Genetic diversity in natural populations of Colossomamacropomum in the Brazilian Amazon region and in populations farmed in Northeast Brazil based on ISSR markers

  • Claudivane de Sá Teles OliveiraEmail author
  • Ricardo Franco Cunha Moreira
  • Aldeney Andrade Soares Filho
  • Soraia Barreto Aguiar Fonteles
  • Norma Suely Evangelista-Barreto


The tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum) is a fish native to the Brazilian Amazon region and is an important species for the local aquaculture industry. In this study, genetic diversity of four tambaqui populations was assessed using inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers. We tested 140 specimens, 64 of which were collected from two fish farms located in the State of the Bahia from BAHIA PESCA S/A ((BA); 33 from Cachoeira-BA and 31 from Dias d’Ávila-BA), 46 from the Departamento Nacional de Obras Contra Seca (DNOCS) in Pentecoste in the State of Ceará (CE), and 30 from a wild population in Juruá River in the State of Amazonas (AM). Thirteen markers were used to test genetic structure and diversity. A total of 184 amplifieds were produced, 157 of which were polymorphic. The ratios of polymorphic loci varied across the four populations, with lower polymorphism in the population from Cachoeira-BA (54.35%) and higher polymorphism in the population from the Juruá River (79.35%). The indices of heterozygosity (H) and Shannon (I) were similar among the farmed populations and were lower than those in the natural population. Lower values were observed in the population of Cachoeira-BA (H = 0.1726; I = 0.2606), and the highest values in the Juruá River populations (H = 0.2404; I = 0.3643). Analysis of molecular variance revealed the highest variation occurred within populations (61%) and the difference between populations was low (39%). We concluded that compared with the wild population, farmed populations had lower genetic diversity and that genetic information must be used in future management schemes to improve genetic population structure.


Genetic conservation Genetic structuring Inbreeding Tambaqui, Amazon 



We are grateful to Mr. Paulo Reis, Mr. Felipe Vieira, and Mrs. Socorro Chacon de Mesquita for their assistance with in collecting the specimens.


Studies on genetic variability in Brazilian species are important to support aquaculture in the country.

Studies related to genetic variability in wild tambaqui populations aid in the conservation of this species.

Genetic studies on tambaqui will help improvements its production in aquaculture.

Breeding schemes should be adopted to improve and conserve genetic diversity in farmed fish.

Funding information

Financial support was granted by the Foundation for Research Support of the State of Bahia. We thank the Federal University of Bahia Recôncavo for permission to conduct this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Author Claudivane Sá Teles Oliveira has received research grants from the FAPESB Company. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed by the authors.


  1. Aguiar JP, Gomes PFF, Hamoy IG et al (2018) Loss of genetic variability in the captive stocks of tambaqui, Colossoma macropomum (Cuvier, 1818), at breeding centres in Brazil, and their divergence from wild populations. Aquac Res 49:1914–1925. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Botstein D, White R, Skolnick M et al (1980) Construction of a genetic linkage map in man using restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Am J Hum Genet 32:314–331Google Scholar
  3. Calcagnotto D, Toledo-Filho SA (2000) Loss of genetic variability at the transferrin locus in five hatchery stocks of tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum). Genet Mol Biol 23:127–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Charrad N, Ghazzali N, Boiteau V et al (2014) NbClust: NbClust package for determining the best number of clusters. R package version 2.0.1. Disponível em: 2014. Acesso em: 14 de Janeiro 2018
  5. Frankham R (2015) Genetic rescue of small inbred populations: meta-analysis reveals large and consistent benefits of gene flow. Mol Ecol 24:2610–2618. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frankham R, Ballou J, Ralls K et al (2017) Genetic management of fragmented animal and plant populations. Oxford University Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gjedrem T, Baranski M (2009) Selective breeding in aquaculture: an introduction. In: Nielsen JL (ed) Reviews: methods and technologies in fish biology and fisheries, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 1–221. Google Scholar
  8. Gonçalves RA, Santos CHA, de Sá Leitão CS et al (2018) Genetic basis of Colossoma macropomum broodstock: perspectives for an improvement program. J World Aquacult Soc 1–12.
  9. Goulding M, Carvalho ML (1982) História de vida e manejo do tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum, Characidae): um importante peixe da Amazônia. Rev Bras Zool 1:107–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harrisson KA, Pavlova A, Telonis-Scott M, Sunnucks P (2014) Using genomics to characterize evolutionary potential for conservation of wild populations. Evol Appl 7:1008–1025. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2017) Produção da pecuária municipal. v. 44. Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, BrasilGoogle Scholar
  12. Lopera-Barrero NM, Rodriguez-Rodriguez MP, Fornari DC et al (2015) Genetic variability of broodstocks of Tambaqui (Teleostei – Characidae) from the northeast region of Brazil. Semina: Ciên Agrár 36:4013–4022Google Scholar
  13. Lopes TM, Bailly D, Almeida BA, Santos NCL, Gimenez BCG, Landgraf GO, Sales PCL, Lima-Ribeiro MS, Cassemiro FAS, Rangel TF, Diniz-Filho JAF, Agostinho AA, Gomes LC (2017) Two sides of a coin: effects of climate change on the native and non-native distribution of Colossoma macropomum in South America. PLoS One 12:e0179684. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martínez-Páramoa S, Horváthb A, Labbéc C et al (2017) Cryobanking of aquatic species. Aquaculture 1:156–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nei M (1972) Genetic distance between popilations. Am Nat 106:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nei M (1973) Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 70:3321–3323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oomen RA, Hutchings JA (2015) Variation in spawning time promotes genetic variability in population responses to environmental change in a marine fish. Conserv Physiol 3:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) GenAlEx 6: genetic analysis in excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:288–295. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Perrier X, Jacquemoud-Collet JP (2006) DARwin software Accessed 16 May 2017
  20. Powell W, Morgante M, Andre C, Hanafey M, Vogel J, Tingey S, Rafalski A (1996) The comparison of RFLP, RAPD, AFLP and SSR (microsatellite) markers for germplasm analysis. Mol Breed 2:225–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Queiroz CA, Sousa NR, Silva GF et al (2016) Impacts of stocking on the genetic diversity of Colossoma macropomum in central Amazon, Brazil. Genet Mol Res 15:1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reed DH, Frankham R (2003) Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv Biol 17:230–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roldán-Ruiz I, Dendauw J, Van Bockstaele E et al (2000) AFLP markers reveal high polymorphic rates in ryegrasses (Lolium spp.). Mol Breed 6:125–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular Cloning. A laboratory manual cold spring harbor. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Nova York EUAGoogle Scholar
  25. Santos CHA, Leitão MAB, Sousa CFS et al (2012) Genetic variability of wild and captivity populations of Colossoma macropomum (Cuvier, 1818). Acta Sci Biol Sci 34:191–197Google Scholar
  26. Santos CHA, Santana GX, Sá Leitão CS, Paula-Silva MN, Almeida-Val VMF (2016) Loss of genetic diversity in farmed populations of Colossoma macropomum estimated by microsatellites. Anim Genet 47:373–376. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S (2013) MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol 30:2725–2729. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Torati LS, Taggart JB, Varela ES, Araripe J, Wehner S, Migaud H (2019) Genetic diversity and structure in Arapaima gigas populations from Amazon and Araguaia-Tocantins river basins. BMC Genet 20:3–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vitorino CA, Oliveira RCC, Margarido VP, Venere PC (2015) Genetic diversity of Arapaima gigas (Schinz, 1822) (Osteoglossiformes: Arapaimidae) in the Araguaia-Tocantins basin estimated by ISSR marker. Neotrop Ichthyol 13:557–568. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vitorino CA, Nogueira F, Souza IL, Araripe J, Venere PC (2017) Low genetic diversity and structuring of the Arapaima gigas (Osteoglossiformes, Arapaimidae) population of the Araguaia-Tocantins Basin. Front Genet 8:1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Willi VBJ, Hoffmann AA (2006) Limits to the adaptive potential of small populations. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:433–458. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wrigth S (1978) Variability within and among natural populations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago EUAGoogle Scholar
  33. Yeh FC, Yang RC, Boyle TB et al (1997) POPGENE, the user-friendly shareware for population genetic analysis. University of Alberta, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology Centre, Canada, p 10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudivane de Sá Teles Oliveira
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ricardo Franco Cunha Moreira
    • 2
  • Aldeney Andrade Soares Filho
    • 3
  • Soraia Barreto Aguiar Fonteles
    • 2
  • Norma Suely Evangelista-Barreto
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for the Study of Fisheries and Aquaculture–NEPAFederal University of Recôncavo da Bahia/UFRBCruz das AlmasBrazil
  2. 2.Centre of Environmental and Biological Agrarian Sciences-CCAABFederal University of Recôncavo da Bahia/UFRBCruz das AlmasBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Fisheries EngineeringFederal University of Ceará/UFCFortalezaBrazil

Personalised recommendations