Advertisement

Marine Biotechnology

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 528–540 | Cite as

Effect of Initiation Time of Hydrostatic Pressure Shock on Chromosome Set Doubling of Tetraploidization in Turbot Scophthalmus maximus

  • Xiangping ZhuEmail author
  • Zhengmei Lin
  • Zhihao Wu
  • Jiandong Li
  • Feng You
Original Article

Abstract

The objective of the study was to clarify the effects of initiation time on chromosome set doubling induced by hydrostatic pressure shock through nuclear phase fluorescent microscopy in turbot Scophthalmus maximus. The ratio of developmentally delayed embryo and chromosome counting was used to assess induction efficiency. For the embryos subjected to a pressure of 67.5 MPa for 6 min at prometaphase (A group), chromosomes recovered to the pre-treatment condition after 11-min recovering. The first nuclear division and cytokinesis proceeded normally. During the second cell cycle, chromosomes did not enter into metaphase after prometaphase, but spread around for about 13 min, then assembled together and formed a large nucleus without anaphase separation; the second nuclear division and cytokinesis was inhibited. The ratio of developmentally delayed embryo showed that the second mitosis of 78% A group embryo was inhibited. The result of chromosome counting showed that the tetraploidization rate of A group was 72%. For the embryos subjected to a pressure of 67.5 MPa for 6 min at anaphase (B group), chromosomes recovered to the pre-treatment condition after about 31-min recovering. Afterwards, one telophase nucleus formed without anaphase separation; the first nuclear division was inhibited. The time of the first cleavage furrow occurrence of B group embryos delayed 27 min compared with that of A group embryos. With the first cytokinesis proceeding normally, 81.3% B group embryos were at two-cell stage around the middle of the second cell cycle after treatment. Those embryos were one of the two blastomeres containing DNA and the other without DNA. The first nuclear division of those embryos was inhibited. During the third cell cycle after treatment, 65.2% of those abovementioned embryos were at four-cell stage, cytokinesis occurred in both blastomeres, and nuclear division only occurred in the blastomere containing DNA. Of those abovementioned embryos, 14.0% were at three-cell stage and cytokinesis only occurred in the blastomere containing DNA. The result of chromosome counting showed that the tetraploidization rate of B group was only 7%. To summarize what had been mentioned above, mechanisms on chromosome set doubling of tetraploid induction would be different with different initiation time of hydrostatic pressure treatment. Chromosome set doubling was mainly due to inhibition of the second mitosis when hydrostatic pressure treatment was performed at prometaphase. Otherwise, chromosome set doubling was mainly due to inhibition of the first nuclear division when hydrostatic pressure treatment was performed at anaphase. Induction efficiency of tetraploidization resulted from inhibition of the second cleavage was higher than which resulted from inhibition of the first nuclear division. This study was the first to reveal biological mechanisms on the two viewpoints of chromosome set doubling through effect of initiation time of hydrostatic pressure treatment on chromosome set doubling in tetraploid induction.

Keywords

Turbot Scophthalmus maximus Tetraploid Fluorescent microscopy Hydrostatic pressure shock 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Shandong Natural Science Foundation of China (ZR2011CM035). The work was also supported by the Open Fund of Laboratory for Marine Biology and Biotechnology, Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology, Qingdao, China (OF2015NO16)

References

  1. Benfey TJ (1999) The physiology and behavior of triploid fishes. Rev Fish Sci 7:39–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bidwell CA, Chrisman CL, Libey GS (1985) Polypolidy induced by heat shock in channal catfish. Aquaculture 51:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouza C, Sánchez L, Martínez P (1994) Karotypic characterization of turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) with conventional, fluorochrome and restriction endonuclease-banding techniques. Mar Biol 120(4):609–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cal RM, Vidal S, Gomez C, Alvarez Blazquez B, Martinez P, Piferrer F (2006) Growth and gonadal development in diploid and triploid turbot (Scophthalmus maximus). Aquaculture 251:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chourrout D (1982) Tetraploidy induced by heat shocks in rainbow trout. Reprod Nutr Dev 20:569–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chourrout D (1987) Genetic manipulations in fish: review of methods. In: Tiews K (ed) Proceeding of world symposium on selection, hybridization, and genetic engineering in aquaculture, vol 2. Heenemann, Berlin, pp 111–126Google Scholar
  7. Chourrout D, Nakayama I (1987) Chromosome studies of progenies of tetraploid female rainbow trout. Theor Appl Genet 74:687–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chourrout D, Chevessus B, Krieg F, Happe A, Burger G, Renard P (1986) Production of second generation triploid and tetraploid rainbow trout by mating tetraploid males and diploid females—potential of tetraploid fish. Theor Appl Genet 72:193–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Diter A, Quillet E, Hourrout D (1993) Suppression of first egg mitosis induced by heat shocks in the rainbow trout. J Fish Biol 2:777–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Francescon A, Libertini A, Bertotto D, Barbaro A (2004) Shock timing in mitogynogenesis and tetraploidization of the European sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax. Aquaculture 236:201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guo XM, Allen SK Jr (1994) Viable tetraploids in the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas Thunberg) produced by inhibiting polar body I in eggs from triploids. Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol 3:42–50Google Scholar
  12. Guo XM, DeBrosse GA, Allen SK Jr (1996) All-triploid Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas Thunberg) produced by mating tetraploids and diploids. Aquaculture 142:149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Komen J, Bongers ABJ, Richter CJJ, Van Muiswinkel WB, Huisman EA (1991) Gynogenesis in common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.): II. The production of homozygous clones and F1 hybrids. Aquaculture 92:127–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuriyama R, Borisy GG (1981) Centriole cycle in Chinese hamster ovary cells as determined by whole-mount electron microscopy. J Cell Biol 91:814–821CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Li WL, Chen SL, Ji XS, Xie MS, Xu Y, Deng H (2012) Induction and identification of tetraploid fry in Cynoglossus semilaevis. J Fish Sci China 19(2):196–201 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  16. Lin ZM, Zhu XP, You F, Wu ZH, Cao YS (2015) Nuclei fluorescence microscopic observation on early embryonic development of mitogynogenetic diploid induced by hydrostatic pressure treatment in olive flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus). Theriogenology 83(8):1310–1320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lin ZM, Zhu XP, Zhang TR, You F, Wu ZH, Cao YS (2016) Effects of hydrostatic pressure on microtubule organization and nucleus changes in gynogenetically activated eggs of olive flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus). Theriogenology 85(9):1610–1624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Malison JA, Kayes TB, Held JA, Barry TP, Amundson CH (1993) Manipulation of ploidy in yellow perch (Perca flavescens) by heat shock, hydrostatic pressure shock and spermatozoa inactivation. Aquaculture 110:229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morelli M, Aquacop (2003) Effects of heat-shock on cell division and microtubule organization in zygotes of the shrimp Penaeus indicus (Crustacea, Decapoda) observed with confocal microscopy. Aquaculture 216:39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Myers JM, Hersherger WK (1991) Early growth and survival of heat-shocked and tetraploid-derived triploid rainbow trout (Oncorhychus mykiss). Aquaculture 96:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pandian TJ (2011) Sex determination in fish. CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Group), New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peruzzi S, Chatain B (2003) Induction of tetraploid gynogenesis in the European sea bass (Dicentrarbus labrax L.) Genetica 119:225–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Piferrer F, Cal R, Álvarez-Blázquez B, Sánchez L, Martínez P (2000) Induction of triploidy in the turbot Scophthalmus maximus/I. Ploidy determination and the effects of cold shocks. Aquaculture 188:79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Piferrer F, Cal RM, Comez C, Bouza C, Martinez P (2003) Induction of triploidy in the turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) II. Effects of cold shock timing and induction of triploidy in a large volume of eggs. Aquaculture 220:821–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rappaport R (1996) Cytokinesis in animal cells. In: Barlow PW, Bard JBL, Green PB, Kirk DL (eds) Developmental and cell biology series. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Rappaport R, Rappaport BN (1974) Establishment of cleavage furrows by the mitotic spindle. J Exp Zool 189:189–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Reindschmidt DC, Simon SJ, Volpe EP, Tompkins R (1979) Production of tetraploid and homozygous diploid amphibians by suppression of first cleavage. J Exp Zool 210:137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rousselet A, Euteneuer U, Bordes N, Ruiz T, Hui Bon Hua G, Bornens M (2001) Structural and functional effects of hydrostatic pressure on centrosomes from vertebrate cells. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton 48:262–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Takayama M, Noguchi T, Yamashiro S, Mabuchi I (2002) Microtubule organization in Xenopus eggs during the first cleavage and its role in cytokinesis. Cell Struct Funct 27:163–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wong AC, Van Eenennaam AL (2008) Transgenic approaches for the reproductive containment of genetically engineered fish. Aquaculture 275:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wu ZH, You F, Song ZC, Hu JW, Wang LJ, Zhu XP, Tan XG, Li J (2014) Induction of tetraploid in turbot Scophthalmus Maximus. Oceanol Limnol Sin 45(3):657–662 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  32. Yi QL, Yu HY, Wang XL, Wang ZG, Qi J, Zhang QQ (2012) Production of viable tetraploid olive flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus) by hydrostatic pressure shock. Oceanol Limnol Sin 43:382–388 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  33. Zhang XL, Onozato H (2004) Hydrostatic pressure treatment during the first mitosis does not suppress the first cleavage but the second one. Aquaculture 240:101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang XL, Mutsukawa K, Onozato H (2005) Correlation between delay in the earlier cleavage stage and the tetraploidization rate in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss embryos treated with heat or hydrostatic pressure shock during the first cell cycle. Fish Sci 71:239–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhu XP, You F, Zhang PJ, Xu YL, Xu JH (2006) Effects of cold shock on microtubule organization and cell cycle in gynogenetically activated eggs of olive flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus). Mar Biotechnol 8:312–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhu XP, You F, Zhang PJ, Xu JH, Sun W (2007) Effects of hydrostatic pressure on microtubule organization and cell cycle in gynogenetically activated eggs of olive flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus). Theriogenology 68:873–881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal Science and TechnologyQingdao Agricultural UniversityQingdaoChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Experimental Marine Biology, Institute of OceanologyChinese Academy of SciencesQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations