identification of large numbers of microsatellite loci at reduced cost in non-model species. As a consequence, more stringent selection of loci is possible, thereby further enhancing multiplex quality and efficiency. However, current practices are lagging behind. By surveying recently published population genetic studies relying on simple sequence repeats, we show that more than half of the studies lack appropriate quality controls and do not make use of multiplex PCR. To make the most of the latest technical developments, we outline the need for a well-established strategy including standardized high-throughput bench protocols and specific bioinformatic tools, from primer design to allele calling. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                papius.tibihika@students.boku.ac.at , papiust@yahoo.com
                manuel.curto@boku.ac.at
                esayas.negash@students.boku.ac.at
                herwig.waidbacher@boku.ac.at
                cmasembe@cns.mak.ac.ug
                pakoll@cns.mak.ac.ug
                meimberg@boku.ac.at
                Journal
                BMC Evol Biol
                BMC Evol. Biol
                BMC Evolutionary Biology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2148
                30 January 2020
                30 January 2020
                2020
                : 20
                : 16
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2298 5320, GRID grid.5173.0, Institute for Integrative Nature Conservation Research, , University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU), ; Gregor Mendel Straße 33, 1180 Wien, Austria
                [2 ]National Agricultural Research Organization, Kachwekano Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute, P.O. Box 421, Kabale, Uganda
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2298 5320, GRID grid.5173.0, Institute for Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecosystems Management, , University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU), ; Gregor Mendel Straße 33/DG, 1180 Wien, Austria
                [4 ]National Fishery and Aquatic Life Research Centre, P.O. Box 64, Addis Ababa, Sebeta Ethiopia
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0620 0548, GRID grid.11194.3c, Department of Zoology, , Entomology and Fisheries Sciences-Makerere University Kampala, ; P. O. Box, 7062 Kampala, Uganda
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6918-9903
                Article
                1583
                10.1186/s12862-020-1583-0
                6990601
                32000675
                6b7c74e1-fcd1-4d82-be1f-a4b905ef9f5b
                © The Author(s). 2020

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 3 July 2019
                : 16 January 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100005203, OeAD-GmbH;
                Award ID: APPEAR
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Evolutionary Biology
                cichlids,fish translocations,genetic structure,gene flow,bottleneck
                Evolutionary Biology
                cichlids, fish translocations, genetic structure, gene flow, bottleneck

                Comments

                Comment on this article