|
|
|
| Comparative Analysis of Genetic Diversity in Cyprinus carpio rubrofuscus Among Selective-breeding Population and Landraces |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Abstract The traditional rice-fish coculture system is considered a sustainable form of agriculture that provides rice grain and fish for farmers in the world. Cyprinus carpio rubrofuscus, as a high quality local varieties paddy field carp, has been cultured in paddy fields of the north region of Guangdong province with a long history. In order to understand the effect of artificial culture and selective breeding on the genetic diversity and genetic structure of C. carpio rubrofuscus and to provide the study basis for preservation of germplasm resources and utilization, 16 microsatellite markers were selected and used to compare the genetic diversity of one generation of selectively bred population (F5) and 2 landraces (Ruyuan population and Lechang population) in C. carpio rubrofuscus in this study. The results showed that all selected primers were polymorphic and 119 alleles were detected from these 3 populations. The number of alleles detected on each locus varied from 3 to 10 with 7.44 alleles per primer pair on an average. In the 3 populations, the average expected heterozygosity (He) were 0.636 0, 0.698 9 and 0.775 1; the Shannon's diversity index (I) were 1.206 3, 1.402 0 and 1.612 2; and the average polymorphism information content (PIC) were 0.570 1, 0.645 8 and 0.720 7，respectively. It is suggested that the genetic diversity level of all the 3 populations were high (PIC＞0.5000), but the level of genetic diversity of the tow landraces was higher than that in F5 generation of selectively bred population. The genetic differentiation index (Fst) among all the locus was 0.102 8 with the value ranged from 0.044 0 to 0.246 8 indicated a moderate level of differentiation in the 3 populations. Pairwise Fst values also indicated that the 3 populations had moderate genetic differentiation with the highest value (0.182) between the selectively bred population (F5) and the Lechang population indicating a greater level of differentiation. While the value between the Ruyuan population and Lechang population was lowest (0.058), indicating a moderate level of differentiation. Among the 3 populations, the genetic distance was 0.205 6~0.622 4 and the genetic identify index was 0.536 6~0.814 2. The selectively bred population (F5) was the furthest with the Lechang population (0.6224) and the Ruyuan population was nearest with the Lechang population in terms of genetic distance (0.2056), while the genetic identity between the selectively bred population (F5) and Lechang population was lowest (0.5366) and the highest between the Ruyuan population and the Lechang population (0.8142). The NJ clustering tree based on the genetic distance by using the unweighted pair group method with arithmetic (UPGMA) demonstrated that the 2 landraces (Ruyuan population and Lechang population) clustered together firstly and then clustered with the selectively bred population (F5). This study suggested that the selective breeding work was efficient and the artificial selection has enlarged genetic differentiation between the breeding and landraces populations while decreased the genetic diversity within the breeding populations, but the high genetic diversity and genetic potential were maintained in the breeding population, indicating that there is great potential for future selections of C. carpio rubrofuscus through selective breeding. This study would provide valuable information for genetically breeding in C. carpio rubrofuscus in the future.
|
|
Received: 05 January 2018
Published: 20 July 2018
|
| Fund:Special Scientific Research Funds for Central Non-profit Institutes, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences |
|
Corresponding Authors:
Dong-mei Ma
E-mail: madongmei2003@163.com
|
|
|
|
| [1]池喜峰, 贾智英, 李池陶, 等.鲤易捕性状选育群体不同世代微卫星分析[J].上海海洋大学学报, 2010, 19(3):308-313[2]范嗣刚, 王婧璇, 黄桂菊, 等.合浦珠母贝选育家系的遗传多样性分析[J].南方水产科学, 2016, 12(5):90-96[3]冯娜娜, 徐真, 马洪雨, 等.凡纳滨对虾7个不同家系遗传差异的微卫星标记分析[J].生物技术通报, 2012, (11):133-138[4]管云雁, 刘文广, 何毛贤.马氏珠母贝选育群体个世代的遗传变异[J].中国水产科学, 2013, 20(4):764-770[5]郭红军, 罗洁, 洪一江, 等.人工选育池蝶蚌的生长及不同世代遗传分析[J].水生生物学报, 2008, 32(2):220-224[6]李镕, 白俊杰, 李胜杰, 等.大口黑鲈选育群体遗传结构的微卫星分析[J].广东海洋大学学报, 2010, 30(3):11-15[7]彭银辉, 刘楚吾, 郭昱嵩, 等.三种笛鲷的野生群体和养殖群体遗传多样性的微卫星分析[J].农业生物技术学报, 2008, 16(5):810-814[8]孙孝德, 孙国华, 袁廷柱, 等.刺参 野生及两代选育群体间遗传变异的微卫星标记研究[J].海洋与湖沼, 2011, 42(3):380-386[9]唐首杰, 毕详, 王成辉, 等.团头鲂个选育群体遗传潜力的微卫星分析[J].南方水产科学, 2017, 13(2):59-68[10]吴廉, 慈元吉, 黄姝, 等.中华绒螯蟹配套系育种群体与野生群体的遗传比较与选择压力分析[J].中国水产科学, 2015, 22(2):204-213[11]伍献文.中国鲤科鱼类志[M].上海:上海人民出版社, 1977, pp. 408-428. (WU X W. The Fish of Cyprinidae in China [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai people's publishing house, 1977, pp. 408-428.)[12]肖炜, 王腾, 李大宇, 等.埃及品系尼罗罗非鱼不同选育世代 - 区遗传多样性分析[J].南方水产科学, 2015, 11(3):29-34[13]熊良伟, 李真, 马克异, 等.利用微卫星 分子标记分析中华绒螯蟹养殖群体遗传分化[J].农业生物技术学报, 2012, 20(12):1441-1448[14]张天时, 王清印, 刘萍, 等.中国对虾 人工选育群体不同世代的微卫星分析[J].海洋与湖沼, 2005, 36(1):72-80[15]赵广泰, 刘贤德, 王志勇, 等.大黄鱼连续代选育群体遗传多样性与遗传结构的微卫星分析[J].水产学报, 2010, 43(4):500-507[16]赵岩, 李思发, 唐首杰.团头鲂“浦江号”选育后期世代群体同野生群体间遗传变异的 分析[J].水产学报, 2009, 33(6):893-900[17]郑慈英.珠江鱼类志[M]. 北京:科学出版社, 1989, pp. 226-233. (Zheng C Y. Fishes of the Pearl River[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 1989, pp. 226-233.)[18]郑荷子, 易提林, 梁旭方, 等.翘嘴鳜连续 代选育群体遗传多样性及遗传结构分析[J].淡水渔业, 2013, 43(6):8-12[19]Ball A O, Leonard S, Chapman R W.Characterization of (GT)n from native white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus)[J].Molecular Ecology, 1998, (7):1251-1253[20]Botstein D, While R L.Construction of genetic linkage map in man using restriction fragment length polymorphisms[J].The American Journal of Human Genetics, 1980, 32(3):314-331[21]Callen D F, Thompson A D, Shen Y, et al.Incidence and origin of null alleles in the (AC)n microsatellite markers[J].The American Journal of Human Genetics, 1993, (52):922-927[22]Hedgecock D, Sly F.Genetic drift and effective population sizes of hatchery-propagated stocks of the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas[J].Aquaculture, 1990, (88):21-38[23]Kalinowski S T, taper M L, Marshall T C.Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment[J].Molecular Ecology, 2007, 16(5):1099-1106[24]Lind C E, Evans B S, Knauer J, et al.Decreased genetic diversity and a reduced effective population size in cultured silver lipped pearl oysters (Pinctada maxima)[J].Aquaculture, 2009, 286(1-2):12-19[25]Luan S，Kong J，Wang Q Y.Genetic variation of wild and cultured populations of the Kuruma prawn Marsupenaeus japonicus（Bate 1888） using microsatellites[J].Aquaculture, 2006, 37:785-792[26]Nielsen R.Molecular signatures of natural selection[J].Annual Review of Genetics, 2005, 39:197-218[27]Simmons M，Mickett K，Kucuktas H，et al.Comparison of domestic and wild channel catfish（Ictalurus punctatus）populations provides no evidence for genetic impact [J].Aquaculture, 2006, 252:133-146[28]Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, et al.MEGA6: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 60[J].Molecular Biology and Evolution, 2013, 30(12):2725-2729[29]Weir B S, Cockerham C C.Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of populations structure[J].Evolution, 1984, 38(6):1358-1370[30]Wright J M, Bentzen P.Microsatellites: genetic markers for the future[J].Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 1994, 4(3):384-388[31]Yang H, Li D Y, Cao X, et al.Genetic potential analysis of six tilapia populations by microsatellite DNA markers[J].Hereditas (Beijing), 2011, 33(7):768-775[32]Yeh F, Yang R C, Boyle T.POPGENE: A User-friendly shareware for population genetic analysis [CP/DK]. Edmonton: Molecular and Biotechnology Center, University of Alberta[J]. 1997[33]Zhu H P, Liu Z G, Lu M X, et al.Screening and identification of a microsatellite marker associated with sex in Wami tilapia Oreochromis urolepis hornorum[J].Journal of Genetics, 2016, 95(2):283-289 |
|
|
|
