Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 154, Issue 5, pp 875–885 | Cite as

Genetic differentiation between morphotypes in the Antarctic limpet Nacella concinna as revealed by inter-simple sequence repeat markers

  • M. Carla de Aranzamendi
  • Ricardo Sahade
  • Marcos Tatián
  • Marina B. Chiappero
Original Paper

Abstract

The limpet Nacella concinna (Strebel 1908) was the focus of numerous studies dealing with Antarctic benthos. One of the main characteristics of the species is the presence of two distinguishable morphotypes, one inhabiting the intertidal (during summer) and the other inhabiting the subtidal. For a long time these forms were considered as an expression of phenotypic plasticity, since previous studies did not found genetic differences between them. In the present work, we performed both a morphometric and a genetic differentiation analysis (using ISSR-PCR markers) of these two forms in three stations sampled at Potter Cove, South Shetland Islands. The results confirmed the morphological differences between intertidal and subtidal forms reported in other Antarctic localities. The genetic differences detected indicate that the two forms can be considered as genetically distinct populations maintaining low levels of gene flow. The degree of reproductive isolation of the ecotypes is discussed, as well as the possible origin of the divergence. The genetic differentiation observed can also have behavioral and physiological correlates, pointing out the importance of taking into account the potential differences in the response of both populations to different conditions in future studies in this species.

Keywords

Genetic Differentiation Assortative Mating Principal Component Analysis Analysis Deviance Information Criterion South Shetland Island 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the members of Jubany station for their cooperation in the field work especially to J. Antacli and A. Stellfeldt. We are also grateful to Doris Abele, Melody Clark and three anonymous reviewers whose comments and suggestions greatly improved this manuscript. We also thank the Instituto Antártico Argentino and CONICET for their financial and logistic support.

References

  1. Abbot P (2001) Individual and population variation in invertebrates revealed by Inter-simple sequence repeats (ISSRs). J Insect Sci 1:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abele D, Burlando B, Viarengo A, Pörtner H (1998) Exposure to elevated temperatures and hydrogen peroxide elicits oxidative stress and antioxidant response in the Antarctic intertidal limpet Nacella concinna. Comp Biochem Physiol B 120:425–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abele D, Puntarulo S (2004) Formation of reactive species and induction of antioxidant defence systems in polar and temperate marine invertebrates and fish. Comp Biochem Physiol A 138:405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaumont AR, Wei JHC (1991) Morphological and genetic variation in the Antarctic limpet Nacella concinna (Strebel, 1908). J Molluscan Stud 57:443–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernardi G, Goswami U (1997) Molecular evidence for cryptic species among the Antarctic fish Trematomus bernacchii and Trematomus hansoni. Antarct Sci 9:381–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biebach H (1983) Genetic determination of partial migration in the European robin (Erithacus rubecula). Auk 100:601–606Google Scholar
  7. Black WC IV (1997) FORTRAN programs for the analysis of RAPD-PCR data. http://lamar.colostate.edu/pub/wbc4
  8. Bornet B, Branchard M (2001) Nonanchored inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers: reproducible and specific tools for genome fingerprinting. Plant Mol Biol Rep 19:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brêthes JC, Ferreyra G, de la Vega S (1994) Distribution, growth and reproduction of the limpet Nacella (Patinigera) concinna (Strebel 1908) in relation to potential food availability, in Esperanza Bay (Antarctic Peninsula). Polar Biol 14:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruford ME, Hanotte O, Brookfield JFY, Burke T (1992) Single-locus and multilocus DNA fingerprinting. In: Hoelzel AR (ed) Molecular genetic analysis of populations, a practical approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 225–269Google Scholar
  11. Casu M, Maltagliati F, Cossu P, Lai T, Curini Galletti M, Castelli A, Commito JA (2005) Fine-grained spatial genetic structure in the bivalve Gemma gemma from Maine and Virginia (USA), as revealed by inter-simple sequence repeat markers. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 325:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casu M, Casu D, Lai T, Cossu P, Curini-Galleti M (2006) Inter-simple sequence repeat markers reveal strong genetic differentiation among populations of the endangered mollusc Patella ferruginea (Gastropoda: Patellidae) from two Sardinian marine protected areas. Mar Biol 149:1163–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chambers RJ, McQuaid CD, Kirby R (1998) The use of randomly amplified polymorphic DNA to analyze the genetic diversity, the systematic relationships and the evolution of intertidal limpets, Siphonaria spp. (Pulmonata: Gastropoda), with different reproductive modes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 227:49–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark M, Fraser K, Peck L (2007a) Antarctic marine molluscs do have an HSP70 heat shock response. Cell Stress Chaperones (in press)Google Scholar
  15. Clark M, Geissler P, Waller C, Fraser K, Barnes D, Peck P (2007b) Low heat shock thresholds in wild Antarctic intertidal limpets (Nacella concinna) Cell Stress Chaperones (in press)Google Scholar
  16. Clarke A, Prothero-Thomas E, Beaumont JC, Chapman AL, Brey T (2004) Growth in the limpet Nacella concinna from contrasting sites in Antarctica. Polar Biol 28:62–71Google Scholar
  17. Culley TM, Wolfe AD (2001) Population genetic structure of the cleistogamous plant species Viola pubescens Aiton (Violaceae), as indicated by allozyme and ISSR molecular markers. Heredity 86:545–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davenport J (1988) Tenacity of the Antarctic limpet Nacella concinna. J Molluscan Stud 54:355–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Estoup A, Rousset F, Michalakis Y, Cornuet JM, Adriamanga M, Guyomard R (1998) Comparative analysis of microsatellite and allozyme markers: a case study investigating microgeographic differentiation in brown trout (Salmo trutta). Mol Ecol 7:339–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fraser KPP, Clarke A, Peck L (2002a) Low-temperature protein metabolism: seasonal changes in protein synthesis and RNA dynamics in the Antarctic limpet Nacella concinna (Strebel 1908). J Exp Biol 205:3077–3086PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fraser KPP, Clarke A, Peck L (2002b) Feast and famine in Antarctica: seasonal physiology in the limpet Nacella concinna. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 242:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goudet J (1999) PCAGEN. Principal components analysis of gene frequency data (version 1.2). Population Genetics Laboratory, University of Lausanne, Lausanne. http://www2.unil.ch/popgen/softwares/pcagen.htm
  23. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: palaeontological Statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaentol Electronica 4(1):9. http://folk.uio.no/ohammer/past
  24. Held C (2003) Molecular evidence for cryptic speciation within the widespread Antarctic crustacean Ceratoserolis trilobitoides (Crustacea, Isopoda). In: Huiskes AHL, Gieskes WWC, Rozema J, Schorno RML, van der Vies SM, Wolff WJ (eds) Antarctic biology in a global context. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 135–139Google Scholar
  25. Held C, Leese F (2006) The utility of fast evolving molecular markers for studying speciation in the Antarctic benthos. Polar Biol 30(4):513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Held C, Wägele J-W (2005) Cryptic speciation in the giant Antarctic isopod Glyptonotus antarcticus (Isopoda: Valvifera: Chaetiliidae). Sci Mar 69:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hellberg ME, Burton RS, Neigel JE, Palumbi SR (2002) Genetic assessment of connectivity among marine populations. Bull Mar Sci 70(1):273–290Google Scholar
  28. Hollander J, Lindergarth M, Johannesson K (2005) Local adaptation but not geographical separation promotes assortative mating in a snail. Anim Behav 70:1209–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holsinger KE, Lewis PO (2003) HICKORY v. 1.1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, The University of Connecticut. http://www.eeb.unconn.edu/
  30. Hou L, Lü H, Zou X, Bi X, Yan D, He C (2006) Genetic characterizations of Mactra veneriformis (Bivalve) along the Chinese coast using ISSR-PCR markers. Aquaculture 261:865–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. InfoStat (2002) InfoStat versión 1.1. Grupo InfoStat, FCA. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  32. In-Young A, Ko-Woon K, Heeseon JC (2002) A baseline study on metal concentrations in the Antarctic limpet Nacella concinna (Gastropoda: Patellidae) on King George Island: variations with sex and body parts. Mar Pollut Bull 44:421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johannesson K (2003) Evolution in Littorina: ecology matters. J Sea Res 49:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kent JW Jr, Rankin MA (2001) Heritability and physiological correlates of migratory tendency in the grasshopper Melanoplus sanguinipes. Physiol Entomol 26:371–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luque C, Legal L, Staudter H, Gers C, Wink M (2002) Brief report ISSR (inter simple sequence repeats) as genetic markers in Noctuids (Lepidoptera). Hereditas 136:251–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lynch LM, Milligan G (1994) Analysis of population genetic structure with RAPD markers. Mol Ecol 3:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Markowska M, Kidawa A (2007) Encounters between Antarctic limpets, Nacella concinna, and predatory sea stars, Lysasterias sp., in laboratory and field experiments. Mar Biol 151:1959–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nolan CP (1991) Size, shape and shell morphology in the Antarctic limpet Nacella concinna at Signy Island, South Orkney Islands. J Molluscan Stud 57:225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Panova M, Hollander J, Johannesson K (2006) Site-specific genetic divergence in parallel hybrid zones suggests nonallopatric evolution of reproductive barriers. Mol Ecol 15:4021–4031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peck L, Veal R (2001) Feeding, metabolism and growth in the Antarctic limpet, Nacella concinna (Strebel 1908). Mar Biol 138:553–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Picken GB (1980) The distribution, growth and reproduction of the Antarctic limpet Nacella (Patinigera) concinna (Strebel 1908). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 42:71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Picken GB, Allan D (1983) Unique spawning behaviour by the Antarctic limpet Nacella (Patinigera) concinna (Strebel 1908). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 71:283–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Powell AWB (1973) The patellid limpets of the world (Patellidae). Indo Pac Molluscan 3:75–206Google Scholar
  44. Powell DK, Tyler PA, Peck LS (2001) Effects of sperm concentration and sperm ageing on fertilisation success in the Antarctic soft-shelled clam Laternula elliptica and the Antarctic limpet Nacella concinna. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 215:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pulido F, Berthold P, Mohr G, Querner U (2001) Heritability of the timing of autumn migration in a natural bird population. Proc R Soc Lond 268:953–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Raghava GPS (1994) Improved estimation of DNA fragment lengths from DNA gene electrophoresis using a graphical method. Biotechniques 17:100–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Raupach MJ, Wägele J-W (2006) Distinguishing cryptic species in Antarctic Asellota (Crustacea: Isopoda)—a preliminary study of mitochondrial DNA in Acanthaspidia drygalskii. Antarct Sci 18:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rolán-Alvarez E, Carballo M, Galindo J, Morán P, Fernández B, Caballero A, Cruz R, Boulding EG, Johannesson K (2004) Nonallopatric and parallel origin of local reproductive barriers between two snail ecotype. Mol Ecol 13:3415–3424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sunnucks P (2000) Efficient genetic markers for population biology. Trends Ecol Evol 15:199–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Walker AJM (1972) Introduction to the ecology of the Antarctic limpet Patinigera polaris (Hombron and Jaquinot) at Signy Island, South Orkney Island. Br Antarct Surv Bull 28:49–71Google Scholar
  51. Waples RS, Gaggiotti O (2006) What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity. Mol Ecol 15:1419–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistic for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38(6):1358–1370PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilding CS, Butlin RK, Grahame J (2001) Differential gene exchange between parapatric morphs of Littorina saxatilis detected using AFLP markers. J Evol Biol 14:611–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zietkiewicz E, Rafalski A, Labuda D (1994) Genome fingerprinting by simple sequence repeat (SSR)-anchored polymerase chain reaction amplification. Genomics 20:176–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Carla de Aranzamendi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ricardo Sahade
    • 2
  • Marcos Tatián
    • 2
  • Marina B. Chiappero
    • 1
  1. 1.Cátedra de Genética de Poblaciones y Evolución, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y NaturalesUniversidad Nacional de CórdobaCórdobaArgentina
  2. 2.Ecología Marina, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y NaturalesUniversidad Nacional de CórdobaCórdobaArgentina

Personalised recommendations