ResearchersLinks

Short Communication · Volume 50, Issue 2, 29 March 2018 · Open Access

Microsatellite Loci Identified by Cross-Species Amplifications in the Globally Vulnerable Relict Gull, Larus relictus

· · · ·

Affiliations & Notes ⌄
  1. 1Key Laboratory of Wetland Ecology and Environment, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 4888 Shengbei Street, Changchun 130102, P.R. China 2University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, P.R. China 3School of Life Sciences, Jilin Key Laboratory of Animal Resource Conservation and Utilization, Northeast Normal University, 5268 Renmin Street, Changchun, China , * Corresponding author: luxg@neigae.ac.cn
Article Info ⌄
Journal:
Pakistan Journal of Zoology
Published:
29 March 2018

From the article

  • Out of a total of 90 microsatellites combination tested, 56 (62%) positive amplifications, of which 11 loci were polymorphic.
  • Therefore, these microsatellite markers could be useful for inferring population patterns and processes, and analyzing kinship among individuals in Relict Gull.
  • In conclusion, 11 polymorphic microsatellite loci in Relict gull were identified by cross-species amplifications.
  • The characteristics of these loci provide useful information for further studies on genetic diversity, population structure, conservation status as well as kinship among individuals in this species.

Selected from the article's own text.

Abstract

Relict gull, Larus relictus is listed as vulnerable species by IUCN. For improving the research on conservation of this species, we tested the cross-species amplification of 90 microsatellite loci developed for eight other species. Eleven out of them were successfully amplified and polymorphic with 2-10 alleles. The observed heterozygosities ranged from 0.481 to 0.827 and the polymorphic information content ranged from 0.373 to 0.775. Significant linkage disequilibrium was found only between two markers. These microsatellites could be used to enhance our understanding of genetic information and breeding biology of Relict Gull.

Methods

Fifty-two Relict gull muscle samples were taken from the natural dead chicks from 52 different nest sites in Hongjian Nur Nature Reserve in China (38°13’ N - 39°27’N, 109°42’ N - 110°54‘E) in 2016 and were stored in Absolute Ethyl Alcohol. Genomic DNA was isolated from the samples using a standard phenol: chloroform based extraction technique.

We tested the cross-amplification of 90 microsatellite primer pairs developed for other closely species within the Charadriiformes: nine on Saunders’s Gull Larus saundersi , 22 on Ivory Gull Pagophila eburnea , seven on Red-billed Gull Larus novaehollandiae scopulinus , six on Herring Gull Larus argentatus , five on American Herring Gull Larus smithsonianus , seven on Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla , 31 on Little Terns Sternula albifrons and three on Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii for variability in Relict Gull.

PCR amplification was run in 25 μL volume containing 2.5 μL 10×PCR Buffer, 0.5 μL dNTP mix (10 mmol/µL), 2 μL MgCl2 (25 mmol/µL), 0.2 μL Taq polymerase (5U/µL), 0.5 μL of each primer, 17.8 μL H2O and about 50 ng DNA. PCR reactions were carried out in one cycling profile (an initial denaturation of 3 min at 95 °C, followed by 10 cycles of 30 s at 95 °C, 30 s at 60 °C and 30 s at 72 °C, and 20 cycles of 30 s at 95 °C, 30 s at 55 °C and 30 s at 72 °C, and 6 min of final elongation at 72 °C. PCR products were analyzed by Songon Biotech, Shanghai, China, on ABI PRISM 3730XL Genetic Analyzer for polymorphism testing with GeneMapper v3.7 for the size range reading.

We tested for deviations from linkage disequilibrium (LD), and Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) by Markov chain method using the following parameters: dememorization = 10000, number of batches = 20, and number of iterations/batch = 5000 in Genepop 4.3. Bonferroni correction (α=0.05) was applied to the two above tests. Null alleles were checked in Micro-Checker 2.2.3. The observed and expected heterozygosity, and polymorphic information content were calculated with Cervus 3.0.

Results and discussion

Out of a total of 90 microsatellites combination tested, 56 (62%) positive amplifications, of which 11 loci were polymorphic. None of the markers was observed departing from HWE and no null alleles were found in the 11 loci. The polymorphism loci had 2-10 alleles per locus and with PIC ranging from 0.373 to 0.775 (Table I). The observed heterozygosities ranged from 0.481 to 0.827.

The genetic variability estimated by microsatellite markers significantly outnumbered the genetic variability assessed from the two mtDNA and one nuclear gene that has been previously used . However, this particular set of microsatellite loci are still relatively invariant compared to many microsatellite loci examined in other species (e.g. ; and possibly at other loci in this species. One possibility is that the populations are small with relatively low level of gene flow. As revealed by mitochondrial and nuclear sequence data, the sampled population indeed appears to have low variation compared with that in closely related gull . And that only about 20% (11 out of 56) of tested primers were variable in our study is also consistent with this explanation.

Significant LD was found only between Locus RBG29 and LARZAP11. LD creates pseudo-replication for analysis where locus is assumed to be independent. In this scenario, one of the linked loci should be excluded to avoid increased Type I error . However, for many ecological questions, application of linked loci could be beneficial. For example, LD can help understanding the patterns of gene exchange and history of changes in population size (e.g. . Therefore, these microsatellite markers could be useful for inferring population patterns and processes, and analyzing kinship among individuals in Relict Gull.

Table I.- Characteristics of eleven microsatellite loci in Relict gull. Initial species, number of alleles (Na), size range, observed (Ho) and expected (He) heterozygosities, polymorphic information content (PIC) and Hardy-Weinberg exact test (P-val) are shown.

Locus1

Initial species

Na

Size range (bp)

Ho

He

PIC

P-val

RBG29 Red-billed Gull

3

125-137

0.615

0.619

0.530

0.758

Lasa-8

Saunders’s Gull

7

239-267

0.712

0.703

0.645

0.882

Lasa-3 Saunders’s Gull

6

209-229

0.592

0.607

0.546

0.793

LARZAP11 Herring Gull

3

197-209

0.558

0.581

0.482

0.696

Salb2 Little Terns

10

186-231

0.827

0.811

0.775

0.299

IVGU-A2 Ivory Gull

2

194-196

0.627

0.472

0.358

0.044

IVGU-A137 Ivory Gull

2

195-199

0.481

0.500

0.373

0.787

IVGU-A138 Ivory Gull

2

174-180

0.577

0.504

0.375

0.404

IVGU-B125 Ivory Gull

4

264-276

0.731

0.736

0.677

0.725

IVGU-C7 Ivory Gull

4

167-183

0.635

0.614

0.530

0.932

IVGU-D110 Ivory Gull

3

199-207

0.577

0.600

0.507

0.232

1All of the 11 loci were successfully amplified in the 52 samples.

Conclusion

In conclusion, 11 polymorphic microsatellite loci in Relict gull were identified by cross-species amplifications. The characteristics of these loci provide useful information for further studies on genetic diversity, population structure, conservation status as well as kinship among individuals in this species.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2016YFC0500400) and the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. D41371106). We thank Qiang Wang, Qingxiong Wang, Yong Lyu and Shuanzhu Gong for the assistance of field work, and Mingju E for the help with laboratory work.

Statement of conflict of interest

Authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abbas, G., Nadeem, A., Babar, M. E., Hussain, T., Tahir, M.S., Shehzad, W., Iqbal, R. Z., Tayyab, M. and Javed, M., 2017. Pakistan J. Zool., 49:: 1701-1712. http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2017.49.5.1701.1712[CrossRef]
  2. Crochet, P.A., Chen, J.Z., Pons, J.M., Lebreton, J.D., Hebert, P.D.N. and Bonhomme, F., 2003. Evolution, 57: 2865-2878. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb01527.x[CrossRef]
  3. Frankham, R., Ballou, J.D. and Briscoe, D.A., 2004. Aust. Mammal., 27: 105-106.
  4. Given, A.D., Mills, J.A. and Baker, A.J., 2002. Mol. Ecol. Notes, 2: 416-418. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-8286.2002.00261.x[CrossRef]
  5. Gregory, S.M. and Quinn, J.S., 2005. Mol. Ecol. Notes, 6: 87-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2005.01148.x[CrossRef]
  6. He, F.Q., David, M., Xing, X.J. and Ren, Y.Q., 2002. Chin. J. Zool., 37: 65-70.
  7. IUCN, 2016. Version 2016.3.1. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 30 December, 2016.
  8. Jiang, H.X., Ren, S.L., Hou, Y.Q., Yang, M. and Wu, X.B., 2011. Genet. Mol. Res., 10: 2034-2037. https://doi.org/10.4238/vol10-3gmr1205[CrossRef]
  9. Loyau, A. and Schmeller, D.S., 2009. J. Ornithol., 150: 703-707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-009-0409-z[CrossRef]
  10. Noreikiene, K., Berthelsen, U.M. and Gienapp, P., 2012. Conserv. Genet. Res., 4: 447-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9570-9[CrossRef]
  11. Selkoe, K.A. and Toonen, R.J., 2006. Ecol. Lett., 9: 615-629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00889.x[CrossRef]
  12. Szczys, P., Hughes, C.R. and Kesseli, R.V., 2005. Conserv. Genet., 6: 461-466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-004-4975-6[CrossRef]
  13. Tishkoff, S.A., Dietzsch, E., Speed, W., Pakstis, A.J., Kidd, J.R., Cheung, K., Bonné-Tamir, B., Santachiara-Benerecetti, A.S., Moral, P. and Krings, M., 1996. Science, 271: 1380-1387. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.271.5254.1380[CrossRef]
  14. Verkuil, Y., Trimbos, K., Haddrath, O., Baker, A.J. and Piersma, T., 2009. Mol. Ecol. Res., 9: 1415-1418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02685.x[CrossRef]
  15. Wan, Q.H., Wu, H., Fujihara, T. and Fang, S.G., 2004. Electrophoresis, 25: 2165-2176. https://doi.org/10.1002/elps.200305922[CrossRef]
  16. Yang, C., Lian, T., Wang, Q.X. Huang, Y. and Xiao, H., 2015. Mitochondr. DNA, 27: 2487-2491.
  17. Yannic, G., Sermier, R., Aebischer, A., Gavrilo, M.V., Gilg, O., Miljeteig, C., Sabard, B., Strom, H., Pouive, E. and Broquet, T., 2011. Mol. Ecol. Res., 11: 877-889. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.03015.x[CrossRef]
  18. Zhu, W., Wei, Q., Xue, S., Zhang, H., Lv, T. and Zhang, H., 2017. Pakistan J. Zool., 49: 1909-1012. http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2017.49.5.sc1[CrossRef]

Cited by 3 articles

In journals published by ResearchersLinks.

  1. Development of 17 Novel Cross-Species Microsatellite Markers for Dabry’s Sturgeon (Acipenser dabryanus) from Chinese Sturgeon (Acipenser sinensis) via Next-Generation SequencingPakistan Journal of Zoology · 2019
  2. Development and Characterization of Microsatellite Markers for the Ornamented Pygmy Frog Microhyla fissipes and Transferability in MicrohylaPakistan Journal of Zoology · 2019
  3. Isolation and Characterization of Microsatellite Loci from an Ice Fish, Neosalanx tangkahkeii (Osmeriformes, Salangidae)Pakistan Journal of Zoology · 2019

Services

Article usage statistics

Loading…

Microsatellite Loci Identified by Cross-Species Amplifications in the Globally Vulnerable Relict Gull, Larus relictus · ResearchersLinks