Animal cells and systems

The Korean Society for Integrative Biology (한국통합생물학회)
권호 표지

Comparison of the Genetic Relationships and Osteological Aspects in Six Branchiostegid Fish Species (Perciformes)

  • Ryu, Jung-Hwa (RYMI) ;
  • Kim, Jin-Koo (Department of Marine Biology, Pukyong National University) ;
  • Park, Jung-Youn (Biotechnology Research Institute, National Fisheries Research and Development Institute)
  • Published : 2009.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

We analyzed partial sequences of cytochrome b (cyt-b), a mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) gene, to determine the genetic relationships between six horsehead fish species: Branchiostegus japonicus, Branchiostegus albus, Branchiostegus auratus, Branchiostegus argentatus, Branchiostegus wardi, and an unidentified Branchiostegus species. The specimens were collected in Korea, China, Japan, and Vietnam. We compared their molecular phylogenetic relationships inferred from mtDNA cyt-b sequences with an osteological analysis. The unidentified species, B. sp., was similar to B. albus in terms of the lack of triangular silver-white dot at the posterior region of eyes (vs. large one present in B. japonicus), but was also similar to B. japonicus in terms of the presence of a straight-shaped first hemal spine (vs. a curve-shaped hemal spine in B. albus). Analysis of the mtDNA cyt-b sequences indicated that the smallest estimated sequence divergence was between the B. japonicus and B. sp. (0.70-0.94%), whereas the largest difference was between B. auratus and B. argentatus (23.06-23.36%). Both the maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood trees showed that the B. sp. was closely clustered with B. japonicus, and that B. auratus was most distant from the other species. When comparing the osteological characters, UPGMA tree showed that the B. japonicus and B. sp. were the most closely clustered species, and B. auratus was the most distantly clustered fish relative to the other species. The shape of the nasal, otolith and first hemal spine was informative for distinguishing B. auratus from the other species. These osteological differences were consistent with the differences in mtDNA.

Keywords

References

  1. Asahida T, Kobayashi T, Saitoh K, and Nakayama I (1996) Tissue preservation and total DNA extraction from fish stored at ambient temperature using buffers containing high concentration ofurea. Fish Sci 62: 727-730 https://doi.org/10.2331/suisan.62.727
  2. Avise JC (2000) Phylogeography: the history and formation of species. Harvard Univ Press, London, 447 pp
  3. Chyung MK (1977) The Fishes of Korea. Ilji-sa Publ Co Seoul, 727pp
  4. Dooley JK (1978) Systematic and Biology of tilefishes (Percifonnes: Branchiostegidae and Malacanthidae), with description of new species. NOAA Tech Rep NMFS Circ 411:30-49
  5. Dooley JK and Kailola PJ (1988) Four new tilefishes from the Northeastern Indian Ocean, with a review of the genus Branchiostegus. Jap J Ichthyol 35: 247-260
  6. Grant WS and Bowen BW (1998) Shallow population histories in deep evolutionary lineages of marine fishes: insights from sardines and anchovies and lessons for conservation. J Hered 89: 415-426 https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/89.5.415
  7. Holcroft NC (2005) A molecular analysis ofthe interrelationships of tetraodontifonn fishes (Acanthomorpha: Tetraodontifonnes). Mol Phy Evol 34: 525-544 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2004.11.003
  8. Hwang UW and Kim W (1999) General properties and phylogenetic utilities of nuclear ribosomal DNA and mitochondrial DNA commonly used in molecular systematic. Korean J Parasitology 37: 215-228 https://doi.org/10.3347/kjp.1999.37.4.215
  9. Imamura H (2000) An alternative hypothesis on the phylogenetic position ofthe family Dactylopteridae (Pisces: Teleostei) with a proposed new classification. Ichthyol Res 47: 203-222 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02674244
  10. Inoue JG; Miya M, Tsukomoto K, and Nishida M (2001) A mitogenomic perspective on the basal teleosteon phylogeny:resolving higher-level relationships with longer DNA sequences. Mol Phy Evol 20: 275-285 https://doi.org/10.1006/mpev.2001.0970
  11. lrie H (1953) Studies on 'amadai' (Gen Branchiostegus) of Japan. 1. Discrimination between 'aka-amadai' and 'kiamadai'. Bull Fac Fish Nagasaki Univ 1: 14-17
  12. Johnson GD (1984) Percoidei, development and relationships. Pages 438~447 in Moser HG; Richards WJ, Cohen DM, Fahay MP, Kendall AW, Jr. and Richards SL eds. Ontogeny and Systematics of Fishes. Amer Soc Ichthyol Herpetol Spec publ 1: 438-447
  13. Kartavtsev yP and Hanzawa N (2007) Inferences in Leuciscinae (Pisces, Cyprinidae) phylogeny and taxonomy based on cytochrome b sequence distances and on enzyme loci diversity.Korean J Genetics 29: 427-435
  14. Kartavtsev yP and Lee JS (2006) Analysis ofnucleotide diversity at the cytochrome b and cytochrome oxidase I genes at the population, species and genus levels. Russian J Genet 42:341-362 https://doi.org/10.1134/S1022795406040016
  15. Kawamura K and Hosoya K (1991) A modified double staining technique for making a transparent fish skeletal specimen. Bull Natl Res Inst Aquaculture 20: 11-18
  16. Kim IS, Choi Y, Lee CL, Lee YJ, Kim BJ, and Kim JH (2005b) Illustrated book of Korean Fishes. Kyhak Publ Co Seoul, pp. 298-299
  17. Kim JK, Doiuchi R, and Nakabo T (2006) Molecular and morphological differences between two geographic populations of Salanx ariakensis (Salangidae) from Korea and Japan. Ichthyol Res 53: 52-62 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10228-005-0315-1
  18. Kim YU (1989) Ichthyology. Taewha Publ Co Pusan, 270pp
  19. Kim YU and Ryu JH (1998) Taxonomic revision of the genus Branchiostegus (Perciformes, Pisces) from the adjacent water ofKorea. Korean J Ichthyol 10: 40-48
  20. Kim YU, Myoung Jo, Kim YS, Han KH, Kang CB, Kim JK, and Ryu JH (2005a) Marine Fishes of Korea. (2nd Ed.). Hanguel Publ Co Busan, pp. 166-169
  21. Kishinouye JK (1907) The three species Latilus in Japan. Zool Mag 19: 56-60
  22. Kocher TD, Thomas WK, Meyer A, Edwards SV; Paabo S, Villablanca FX, and Wilson AC (1989) Dynamics of mitochondrial DNA evolution in animals:Amplification and sequencing with conserved primers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86: 6196-6200 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.86.16.6196
  23. Lee MY, Park SK, Hong YJ, Kim YJ, Voloshima I, Myslenkov A, Saveljev AP, Choi TY, Piao RZ, An JH, Lee MR, Lee H, and Min MS (2008) Mitochondrial genetic diversity and Phylogenetic relationships of Siberian flying squirrel (Pteromys volans) populations. Animal Cells and Systems 12:269-277 https://doi.org/10.1080/19768354.2008.9647182
  24. Marino RP and Dooley JK (1982) Phylogenetic relationships of the tilefish family Branchiostegidae (Perciformes) based upon comparative mylogy. J Zool 196: 151-163 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1982.tb03498.x
  25. Minaka N (1997) Systematics, phylogenetics and the tree oflife:a cladistic perspective. Tokyo Univ Press, Tokyo, 458pp
  26. Moser HG, Richards WJ, Cohen DM, Fahay MP, Kendall AW and Richardson SL (1984) Ontogeny and Systematics of Fishes (Eds.) Amer Soc Ichthyol Herp special Pub 1, 759pp
  27. Nakabo T (2002) Fishes of Japan with pictorial keys to the speciees (2nd. Ed.) Tokai Univ Press, Tokyo, pp. 782-785
  28. Nelson JS (1994) Fishes of the World (3rd Ed.), John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, 550pp
  29. Nelson.lS (2006) Fishes of the World (4th Ed.). John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, pp. 357-359
  30. Ochiai A (1953) Comparative studies of branquillos of the genus Branchiostegus found in the waters of Japan and China. ZooI Mag 62: 306-313
  31. PosadaD and Crandall KA (1998) Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioiriformatics 14: 817-818 https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/14.9.817
  32. Rohlf FJ (1988) NTSYS-pc: Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System. Version 1.50. State Univ New York, Stony Brook
  33. Rojo AL (1991) Dictionary of evolutionary fish osteology. CRC Press, 273pp
  34. Seehausen O, Koetsier E, Schneider MV, Chapman LJ, Chapman CA, Knight ME, Turner GF, van Alphen .11M, and Bills R (2003) Nuclear markers reveal unexpected genetic variation and a Congolese-Nilotic origin of the lake Victoria cichlid species flock. Proc R Soc Lond B 270: 129-137 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2153
  35. Shaw KL (2002) Conflict between nuclear and mitochondrial DNA phylogenies of a recent species radiation: What mt DNA reveals and conceals about modes of speciation in Hawaiian crickets. Proc Nat Acad Sci 99: 16122-16127 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.242585899
  36. Springer VG and Johnson GD (2004) Study of the dorsal gillarch musculature of teleostone fishes, with special reference to the Actionopterygii. Bull Bio Soc Washington 27: 1-260
  37. Stiassny ML, Parenti LR, and Johnson GD (Ed.) (1996) Interrelationships of fishes. Academic Press, 496pp
  38. Swofford DL (2002) PAUP. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 4b10. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA
  39. Watrous LE and Wheeler QD (1981) The outgroup comparison method of character analysis. Syst Zool 30: 1-11 https://doi.org/10.2307/2992297
  40. Whelan S, Lio P, and Goldman N (2001) Molecular Phylogenetics: state-of-the-art methods for looking into the Past. Trends in Genetics 17: 262-272 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9525(01)02272-7
  41. Wiens .JJ (2000) Phylogenetic analysis of morphological data. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London, 220pp
  42. William J, Ballard 0, and Whitlock C (2004) The incomplete natural history ofmitochondria. Mol Eco 13: 729-744 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.02063.x
  43. Zhang J, Li M, Xu M, Takita T, and Wei F (2007) Molecular phylogeny of icefish Salangidae based on complete mtDNA cytochrome b sequences, with comments on estuarine fish evolution. BioI J Linnaean Soc 91: 325-340 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00785.x
  44. ZhuD, Jamieson BGM, HugallA, and Moritz C (1994) Sequence evolution and phylogenetic signal in control-region and cytochrome b sequences ofrainbow fishes (Melanotaeniidae). Mol BioI Evol 11: 672-683