Advertisement

Isolation and characterization of genic microsatellites from de novo assembly transcriptome in the bivalve Ruditapes philippinarum

  • Jingbo Shangguan
  • Anle Xu
  • Xiaowei Hu
  • Zhongbao LiEmail author
Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

The marine bivalve Ruditapes philippinarum (Veneridae) has always been an economically important aquaculture species. In this study, 106 831 unigenes and 2 664 SSR loci (1 locus/40 sequences) were achieved from the de novo assembly transcriptome. Among all the SSRs, tri-nucleotides (46.40%) was the most, followed by di-nucleotides (32.43%). Meanwhile, AAC/GTT (19.82%) was the most common SSR loci searched. After polymorphism detection using 32 wild R. philippinarum individuals, 34 polymorphic and 3 monomorphic SSR loci were screened, and the genetic index of them was calculated. The results show that PIC of 30 polymorphic SSR loci was at medium and high levels (PIC>0.25). However, there were five SSR polymorphic loci (e.g. MG871423, MG871428, MG871429, MG871434, MG871435) deviating from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium after the Bonferroni correction (adjusted P =0.001 471). The Na value (number of alleles per locus) ranged from 2 to 7. In addition, the Ho (observed heterozygosities) and He (expected heterozygosities) were 0.100 0–1.000 0 and 0.191 3–0.723 6, respectively. Therefore, RNA-Seq was shown as a fast and cost-effective method for genic SSR development in non-model species. Meanwhile, the 37 loci from R. philippinarum will further enrich the genetic information and advance the population conservation and restoration.

Keyword

Ruditapes philippinarum transcriptome microsatellite genetic diversity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bai Z Y, Zheng H F, Lin J Y, Wang G L, Li J L. 2013. Comparative analysis of the transcriptome in tissues secreting purple and white nacre in the pearl mussel Hyriopsis cumingii. PLoS One, 8(1): e53617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouck A, Vision T. 2007. The molecular ecologist’s guide to expressed sequence tags. Molecular Ecology, 16(5): 907–924.Google Scholar
  3. Chistiakov D A, Hellemans B, Volckaert F A M. 2006. Microsatellites and their genomic distribution, evolution, function and applications: a review with special reference to fish genetics. Aquaculture, 255(1–4): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cong M, Wu H F, Cao T F, Lü J S, Wang Q, Ji C L, Li C H, Zhao J M. 2018. Digital gene expression analysis in the gills of Ruditapes philippinarum, exposed to short–and long–term exposures of ammonia nitrogen. Aquatic Toxicology, 194: 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ellis J R, Burke J M. 2007. EST–SSRs as a resource for population genetic analyses. Heredity, 99(2): 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FAO(Food and Agriculture Organization). 2014. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
  7. Grabherr M G, Haas B J, Yassour M, Levin J Z, Thompson D A, Amit I, Adiconis X, Fan L, Raychowdhury R, Zeng Q D, Chen Z H, Mauceli E, Hacohen N, Gnirke A, Rhind N, di Palma F, Birren B W, Nusbaum C, Lindblad–Toh K, Friedman N, Regev A. 2011. Full–length transcriptome assembly from RNA–Seq data without a reference genome. Nature Biotechnology, 29(7): 644–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hégaret H, da Silva P M, Wikfors G H, Lambert C, De Bettignies T, Shumway S E, Soudant P. 2007. Hemocyte responses of Manila clams, Ruditapes philippinarum, with varying parasite, Perkinsus olseni, severity to toxicalgal exposures. Aquatic Toxicology, 84(4): 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jiang Q, Li Q, Yu H, Kong L F. 2014. Genome–wide analysis of simple sequence repeats in marine animals–a comparative approach. Marine Biotechnology, 16(5): 604–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kong L F, Bai J, Li Q. 2014. Comparative assessment of genomic SSR, EST–SSR and EST–SNP markers for evaluation of the genetic diversity of wild and cultured Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas Thunberg. Aquaculture, 420–421: S85–S91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Li J T, Li J, Chen P, Liu P, He Y Y. 2015. Transcriptome analysis of eyestalk and hemocytes in the ridgetail white prawn Exopalaemon carinicauda: assembly, annotation and marker discovery. Molecular Biology Reports, 42(1): 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lü Z M, Hou L, Gong L, Liu L Q, Chen Y J, Guo B Y, Dong Y H, Wu C W. 2017. Isolation and analysis on EST microsatellites of Sepiella japonica by de novo highthroughput transcriptome sequencing. Oceanologia et Limnologia Sinica, 48(4): 877–883.(in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  13. Mandal S, Jena J K, Singh R K, Mohindra V, Lakra W S, Deshmukhe G, Pathak A, Lal K K. 2016. De novo development and characterization of polymorphic microsatellite markers in a schilbid catfish, Silonia silondia(Hamilton, 1822) and their validation for population genetic studies. Molecular Biology Reports, 43(2): 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marshall T C, Slate J, Kruuk L E, Pemberton J M. 1998. Statistical confidence for likelihood–based paternity inference in natural populations. Molecular Ecology, 7(5): 639–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nie H T, Niu H B, Zhao L Q, Yang F, Yan X W, Zhang G F. 2015. Genetic diversity and structure of Manila clam( Ruditapes philippinarum ) populations from Liaodong peninsula revealed by SSR markers. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 59: 116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nie H T, Zhu D P, Yang F, Zhao L Q, Yan X W. 2014. Development and characterization of EST–derived microsatellite makers for Manila clam( Ruditapes philippinarum ). Conservation Genetics Resources, 6(1): 25–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Parchman T L, Geist K S, Grahnen J A, Benkman C W, Buerkle C A. 2010. Transcriptome sequencing in an ecologically important tree species: assembly, annotation, and marker discovery. BMC Genomics, 11: 180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Qiu L J, Yang C, Tian B, Yang J B, Liu A Z. 2010. Exploiting EST databases for the development and characterization of EST–SSR markers in castor bean( Ricinus communis L.). BMC Plant Biology, 10: 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schorderet D F, Gartler S M. 1992. Analysis of CpG suppression in methylated and nonmethylated species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 89(3): 957–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sun X J, Li D M, Liu Z H, Zhou L Q, Wu B, Yang A G. 2017. De novo assembly of pen shell( Atrina pectinata ) transcriptome and screening of its genic microsatellites. Journal of Ocean University of China, 16(5): 882–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson W F, Wills D P M, Shipley P. 2004. MICRO–CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Molecular Ecology Notes, 4(3): 535–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Varshney R K, Graner A, Sorrells M E. 2005b. Genic microsatellite markers in plants: features and applications. Trends in Biotechnol ogy, 23(1): 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Varshney R K, Sigmund R, Börner A, Korzun V, Stein N, Sorrells M E, Langridged P, Granera A. 2005a. Interspecific transferability and comparative mapping of barley EST–SSR markers in wheat, rye and rice. Plant Science, 168(1): 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wen Y F, Uchiyama K, Han W J, Ueno S, Xie W D, Xu G B, Tsumura Y. 2013. Null alleles in microsatellite markers. Biodiversity Science, 21(1): 117–126.(in Chinese with English abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wu H F, Liu X L, Zhao J M, Yu J B. 2011. NMR–based metabolomic investigations on the differential responses in adductor muscles from two pedigrees of Manila clam Ruditapes philippinarum to cadmium and zinc. Marine Drugs, 9(9): 1 566–1 579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yamini K N, Ramesh K, Naresh V, Rajendrakumar P, Anjani K, Kumar V D. 2013. Development of EST SSR markers and their utility in revealing cryptic diversity in safflower( Carthamus tinctorius L.). Journal of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 22(1): 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yan L L, Qin Y J, Yan X W, Wang L N, Bi C L, Zhang J Y. 2015. Development of microsatellite markers in Ruditapes philippinarum using next–generation sequencing. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35(5): 1 573–1 580.(in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  28. Yasuda N, Nagai S, Yamaguchi S, Lian C L, Hamaguchi M. 2007. Development of microsatellite markers for the Manila clam Ruditapes philippinarum. Molecular Ecology Notes, 7(1): 43–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yeh F C, Yang R, Boyle T J, Ye Z, Xiyan J M. 2000. PopGene 32, Microsoft Window–based freeware for population Genetic Analysis. Version 1.32. Molecular Biology and Biotechnology Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.Google Scholar
  30. Zhu D P, Nie H T, Qin Y J, Li J, Liu L H, Yan X W. 2015. Development and characterization of 38 microsatellite makers for Manila clam( Ruditapes philippinarum ). Conservation Genetics Resources, 7(2): 517–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Chinese Society for Oceanology and Limnology, Science Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jingbo Shangguan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anle Xu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiaowei Hu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhongbao Li
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Marine Fishery Resources and Eco-EnvironmentXiamenChina
  2. 2.Fisheries CollegeJimei UniversityXiamenChina

Personalised recommendations