Advertisement

Isolation and characterization of 29 and 19 microsatellite loci from two deep-sea luminous lanternsharks, Etmopterus spinax and Etmopterus molleri (Squaliformes, Etmopteridae)

  • Nicolas Oury
  • Laurent Duchatelet
  • Jérôme Mallefet
  • Hélène MagalonEmail author
Short Communication
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

Etmopterus spinax (Linnaeus, 1758) and Etmopterus molleri (Whitley, 1939) are two bioluminescent deep-sea sharks, usually caught in large numbers as bycatch by deep-water fisheries. Yet, no study has ever involved population status of these two species using genetic tools. In order to investigate population genetic structure, diversity and connectivity of these two lanternsharks, 29 and 19 microsatellite loci were isolated from E. spinax DNA library for E. spinax and E. molleri, respectively. These loci were tested on 32 E. spinax individuals from the North Sea and seven E. molleri from the East China Sea. The number of alleles per locus ranged from 2 to 13. The observed heterozygosity ranged from 0.031 to 0.839 for E. spinax and from 0.000 to 1.000 for E. molleri, while the expected heterozygosity ranged from 0.031 to 0.903 and from 0.143 to 0.821, respectively. Almost all loci (24 and 16, respectively) were at Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium for both species and no linkage disequilibrium among loci was detected. These loci represent useful tools to better understand the population structure of these two species. Besides, they could also be suitable for other lanternsharks in general, as these latter remain largely understudied, specially in terms of understanding the basic science that will serve into their conservation.

Keywords

Etmopterus spinax Etmopterus molleri Squaliformes Etmopteridae Microsatellites Deep-sea lanternsharks 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank T. Sorlie from the Espegrend Marine Biological Station (University of Bergen, Norway) and Pr. H. Glenner from the Marine Biodiversity Research group (University of Bergen, Norway) for the help during E. spinax collection; Dr. S. Keiichi, Deputy Director General of the Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium, and the husbandry people from the Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium for the help provided during E. molleri field sampling. Special thanks to the Plateforme Gentyane (INRA, Clermont-Ferrand, France) for genotyping and technical support. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Funding

This work was supported by a FRIA grant from the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FRS-FNRS, Belgium) to L.D., a FRS-FNRS grant (FRFC 2.4516.01) awarded to the Université catholique de Louvain Marine Biology Laboratory and the Université de Mons Biology of Marine Organisms and Biomimetics Laboratory. N.O. is PhD student under PhD contract from the Doctoral School of Reunion Island University, L.D. is PhD student under a FRIA fellowship, J.M. is a research associate to FRS-FNRS and H.M. is a research associate at Reunion Island University. This paper is a contribution to the Biodiversity Research Center (BDIV) and the Centre Interuniversitaire de Biologie Marine (CIBIM).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Etmopterus spinax individuals were collected in Norway under the experimental fish care permit number 12/14048 obtained at UCLouvain by J.M. Etmopterus molleri individuals were fished and handled according to Churaumi aquarium (Okinawa, Japan) husbandry and veterinary rules for fish experimentations. All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed by the authors.

Supplementary material

11033_2018_4578_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (18 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 17 KB)
11033_2018_4578_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (43 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 43 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Claes JM, Mallefet J (2009) In: Meyer-Rochow VB (ed) Bioluminescence in Focus – a Collection of Illuminating Essays. Research Signpost, Kerala, pp 51–65Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Straube N, Iglésias SP, Sellos DY et al (2010) Molecular phylogeny and node time estimation of bioluminescent lantern sharks (Elasmobranchii: Etmopteridae). Mol Phylogenet Evol 56:905–917.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12874 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Straube N, Kriwet J, Schliewen UK (2011) Cryptic diversity and species assignment of large lantern sharks of the Etmopterus spinax clade from the Southern Hemisphere (Squaliformes, Etmopteridae). Zool Scr 40:61–75.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6409.2010.00455.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gubili C, Macleod K, Perry W et al (2016) Connectivity in the deep: phylogeography of the velvet belly lanternshark. Deep Sea Res Part Oceanogr Res Pap 115:233–239.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2016.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moen FE, Svensen E (2004) Marine fish and invertebrates of Northern Europe. AquaPress, EssexGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coelho R, Erzini K (2010) Depth distribution of the velvet belly, Etmopterus spinax. in relation to growth and reproductive cycle: the case study of a deep-water lantern shark with a wide-ranging critical habitat. Mar Biol Res 6:381–389.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000802644706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weigmann S (2016) Annotated checklist of the living sharks, batoids and chimaeras (Chondrichthyes) of the world, with a focus on biogeographical diversity. J Fish Biol 88:837–1037.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12874 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coelho R, Erzini K (2008) Life history of a wide-ranging deepwater lantern shark in the north-east Atlantic, Etmopterus spinax (Chondrichthyes: Etmopteridae), with implications for conservation. J Fish Biol 73:1419–1443.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02021.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coelho R, Rey J, de Sola LG et al (2010) Comparing Atlantic and Mediterranean populations of the velvet belly lanternshark, Etmopterus spinax, with comments on the efficiency of density-dependent compensatory mechanisms. Mar Biol Res 6:373–380.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000903300885 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coelho R, Alpizar-Jara R, Erzini K (2015) Demography of a deep-sea lantern shark (Etmopterus spinax) caught in trawl fisheries of the northeastern Atlantic: application of Leslie matrices with incorporated uncertainties. Deep Sea Res Part II Top Stud Oceanogr 115:64–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beier S, Thiel T, Münch T et al (2017) MISA-web: a web server for microsatellite prediction. Bioinformatics 33:2583–2585.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koressaar T, Remm M (2007) Enhancements and modifications of primer design program Primer3. Bioinformatics 23:1289–1291.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Untergasser A, Cutcutache I, Koressaar T et al (2012) Primer3—new capabilities and interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res 40:e115.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meglécz E, Pech N, Gilles A et al (2014) QDD version 3.1: a user-friendly computer program for microsatellite selection and primer design revisited: experimental validation of variables determining genotyping success rate. Mol Ecol Resour 14:1302–1313.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schuelke M (2000) An economic method for the fluorescent labeling of PCR fragments. Nat Biotechnol 18:233–234.  https://doi.org/10.1038/72708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wright S (1931) Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97–159Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goudet J (2001) FSTAT, a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices version 2.9.3.2, updated from Goudet 1995Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GenePop: population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenism. J Hered 86:248–249.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1995.tb04456.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rousset F (2008) Genepop’007: a complete re-implementation of the genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8:103–106.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01931.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Royal Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 57:289–300Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DP, Shipley P (2004) Micro-Checker: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Notes 4:535–538.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00684.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UMR ENTROPIE (Université de La Réunion, IRD, CNRS), Faculté des Sciences et TechnologiesUniversité de La RéunionSt DenisFrance
  2. 2.Marine Biology Laboratory, Earth and Life InstituteUniversité Catholique de LouvainLouvain-La-NeuveBelgium
  3. 3.Laboratoire d’ExcellenceCorailFrance

Personalised recommendations