Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 823–835 | Cite as

Contemporary gene flow between “paired” silver (Ichthyomyzon unicuspis) and northern brook (I. fossor) lampreys: implications for conservation

  • Margaret F. Docker
  • Nicholas E. Mandrak
  • Daniel D. Heath
Research Article

Abstract

In most lamprey genera, “paired” species exist in which the larvae are morphologically similar or indistinguishable but, following metamorphosis, one species becomes parasitic while the other bypasses the adult feeding phase and rapidly becomes sexually mature. Since DNA barcoding and similar studies using short segments of the mitochondrial genome do not provide sufficient resolution to distinguish between recent divergence and a lack thereof, the current study examined the relationship between the parasitic silver lamprey (Ichthyomyzon unicuspis) and nonparasitic northern brook lamprey (I. fossor) using up to 10,230 bp from the mitochondrial genome to make phylogenetic inferences and mitochondrial restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and microsatellite markers to test for significant differences in allele frequencies. We found that silver and northern brook lampreys are not reciprocally monophyletic; two lineages were observed but each occurred within both species. There also were no significant range-wide differences in RFLP haplotype or microsatellite allele frequencies between the species, nor were there significant differences where they occurred sympatrically within the Lake Huron basin. Significant genetic differentiation was found only within the Lake Michigan basin where the results were potentially confounded by geographic separation. Our results thus support suggestions that silver and northern brook lampreys represent ecotypes of a single species since, where they are sympatric, they appear to be experiencing ongoing gene flow. However, alternative life history strategies can be important for a species’ long-term persistence, and critical data are needed to decide whether these two feeding types should be managed as a single unit.

Keywords

Brook lampreys Conservation DNA barcode Ecotypes Microsatellites Species pairs 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Fraser Neave (Sea Lamprey Control Centre, Fisheries and Oceans Canada), Wayne Bouffard (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Doug Carlson (N.Y. State Department of Environmental Conservation), Mary Henson and Shawn Nowicki (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marquette MI), and other DFO and USFWS personnel for sample collections. We are also indebted to Kim Scribner and Kristi Filcek for providing DNA from samples used in their previous microsatellite publication for use as standards, to Rebecca Provost for technical assistance with the mitochondrial RFLP assays, and to David Boguski and Craig McFarlane for help with data analysis and figures. Funding for this project was provided by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (MFD, NEM, and DDH), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (MFD, DDH), and the Species at Risk Program of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (NEM).

Supplementary material

10592_2012_332_MOESM1_ESM.doc (196 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 196 kb)

References

  1. April J, Mayden RL, Hanner RH, Bernatchez L (2011) Genetic calibration of species diversity among North America’s freshwater fishes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:10602–10607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beamish RJ, Neville CM (1992) The importance of size as an isolating mechanism in lampreys. Copeia 1992:191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blank M, Jurss K, Bastrop R (2008) A mitochondrial multigene approach contributing to the systematics of the brook and river lampreys and the phylogenetic position of Eudontomyzon mariae. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:2780–2790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryan MB, Libants SV, Warrilow JA, Li W, Scribner KT (2003) Polymorphic microsatellite markers for the landlocked sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus. Conserv Genet 4:113–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryan MB, Zalinksi D, Filcek KB, Libants S, Li W, Scribner KT (2005) Patterns of invasion and colonization of the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in North America as revealed by microsatellite genotypes. Mol Ecol 14:3757–3773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cochran PA, Marks JE (1995) Biology of the silver lamprey, Ichthyomyzon unicuspis, in Green Bay and the lower Fox River, with a comparison to the sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus. Copeia 1995:409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. COSEWIC (2007) COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the northern brook lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor (Great Lakes—Upper St. Lawrence populations and Saskatchewan—Nelson population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  8. COSEWIC (2010) Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada Operations and Procedures Manual, January 2010, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  9. COSEWIC (2011) COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Silver Lamprey Ichthyomyzon unicuspis, Great Lakes—Upper St. Lawrence populations and Saskatchewan—Nelson Rivers population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  10. Crandall KA, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Mace GM, Wayne RK (2000) Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 17:390–395Google Scholar
  11. Delarbre C, Escriva H, Gallut C, Barriel V, Kourilsky P, Janvier P, Laudet V, Gachelin G (2000) The complete nucleotide sequence of the mitochondrial DNA of the agnathan Lampetra fluviatilis: bearings on the phylogeny of cyclostomes. Mol Biol Evol 17:519–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Docker MF (2009) A review of the evolution of nonparasitism in lampreys and an update of the paired species concept. In: Brown LR, Chase SD, Moyle PB, Beamish RJ, Mesa MG (eds) Biology, management, and conservation of lampreys in North America. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 72, Bethesda, pp 71–114Google Scholar
  13. Docker MF, Youson JH, Beamish RJ, Devlin RH (1999) Phylogeny of the lamprey genus Lampetra inferred from mitochondrial cytochrome b and ND3 gene sequences. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:2340–2349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emel SL, Bonett RM (2011) Considering alternative life history modes and genetic divergence in conservation: a case study of the Oklahoma salamander. Conserv Genet 12:1243–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Espanhol R, Almeida PR, Alves MJ (2007) Evolutionary history of lamprey paired species Lampetra fluviatilis (L.) and Lampetra planeri (Bloch) as inferred from mitochondrial DNA variation. Mol Ecol 16:1909–1924PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Excoffier L, Smouse P, Quattro J (1992) Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131:479–491PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Excoffier L, Laval G, Schneider S (2005) Arlequin ver. 3.0: an integrated software package for population genetics data analysis. Evol Bioinform 1:47–50Google Scholar
  18. Felsenstein J (1985) Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Filcek KB, Gilmore SA, Scribner KT, Jones ML (2005) Discriminating lamprey species using multilocus microsatellite genotypes. N Am J Fish Man 25:502–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fraser DJ, Bernatchez L (2001) Adaptive evolutionary conservation: towards a unified concept for defining conservation units. Mol Ecol 10:2741–2752PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gill HS, Renaud CB, Chapleau F, Mayden RL, Potter IC (2003) Phylogeny of living parasitic lampreys (Petromyzontiformes) based on morphological data. Copeia 2003:687–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haldane JBS (1954) An exact test for randomness of mating. J Genet 52:631–635Google Scholar
  23. Hasegawa M, Kishino H, Yano T (1985) Dating the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J Mol Evol 22:160–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, deWaard JR (2003) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc R Soc B 270:313–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Higgins DG, Sharp PM (1989) Fast and sensitive multiple sequence alignments on a microcomputer. Comput Appl Biosci 5:151–153PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hubbs CL, Potter IC (1971) Distribution, phylogeny and taxonomy. In: Hardisty MW, Potter IC (eds) The biology of lampreys, vol 1. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–65Google Scholar
  27. Hubbs CL, Trautman MB (1937) A revision of the lamprey genus Ichthyomyzon. Misc Publ Mus Zool Univ Mich 35:7–109Google Scholar
  28. Hubert N, Hanner R, Holm E, Mandrak NE, Taylor E, Burridge M, Watkinson D, Dumont P, Curry A, Bentzen P, Zhang J, April J, Bernatchez L (2008) Identifying Canadian freshwater fishes through DNA barcodes. PLoS One 3:e2490. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002490 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature (1999) International Code for Zoological Nomenclature, 4th edn. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jenkins RE, Burkhead NM (1994) Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  31. King EL, Gabel JA (1985) Comparative toxicity of the lampricide 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol to ammocoetes of three species of lampreys. Lakes Fishery Commission technical report 47, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  32. Lang NJ, Roe KJ, Renaud CB, Gill HS, Potter IC, Freyhof J, Naseka AM, Cochran P, Perez HE, Habit EM, Kuhajda BR, Neely DA, Reshetnikov YS, Salnikov VB, Stoumboudi MT, Mayden RL (2009) Novel relationships among lampreys (Petromyzontiformes) revealed by a taxonomically comprehensive molecular data set. In: Brown LR, Chase SD, Moyle PB, Beamish RJ, Mesa MG (eds) Biology, management, and conservation of lampreys in North America. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 72, Bethesda, pp 41–55Google Scholar
  33. Larkin MA, Blackshields G, Brown NP, Chenna R, McGettigan PA, McWilliam H, Valentin F, Wallace IM, Wilm A, Lopez R, Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Higgins DG (2007) Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics 23:2947–2948PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee W-J, Kocher TD (1995) Complete sequence of a sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) mitochondrial genome: early establishment of the vertebrate genome organization. Genetics 139:873–887PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Mandrak NE, Crossman EJ (1992) Postglacial dispersal of freshwater fishes into Ontario. Can J Zool 70:2247–2259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marijnissen SAE, Michel E, Daniels SR, Erpenbeck D, Menken SBJ, Schram FR (2006) Molecular evidence for recent divergence of Lake Tanganyika endemic crabs (Decapoda: Platyhelphusidae). Mol Phylogenet Evol 40:628–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mayden RL (1997) A hierarchy of species concepts: the denouement in the saga of the species problem. In: Claridge HA, Dawah HA, Wilson MR (eds) Species: the units of biodiversity. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 381–424Google Scholar
  38. Moritz C, Cicero C (2004) DNA barcoding: promise and pitfalls. PLoS Biol 2:1529–1531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. NatureServe (2010) NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life, version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed 17 Oct 2011
  40. Neave FB, Mandrak NE, Docker MF, Noakes DL (2007) An attempt to differentiate sympatric lchthyomyzon ammocoetes using meristic, morphological, pigmentation, and gonad analyses. Can J Zool 85:549–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oxford Molecular Ltd (1998) OMIGA v1.1 user’s guide. Oxford Molecular Products, CampbellGoogle Scholar
  42. Pestano J, Brown RP, Suárez NM, Báez M (2003) Diversification of sympatric Sapromyza (Diptera: Lauxaniidae) from Madeira: six morphological species but only four mtDNA lineages. Mol Phylogenet Evol 27:422–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249Google Scholar
  45. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP (2003) MRBAYES 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572–1574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP (2005) Bayesian analysis of molecular evolution using MrBayes. In: Nielsen R (ed) Statistical methods in molecular evolution. Springer, New York, pp 183–232Google Scholar
  47. Schreiber A, Engelhorn R (1998) Population genetics of a cyclostome species pair, river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis L.) and brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri Bloch). J Zool Syst Evol Res 36:85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schuldt RJ, Goold R (1980) Changes in the distribution of native lampreys in Lake Superior tributaries in response to sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) control, 1953–77. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:1872–1885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scott WB, Crossman EJ (1973) Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bull Fish Res Board Can 184, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  50. Swofford DL (2002) PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), version 4. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  51. Tamura K, Dudley J, Nei M, Kumar S (2007) MEGA4: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Mol Biol Evol 24:596–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taylor EB (1998) Microsatellites isolated from the threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus. Mol Ecol 7:930–931Google Scholar
  53. Taylor EB (1999) Species pairs of north temperate freshwater fishes: taxonomy, evolution, and conservation. Rev Fish Biol Fish 9:299–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vladykov VD, Kott E (1979) Satellite species among the holarctic lampreys (Petromyzonidae). Can J Zool 57:860–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Waldman JR, Grunwald C, Roy NK, Wirgin II (2004) Mitochondrial DNA analysis indicates sea lampreys are indigenous to Lake Ontario. Trans Am Fish Soc 133:950–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Waldman J, Grunwald C, Wirgin I (2008) Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus: an exception to the rule of homing in anadromous fishes. Biol Lett 4:659–662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Waples RS (1991) Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp. and the definition of “species” under the Endangered Species Act. Mar Fish Rev 53:11–22Google Scholar
  58. Ward RD (2009) DNA barcode divergence among species and genera of birds and fishes. Mol Ecol Res 9:1077–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wu GCC, Chiang HC, Chou YW, Wong ZR, Hsu CC, Chen CY, Yang HY (2010) Phylogeography of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in the Western Pacific and the Western Indian Oceans inferred from mitochondrial DNA. Fish Res 105:248–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yamazaki Y, Yokoyama R, Nishida M, Goto A (2006) Taxonomy and molecular phylogeny of Lethenteron lampreys in eastern Eurasia. J Fish Biol 68:251–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yang Z (1994) Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods. J Mol Evol 39:306–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zanandrea G (1959) Speciation among lampreys. Nature 184:360CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret F. Docker
    • 1
  • Nicholas E. Mandrak
    • 2
  • Daniel D. Heath
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesFisheries and Oceans CanadaBurlingtonCanada
  3. 3.Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research & Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations