Conservation Genetics

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 885–889 | Cite as

Identification of endangered Alabama lampmussel (Lampsilis virescens) specimens collected in the Emory river, Tennessee, USA via DNA barcoding

Short Communication

Abstract

The federally endangered Alabama lampmussel (Lampsilis virescens) has been presumed extirpated in the Emory river, TN for almost four decades. In the fall of 2011, three specimens that were morphologically identified as L. virescens (based on external shell morphology) were collected from the Emory river. The significance of such a find led biologists to take a noninvasive tissue sample from each individual for genetic confirmation. Approximately 400 nucleotides of the mtDNA COI gene were sequenced for each individual along with two samples of L. virescens from the Paint Rock river. DNA sequence data was also obtained from Genbank for other Lampsilis sp. Maximum parsimony and Bayesian phylogenetic methods revealed strong support for a clade consisting of putative Emory river L. virescens and known L. virescens (Paint Rock river origin) that was sister to all other taxa. These results indicated that the individuals collected from the Emory river were indeed L. virescens.

Keywords

Freshwater mussel Lampsilis virescens Mitochondrial DNA Taxonomic identification 

References

  1. Bogan AE, Parmalee P (1983) Tennessee’s rare wildlife, volume II: the Mollusks. Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency, NashvilleGoogle Scholar
  2. Cheung W, Close C, Kearney K, Lam V, Sarmiento J, Watson R, Pauly D (2009) Projections of global marine biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios. Fish Fish 10:235–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Felsenstein J (2004) Inferring phylogenies. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  4. Fitch WM (1971) Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology. Syst Zool 20:406–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Folmer O, Black M, Hoeh W, Lutz R, Vrijenhoek R (1994) DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol 3:294–297PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hajibabaei M, Singer G, Clare E, Hebert P (2007) Design and applicability of DNA arrays and DNA barcodes in biodiversity monitoring. BMC Biol 5:24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hall TA (1999) BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser 41:95–98Google Scholar
  8. Huelsenbeck JP, Crandall KA (1997) Phylogeny estimation and hypothesis testing using maximum likelihood. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:437–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Larget B, Simon DL (1999) Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms for Bayesian analysis of phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 16:750–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Metropolis N, Rosenbluth A, Rosenbluth M, Teller A, Teller E (1953) Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J Chem Phys 21:1087–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Neves R, Bogan A, Williams J, Ahlstedt S, Hartfield P (1997) Status of aquatic mollusks in the Southeastern United States. A downward spiral of diversity. In: Benz GW, Collins DE (eds) Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern perspective. Southeastern Aquatic Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, pp 43–86Google Scholar
  12. Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) MODELTEST, testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP (2003) MRBAYES 3, Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572–1574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sambrook F, Fritsch EF, Maniatas T (1989) Purification of nucleic acids. In: Nolan C (ed) Molecular cloning, a laboratory manual, 2nd edn. Cold Spring Harbor Press, New York, p E3Google Scholar
  15. Swofford DL (1998) PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). version 4. Sinauer associates, Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  16. US Fish and Wildlife Service (1976) Endangered status for 159 taxa of animals. Fed Regist 41:24062–24067Google Scholar
  17. US Fish and Wildlife Service (1985) A recovery plan for the Alabama Lamp Pearly Mussel, Lampsilis virescens (Lea, 1858). Jackson, Mississippi, pp 40Google Scholar
  18. Ward R, Zemlak T, Innes B, Last P, Hebert P (2005) DNA barcoding of Australia’s fish species. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:1847–1857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Williams J, Warren M, Cummings K, Harris J, Neves R (1993) Conservation status of the freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18:6–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Williams JD, Bogan AE, Garner JT (2008) Freshwater mussels of Alabama and the Mobile basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, TuscaloosaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.US Fish and Wildlife Service, Warm Springs Fish Technology CenterConservation Genetics LaboratoryWarm SpringsUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations