7
|
Panagiotopoulou H, Austin JD, Zalewska K, Gonciarz M, Czarnogórska K, Gawor J, Weglenski P, Popovic D. Microsatellite Mutation Rate in Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus). J Hered 2017; 108:686-692. [PMID: 28821182 DOI: 10.1093/jhered/esx057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2017] [Accepted: 07/02/2017] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Understanding mutation rates can greatly extend the utility of population and conservation genetic analyses. Herein, we present an estimate of genome-wide microsatellite mutation rate in Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) based on parent-offspring transmission patterns. We screened 307 individuals for parentage and mutation-rate analysis applying 43 variable markers. Out of 13228 allele transfers, 11 mutations were detected, producing a mutation rate of 8.3 × 10-4 per locus per generation (95% confidence interval: 1.48 × 10-3, 4.15 × 10-4). Single-step mutations predominated and there were trends toward mutations in loci with greater polymorphism and allele length. Two of the detected mutations were most probably cluster mutations, being identified in 12 and 28 sibs, respectively. Finally, we observed evidences of polyploidy based on the sporadic presence of 3 or 4 alleles per locus in the genotyped individuals, supporting previous reports of incomplete diploidization in Atlantic sturgeon.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hanna Panagiotopoulou
- Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Department of Biology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia; Centre of New Technologies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - James D Austin
- Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Department of Biology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia; Centre of New Technologies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Katarzyna Zalewska
- Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Department of Biology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia; Centre of New Technologies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Magdalena Gonciarz
- Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Department of Biology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia; Centre of New Technologies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Kinga Czarnogórska
- Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Department of Biology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia; Centre of New Technologies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Jan Gawor
- Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Department of Biology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia; Centre of New Technologies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Piotr Weglenski
- Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Department of Biology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia; Centre of New Technologies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Danijela Popovic
- Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Department of Biology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia; Centre of New Technologies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Balazik MT, Farrae DJ, Darden TL, Garman GC. Genetic differentiation of spring-spawning and fall-spawning male Atlantic sturgeon in the James River, Virginia. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0179661. [PMID: 28686610 PMCID: PMC5501429 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179661] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2017] [Accepted: 06/01/2017] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus, Acipenseridae) populations are currently at severely depleted levels due to historic overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. The importance of biologically correct stock structure for effective conservation and management efforts is well known. Recent improvements in our understanding of Atlantic sturgeon migrations, movement, and the occurrence of putative dual spawning groups leads to questions regarding the true stock structure of this endangered species. In the James River, VA specifically, captures of spawning Atlantic sturgeon and accompanying telemetry data suggest there are two discrete spawning groups of Atlantic sturgeon. The two putative spawning groups were genetically evaluated using a powerful microsatellite marker suite to determine if they are genetically distinct. Specifically, this study evaluates the genetic structure, characterizes the genetic diversity, estimates effective population size, and measures inbreeding of Atlantic sturgeon in the James River. The results indicate that fall and spring spawning James River Atlantic sturgeon groups are genetically distinct (overall FST = 0.048, F'ST = 0.181) with little admixture between the groups. The observed levels of genetic diversity and effective population sizes along with the lack of detected inbreeding all indicated that the James River has two genetically healthy populations of Atlantic sturgeon. The study also demonstrates that samples from adult Atlantic sturgeon, with proper sample selection criteria, can be informative when creating reference population databases. The presence of two genetically-distinct spawning groups of Atlantic sturgeon within the James River raises concerns about the current genetic assignment used by managers. Other nearby rivers may also have dual spawning groups that either are not accounted for or are pooled in reference databases. Our results represent the second documentation of genetically distinct dual spawning groups of Atlantic sturgeon in river systems along the U.S. Atlantic coast, suggesting that current reference population database should be updated to incorporate both new samples and our increased understanding of Atlantic sturgeon life history.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew T. Balazik
- Center for Environmental Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
- * E-mail:
| | - Daniel J. Farrae
- South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Research Institute, Hollings Marine Laboratory, Charleston, South Carolina
| | - Tanya L. Darden
- South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Research Institute, Hollings Marine Laboratory, Charleston, South Carolina
| | - Greg C. Garman
- Center for Environmental Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Savoy T, Maceda L, Roy NK, Peterson D, Wirgin I. Evidence of natural reproduction of Atlantic sturgeon in the Connecticut River from unlikely sources. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0175085. [PMID: 28388618 PMCID: PMC5384763 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2016] [Accepted: 03/20/2017] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Atlantic Sturgeon is listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act as five Distinct Population Segments (DPS). The "endangered" New York Bight (NYB) DPS is thought to only harbor two populations; one in the Hudson River and a second smaller one in the Delaware River. Historically, the Connecticut River probably supported a spawning population of Atlantic Sturgeon that was believed extirpated many decades ago. In 2014, we successfully collected pre-migratory juvenile specimens from the lower Connecticut River which were subjected to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region sequence and microsatellite analyses to determine their genetic relatedness to other populations coastwide. Haplotype and allelic frequencies differed significantly between the Connecticut River collection and all other populations coastwide. Sibship analyses of the microsatellite data indicated that the Connecticut River collection was comprised of a small number of families that were likely the offspring of a limited number of breeders. This was supported by analysis of effective population size (Ne) and number of breeders (Nb). STRUCTURE analysis suggested that there were 11 genetic clusters among the coastwide collections and that from the Connecticut River was distinct from those in all other rivers. This was supported by UPGMA analyses of the microsatellite data. In AMOVA analyses, among region variation was maximized, and among population within regions variation minimized when the Connecticut River collection was separate from the other two populations in the NYB DPS indicating the dissimilarity between the Connecticut River collection and the other two populations in the NYB DPS. Use of mixed stock analysis indicated that the Connecticut River juvenile collection was comprised of specimens primarily of South Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay DPS origins. The most parsimonious explanation for these results is that the Connecticut River hosted successful natural reproduction in 2013 and that its offspring were descendants of a small number of colonizers from populations south of the NYB DPS, most notably the South Atlantic DPS. Our results run contrary to the belief that re-colonizers of extirpated populations primarily originate in proximal populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tom Savoy
- Marine Fisheries Division, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Old Lyme, Connecticut, United States of America
| | - Lorraine Maceda
- Department of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, Tuxedo, New York, United States of America
| | - Nirmal K. Roy
- Department of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, Tuxedo, New York, United States of America
| | - Doug Peterson
- Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States of America
| | - Isaac Wirgin
- Department of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, Tuxedo, New York, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|