ResearchersLinks

Short Communication · Volume 51, Issue 2, 12 March 2019 · Open Access

Utilizing Next-Generation Sequencing to Develop and Characterize Microsatellite Loci in Cuttlefish (Sepia pharaonis) and Cross-Amplification in Other Sepiidaes

· · · · · ·

Affiliations & Notes ⌄
  1. 1National Engineering Research Center for Marine Aquaculture, College of Marine Sciences and Technology, Zhejiang Ocean University, Zhoushan 316004, China , * Corresponding author: gongli1027@163.com
Article Info ⌄
Journal:
Pakistan Journal of Zoology
Published:
12 March 2019

From the article

  • Morethan 56228 microsatellite loci with at least 4 repeats of mono-nucleotide to hexa-nucleotide motifs were detected (Table I).
  • Quad-, penta- and hexa-nucleotide SSRs had a much lower frequency (1.98%, 0.22% and 0.08%, respectively) (Table I).

Selected from the article's own text.

Abstract

The cuttlefish Sepia pharaonis, known for its economic value, is distributed in the tropical coastal waters of the Indo-pacific region. In this study, we developed twenty-one microsatellite loci for S. pharaonis through next-generation sequencing technology. A total of 100 alleles were detected, and the number of alleles per loci ranged from 2 to 9. The observed and expected heterozygosities per loci ranged from 0.000 to 0.531 and from 0.031 to 0.751, respectively. Polymorphism information content (PIC) showed that six loci were highly informative (PIC > 0.5). Five loci (CL1142, CL1770, CL2683, CL3494, CL 3674) significantly deviated from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium after a Bonferroni correction (P < 0.05), and none of the loci showed linkage disequilibrium. In addition, these loci were cross-amplified in three closelyrelated species. Nineteen, fifteen, and thirteen loci were amplified in Sepia lycidas, Sepia esculenta and Sepiella japonica, respectively. 

 

Materials and methods

A total of 32 specimens of S. pharaonis were collected from Cangnan sea area (Fujian Province, China). Muscle tissues of S. pharaonis were obtained from each individual, preserved in 95% ethanol and stored at -20°C before DNA extraction. Total DNA was extracted from muscles using standard phenol–chloroform procedures .

An illumina-based RNA-Seq approach was used to characterize the novel microsatellite loci for S. pharaonis collected from the Cangnan Sea area in the The Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI, Shenzhen, China). Transcriptome contigs were obtained and screened for microsatellites using MISA (http://pgrc.ipk-gatersleben.de/misa/misa.html). Primers were designed for microsatellite loci using the program Primer3.0 (http://www.onlinedown.net/soft/51549.htm).

For SSR marker validation and population genetic analysis sixty primer pairs were arbitrarily chosen, synthesized and used to test for polymorphisms in 10 individuals. The PCR amplification was performed in a 2720 PCR machine (ABI, USA) and in a reaction mixture (10 µL) containing 2-10 ng DNA (0.5 µL), 0.5 µL of each forward and reverse primers, 5 µL 2×Es Taq MasterMix and 3.5 µL of double distilled water. PCR was performed as follows: 5 min at 95°C, 30-35 cycles of 30 s at 95 °C, 30 s at 55–61 °C, 40 s at 72 °C, and 10 min at 72 °C. PCR products were detected using capillary electrophoresis (BIOptic’s Qsep100 dna-CE, Taiwan), and allele size was estimated using Q-Analyzer Software.Primers that amplified reproducible and score-able peaks of the expected size were further characterized using 32 wild-caught S. pharaonis individuals. The PCR products were genotyped using the method mentioned above.

To verify the transferability of the developed microsatellite loci from S. pharaonis three closely species of the sepiidae, we tested cross-amplification on the following three sepiidaes: Sepia lycidas, Sepia esculenta, and Sepiella japonica, with 10 individuals from each species.

The number of alleles (NA), observed (HO) heterozygosity and expected (HE) heterozygosity were calculated using ARLEQUIN ver. 3.5.1.3 . The polymorphic information content (PIC) was calculatedaccording to Botstein (1980). GENEPOP ver. 4.0.10 was used to examine conformation to Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) and linkage disequilibrium between all pairs of loci . Significance values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni corrections where necessary . Finally, all loci were assessed using MICRO-CHECKER to check for null alleles andscoring errors .

Results and discussion

In this study, we obtained approximately 98.12 nt bases from S.pharaonis the Illumina Hiseq 2000 platform. Morethan 56228 microsatellite loci with at least 4 repeats of mono-nucleotide to hexa-nucleotide motifs were detected (Table I). Among these microsatellites, mono-nucleotide motifs were the most frequent (51.65%), followed by di- (30.51%) and tri-nucleotides (15.56%). Quad-, penta- and hexa-nucleotide SSRs had a much lower frequency (1.98%, 0.22% and 0.08%, respectively) (Table I).

Table I.- Frequency of microsatellite motifs identified from Sepia lycidas genome.

Microsatellite motif type

Number of loci observed

Percentage

(%)

Mono-nucleotide

29,041

51.65

Di-nucleotide

17153

30.51

Tri-nucleotide

8748

15.56

Quad-nucleotide

1,115

1.98

Penta-nucleotide

122

0.22

Hexa-nucleotide

49

0.08

Total

56,228

100

Of 56228 microsatellite loci, we randomly selected 60 microsatellite loci with polynucleotide-repeat types to test primer pairs. Out of 60 primers pairs examined, 21 microsatellite loci appeared to be polymorphic in the population of S. pharaonis. The characteristics of these loci are shown in Table II. The number of alleles per loci ranged from 2 to 9, with an average of 4.81. Observed heterozygosity ranged from 0.000 to 0.531 and expected heterozygosity from 0.031 to 0.751, with an average of 0.200 and 0.422, respectively. Five loci (CL1142, CL1770, CL2683, CL3494, CL3674) significantly departed from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium after Bonferroni correction (P<0.05), perhaps because of population stratification, genotyping errors, or other confounding factors . The polymorphic information content (PIC) values ranged from 0.030 to 0.717. Of these 21 loci, six loci were highly informative (PIC > 0.5), nine showed as mildly informative (0.25 < PIC < 0.5), and six were lowly informative (PIC < 0.25) (Table II). No significant evidence for null alleles or linkage disequilibrium was detected (P>0.05). The polymorphism rate of polynucleotide SSRs (35%) developed for S. pharaonis in this study was similar to that in P. bengalensis (34.3%; Eo et al., 2016), Vriesea simplex (33.3%; but higher than that in Labeo rohita (12.2%; and Artemia parthenogenetica (11.5%; . This finding indicates that the polynucleotide-repeat microsatellites may also be powerful tools to study population structure and genetic diversity of S.pharaonis.

To examine these polymorphic microsatellite markers developed in S.pharaonis for utility with other species, cross-amplification of these microsatellite loci was tested on three other species (S .lycidas, S. esculenta and S. japonica) (Table III). The results showed that all 21 loci except CL9851 and UN11117 were effectively amplified, and 10 of 19 loci showed high polymorphisms in S. lycidas, indicating a higher transferability of these microsatellite markers in S. lycidas (Table III). Fifteen loci amplified and 4 of 15 loci showed polymorphisms in S. esculenta. Thirteen of 21 loci were cross-amplified in S. japonica, but all were monomorphic. As expected, cross-amplification levers were higher in S. lycidas and S. esculenta than

Table II.- Characterization of 26 polymorphic microsatellite loci isolated from Sepia pharaonis.

Locus

Primer sequence (5’-3’)

Repeat motif

Ta

(oC)

Size

Na

Ho

He

PH WE

PIC

Acce ssion number

CL1142

F:GAGCACTCTGTA-TTGGTTTTTGG

TC

(2*6)

55

158-168

6

0.000

0.746

***

0.705

KX26 4431

R:TGATTTCCATTTC-CATGTTGAAT

CL1684

F:AGAATCAAAGATC-AAAAGCTGGC

TAA

(3*5)

55

111-139

7

0.323

0.387

0.427

0.370

KX26 4432

R:AGAGAGAATGGTT-TCAAGATCCC

CL1770

F:AGAATCAAAGATC-AAAAGCTGGC

TAA

(3*5)

55

160-178

5

0.094

0.686

***

0.623

KX2 64433

R:TGTACTGCAAAC-AGTTGTTGGAT

CL2553

F:TTTTCAATTATGC-TTTTGATGGAA

AAC

(3*6)

55

142-158

4

0.375

0.377

0.557

0.335

KX2 64434

R:TATATGGGGTTA-GGGGAAACAGT

CL2683

F:GCTCAAAATCTGT-ATGCAGGAAA

AC

(2*7)

55

172-178

4

0.000

0.488

***

0.417

KX26 4435

R:ATTCCGGGTAAGC-TGTACAAAGT

CL2709

F:CACTTTCCACTATA-TCCCACACC

TC

(2*7)

55

144-162

5

0.219

0.456

0.104

0.389

KX26 4436

R:CAGGCAAAATGAA-ATTTGAAAAC

CL3025

F:CAGCTGACATTACC-ATCAAAACA

TTA

(3*5)

55

142-166

9

0.406

0.711

0.101

0.684

KX26 4437

R:AGGGTAAGATGGGT-AATCCTTGA

CL3105

F:TTAACAAGGTTTGA-AGATCACGC

CA

(2*6)

55

165-173

2

0.063

0.061

0.855

0.058

KX26 4438

R:CTGAAAACTGTTCT-GGTTTGCAT

CL3494

F:GCCAAGTGATGATAG-CTTAGTGG

AC

(2*6)

55

172-180

4

0.031

0.506

***

0.438

KX2 64439

R:TTTTATAACTTTCCAG-CACCCCT

CL3674

F:ATAATGTCGCCACTAG-TCTTCCA

CTG

(3*6)

55

145-154

4

0.031

0.708

***

0.651

KX26 4440

R:GAAAAGAAAGACAG-GAGGGAAAA

CL4541

F:ATCTCTTCTGCAATG-TTTCTTGG

TGT

(3*7)

55

169-181

5

0.219

0.347

0.093

0.323

KX26 4441

R:AGAGAAAACAAAT-CTCTGGACCC

CL4649

F:CGTCTTGGATTCAT-CTTCAAAAC

AAC

(3*5)

55

140-143

2

0.097

0.092

0.777

0.087

KX26 4442

R:TGTCTACCCATTTC-GATTTTGTT

CL5671

F:CAAGAAACTTCAA-AATCAGGGAA

TG

(2*7)

55

144-158

6

0.281

0.493

0.105

0.459

KX2 64443

R:AAAGAAAGAGCTT-TTGTTGGTCA

CL6545

F:TGGAATTTGTCTAC-TGCAATCAA

AC

(2*7)

55

144-164

7

0.194

0.402

0.062

0.375

KX26 4444

R:TGAAAGTCTTGTCA-CCCCTACAT

CL9976

F:AGATCGGATAATGAG-TCTGTGGA

GAG

(3*5)

55

160-184

9

0.469

0.751

0.166

0.717

KX26 4445

R:CCATGAACTGTTGAA-ATGACAAA

CL9851

F:AGCGACTGAATGGTG-TATATTGG

CAT CTT(6*4)

55

160-166

2

0.031

0.031

0.928

0.030

KX26 4446

R:AAATCCTGAAAGCA-ATCACTGAA

UN10287

F:GTGACCCGACAACGA-AAAATC

GCC

(3*7)

55

164-182

6

0.516

0.675

0.080

0.705

KX26 4447

R:ATAGTTCTTTTTGCCG-TCCATTT

UN11117

F:TTTCTTTGCCTTCTC-TTCCTCTT

TTTC

(4*6)

55

164-178

5

0.500

0.556

0.062

0.499

KX26 4448

R:TCAATGTTTCCCTTA-TTGGAGAG

UN12159

F:CGAGCAAGCAGAGG-TAAATAACTT

AC

(2*8)

55

156-162

3

0.065

0.063

0.998

0.061

KX26 4449

R:GCAAATTCCTCTCTTT-ACACTTGG

UN13157

F:AATTTGCCTTCATCTT-TCACCTT

TC

(2*6)

55

156-172

2

0.031

0.031

0.928

0.030

KX2 64450

R:AGAGAACAGGCATCT-ATCTTCCC

UN13552

F:CAACATCTTGAAAGG-ACACAACA

TG

(2*7)

55

160-166

3

0.258

0.228

0.884

0.203

KX2 64451

R:ATGGTCTTCCTCCTCT-CTTTCAC

in S. japonica due to a closer phylogenetic relationship between these three species.

To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to report the isolation of microsatellite markers in S. pharaonis using high-throughput sequencing technology and to test the cross-amplification in related species: S. lycidas, S. esculenta and S. japonica. These microsatellite loci will be powerful tools to study population structure and genetic diversity, which may provide new information to guide its conservation and management strategies for S. pharaonis. More importantly, most of them showed good applicability in three closely related species. The results indicated that the five loci had good transferability at the genus level.

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by Chinese National Natural Science Foundation (41406138), Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province ( LY130190001), the International Science and Technology Cooperation Program of China (No. 2014DFT30120).

Table III.- Cross-amplification of developed microsatellite loci in three related species tested with 10 samples each.

Locus

Sepia lycidas

Sepia esculenta

Sepiella japonica

CL1142

+ (1)

+ (1)

–

CL1684

+ (1)

+ (1)

+ (1)

CL1770

+ (4)

+ (3)

+ (1)

CL2553

+ (1)

+ (1)

+ (1)

CL2683

+ (2)

+ (2)

+ (1)

CL2709

+ (1)

+ (1)

+ (1)

CL3025

+ (7)

+ (1)

+ (1)

CL3105

+ (2)

+ (1)

+ (1)

CL3494

+ (1)

–

–

CL3674

+ (2)

+ (2)

+ (1)

CL4541

+ (3)

+ (1)

+ (1)

CL4649

+ (2)

–

–

CL5671

+ (1)

+ (1)

+ (1)

CL6545

+ (1)

–

+ (1)

CL9976

+ (1)

–

–

CL9851

–

–

–

UN10287

+ (5)

+ (3)

+ (1)

UN11117

–

+ (1)

–

UN12159

+ (2)

–

–

UN13157

+ (2)

+ (1)

+ (1)

UN13552

+ (1)

+ (1)

–

+, amplified; –, no amplification; Numbers of alleles are indicated in brackets.

Statement of conflict of interest

Authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Botstein, D., White, R.L., Skolnick, M. and Davis, R.W., 1980. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 32: 314-331.
  2. Brian, S.S., Maria-Rowena, R.R., Zubaida, U.B. and Minoru, I., 2015. Conserv. Genet. Resour., 7: 451-453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-014-0393-3[CrossRef]
  3. Chhotaray, C., Mishra, J., Sahoo, P.K., Das, S., Mahapatra, K.D., Saha, J.N., Baranski, M., Robinson, N. and Das, P., 2015. Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 58: 85-90.
  4. Domingues, P.M., Kingston, T., Sykes, A. and Andrade, J.P., 2001. Aquacult. Res., 32: 923-930.
  5. Du, F.K., Li, Y., Wen, Z.X., Chen, R.G., and Xu, P., 2017. Pakistan J. Zool., 49: 553-542. http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2017.49.2.535.542[CrossRef]
  6. Eo, S.H., Ko, B.J., Lee, B.J., Seomun, H., Kim, S., Kim, M.J., Kim, J.H. and An, J., 2016. Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 66: 196-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bse.2016.04.005[CrossRef]
  7. Excoffier, L. and Lischer, H.E.L., 2010. Mol. Ecol. Resour., 10: 564-567.
  8. Gabr, H.R., Hanlon, R.T., Hanafy, M.H. and El-Etreby, S.G., 1998. Fish. Res., 36: 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(98)00107-6[CrossRef]
  9. Minton, J.W., Walsh, L.S., Lee, P.G. and Forsythe, J.W., 2001. Aquacult. Int., 9: 379-392. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020535609516[CrossRef]
  10. Nabhitabhata, J. and Nilaphat, P., 1999. Phuket Mar. Biol. Cent. Res. Spec. Publ., 19: 25-40.
  11. Navarro, A., Badilla, R., Zamorano, M.J., Pasamontes, V., Hildebrandt, S., Sánchez, J.J. and Afonso, J.M., 2008. Aquaculture, 285: 30-37.
  12. Neri, J., Nazareno, A.G., Wendt, T. and Silv, C.P., 2015. Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 58: 34-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bse.2014.10.004[CrossRef]
  13. Nougué, O., Flaven, E., Zahab, R.J., Rode, N.O., Dubois, M.P. and Lenormand, T., 2015. Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 58: 59-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bse.2014.10.014[CrossRef]
  14. Raymond, M. and Rousset, F., 1995. Evolution, 49: 1280-1283. https://doi.org/10.2307/2410454[CrossRef]
  15. Reid, D.P., Smith, C.A., Rommens, M., Blanchard, B., Martin-Robichaud, D. and Reith, M., 2007. Genetics, 177: 1193-1205.
  16. Ren, G.J., Hu, J.J., Gao, T.X. and Han, Z.Q., 2015. Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 61: 303-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bse.2015.06.031[CrossRef]
  17. Rice, W.R., 1989. Evolution, 4: 223-225. https://doi.org/10.2307/2409177[CrossRef]
  18. Ruan, X., Wang, W., Kong, J., Yu, F. and Huang, X., 2010. Aquaculture, 308: 89-100.
  19. Sahua, B.P., Sahooa, L., Joshib, C.G., Mohantya, J.K., Sundaray, J.K., Jayasankara, P. and Das, P., 2014. Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 57: 357-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bse.2014.09.010[CrossRef]
  20. Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E.F. and Maniatis, T., 1989. Molecular cloning: A laboratory manual, 2nd edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-7799(91)90068-S[CrossRef]
  21. Van-Oosterhout, C., Hutchinson, W.F., Wills, D.P.M. and Shipley, P., 2004. Mol. Ecol. Notes, 4: 535-538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00684.x[CrossRef]
  22. Wang, J., Yu, X., Zhao, K., Zhang, Y., Tong, J. and Peng, Z., 2012. Int. J. mol. Sci., 13: 3009-3021. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms13033009[CrossRef]
  23. Weber, J.L. and May, P.E., 1989. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 44: 388-396.
  24. Yu, J.N., Won, C., Jun, J., Lim, Y. and Kwak, M., 2011. PLoS One, 6: e26933.
  25. Zhou, A., Lv, Z., Xie, S., Chen, J., Chen, Y. and Zou, J., 2015. Indian J. Fish., 62: 33-38.
  26. Zintzaras, E. and Lau, J., 2008. J. clin. Epidemiol., 61: 634-645.

Services

Article usage statistics

Loading…