Advertisement

Molecular Biology Reports

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 2473–2484 | Cite as

Detecting population structure of Paleosuchus trigonatus (Alligatoridae: Caimaninae) through microsatellites markers developed by next generation sequencing

  • F. L. MunizEmail author
  • A. M. Ximenes
  • P. S. Bittencourt
  • S. M. Hernández-Rangel
  • Z. Campos
  • T. Hrbek
  • I. P. Farias
Original Article
  • 141 Downloads

Abstract

We isolated and characterized 10 new microsatellites loci for Paleosuchus trigonatus using ION TORRENT Sequencing Technology. We tested the transferability of these loci to three related species of the subfamily Caimaninae, and used these bi-parental markers to test population structure and genetic diversity of two populations of P. trigonatus impacted by hydroelectric dam construction on the Madeira (N = 16) and Xingu (N = 16) rivers. We also investigated the transferability of these markers to three related species: Paleosuchus palpebrosus (N = 5), Caiman crocodilus (N = 6) and Melanosuchus niger (N = 6). The genetic diversity of P. trigonatus was low in both the Madeira (He: 0.535 ± 0.148) and Xingu (He: 0.381 ± 0.222) populations, but the loci were sufficiently polymorphic to be used in system of mating and kinship studies in P. trigonatus. DAPC analysis with our set of microsatellites loci was able to separate the four species of Caimaninae studied and to detect a shallow genetic structure between Madeira and Xingu populations of P. trigonatus. AMOVA and STRUCTURE analyses using locprior model corroborate this shallow genetic structure. These novel molecular markers will be also useful in conservation genetics and phylogeographic studies of P. trigonatus, since they improve our ability to monitor the putative effects of dams on the loss of genetic diversity and allow us to investigate population dynamics and microevolutionary processes that occurred in the species.

Keywords

Cross-amplification Species identification Dwarf caiman Madeira River Xingu River Ion Torrent 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was financed by the following Grants: CNPq/CT-Amazon Project no. 575603/2008-9 awarded to IPF, CNPq Project no. 482662/2013-1 to TH, and CNPq Project no. 470383/2007-0 and 479179/2014 to ZC. FM and PSB were supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas (FAPEAM), doctoral and master fellowship respectively. SMHR was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). AMX was supported by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) masters fellowship, financial code 001, and a research fellowship from FAPEAM. We are also grateful for the additional financial and logistical support from Embrapa Pantanal (Macroprogram 3), Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA), Fundect, Norte Energia, Tractebel, O Boticário Foundation, Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) and Santo Antônio Energia.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no financial or non-financial conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by Embrapa ethics committee under the Permit no. 009/2016, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. All tissue samples of the caimans were colected under the license no. 13048-1, granted by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), and deposited in the CTGA (Coleção de Tecidos de Genética Animal) tissue collection at Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM), Amazonas, Brazil.

Supplementary material

11033_2019_4709_MOESM1_ESM.docx (36 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 35 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Estoup A, Presa P, Krieg F et al (1993) (CT)n and (GT)n microsatellites: A new class of genetic markers for salmo trutta L.(brown trout). Heredity (Edinb) 71:488–496.  https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1993.167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schlötterer C (2000) Evolutionary dynamics of microsatellite DNA. Chromosoma 109:365–371.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004120000089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castoe TA, Poole AW, Gu W et al (2010) Rapid identification of thousands of copperhead snake (Agkistrodon contortrix) microsatellite loci from modest amounts of 454 shotgun genome sequence. Mol Ecol Resour 10:341–347.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02750.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abdelkrim J, Robertson BC, Stanton JAL, Gemmell NJ (2009) Fast, cost-effective development of species-specific microsatellite markers by genomic sequencing. Biotechniques 46:185–192.  https://doi.org/10.2144/000113084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gardner MG, Fitch AJ, Bertozzi T, Lowe AJ (2011) Rise of the machines—recommendations for ecologists when using next generation sequencing for microsatellite development. Mol Ecol Resour 11:1093–1101.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.03037.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shedlock AM, Botka CW, Zhao S et al (2007) Phylogenomics of nonavian reptiles and the structure of the ancestral amniote genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:2767–2772.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0606204104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adams RH, Blackmon H, Reyes-Velasco J et al (2016) Microsatellite landscape evolutionary dynamics across 450 million years of vertebrate genome evolution. Genome 59:295–310.  https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2015-0124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miles LG, Lance SL, Isberg SR et al (2009) Cross-species amplification of microsatellites in crocodilians: assessment and applications for the future. Conserv Genet 10:935–954.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-008-9601-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muniz FL, Da Silveira R, Campos Z et al (2011) Multiple paternity in the Black Caiman (Melanosuchus niger) population in the Anavilhanas National Park, Brazilian Amazonia. Amphibia-Reptilia.  https://doi.org/10.1163/017353711X587741 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oliveira DP, Marioni B, Farias IP, Hrbek T (2014) Genetic evidence for polygamy as a mating strategy in Caiman crocodilus. J Hered 105:485–492.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esu020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milián-García Y, Ramos-Targarona R, Pérez-Fleitas E et al (2015) Genetic evidence of hybridization between the critically endangered Cuban crocodile and the American crocodile: Implications for population history and in situ/ex situ conservation. Heredity 114:272–280.  https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2014.96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cunningham SW, Shirley MH, Hekkala ER (2016) Fine scale patterns of genetic partitioning in the rediscovered African crocodile, Crocodylus suchus (Saint-Hilaire 1807). PeerJ 4:e1901. https://peerj.com/articles/1901 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pacheco-Sierra G, Gompert Z, Domínguez-Laso J, Vázquez-Domínguez E (2016) Genetic and morphological evidence of a geographically widespread hybrid zone between two crocodile species, Crocodylus acutus and Crocodylus moreletii. Mol Ecol 25:3484–3498.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13694 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shirley MH, Austin JD (2017) Did Late Pleistocene climate change result in parallel genetic structure and demographic bottlenecks in sympatric Central African crocodiles, Mecistops and Osteolaemus? Mol Ecol 26:6463–6477.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eaton MJ, Martin A, Thorbjarnarson J, Amato G (2009) Species-level diversification of African dwarf crocodiles (Genus Osteolaemus): a geographic and phylogenetic perspective. Mol Phylogenet Evol 50:496–506.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muniz FL, Campos Z, Hernández Rangel SM et al (2018) Delimitation of evolutionary units in Cuvier’s dwarf caiman, Paleosuchus palpebrosus (Cuvier, 1807): insights from conservation of a broadly distributed species. Conserv Genet 19:599–610.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-017-1035-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Magnusson WE (1989) Paleosuchus. In: Crocodiles. Their ecology, management and conservation. IUCN, Gland, pp 168–175Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Magnusson WE, Campos Z (2010) Schneider’s Smooth-fronted Caiman Paleosuchus trigonatus. In: Manolis SC, Stevenson C (eds) Crocodiles. Status survey and conservation action plan, third. Crocodile Specialist Group, Darwin, pp 43–45Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Magnusson WE, Lima AP (1991) The ecology of a cryptic predator, Paleosuchus tigonatus, in a Tropical Rainforest. J Herpetol 25:41–48.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1564793 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bittencourt PS, Campos Z, Muniz FL, Marioni B, Souza BC, Da Silveira R, de Thoisy B, Hrbek T, Farias IP (2019) Evidence of cryptic lineages within a small South American crocodilian: the Schneider’s dwarf caiman Paleosuchus trigonatus (Alligatoridae: Caimaninae). PeerJ 7:e6580.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6580
  21. 21.
    Hrbek T, Martínez JG, Hernandez-Rangel SM, Assunção EN, Bertuol F, Canton R, Astolfi-Filho S, Farias IP (2019) Optimizing Next Generation Sequencing for biodiversity studies on the IONTORRENT PGM: an in silico and in vitro analysis. PeerJ 7:accepted.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.xxxx
  22. 22.
    Doyle JJ, Doyle JL (1987) A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochem Bull Bot Soc Am 19:11–15Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coyne KJ, Burkholder JM, Robert A et al (2004) Modified serial analysis of gene expression method for construction of gene expression profiles of microbial eukaryotic species modified serial analysis of gene expression method for construction of gene expression profiles of microbial eukaryotic species. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:5298–5304.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.70.9.5298-5304.2004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Steffens DL, Sutter SL, Roemer SC (1993) An alternate universal forward primer for improved automated DNA sequencing of M13. Biotechniques 15:580,582Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, 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
  28. 28.
    Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1106.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03089.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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
  30. 30.
    Peakall R, Smouse PE (2012) GenALEx 6.5: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research-an update. Bioinformatics 28:2537–2539.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jombart T, Devillard S, Balloux F (2010) Discriminant analysis of principal components: a new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet 11:94.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-11-94 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jombart T (2008) Adegenet: A R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24:1403–1405.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btn129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jombart T, Collins C (2015) A tutorial for discriminant analysis of principal components (DAPC) using adegenet 2.0.0.1–43Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nei M (1978) Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89:583–590.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms15010277 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Excoffier L, Lischer HEL (2010) Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol Ecol Resour 10:564–567.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02847.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2408641 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01758.x Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Earl DA, VonHoldt BM (2012) Structure Harvester: a website and program for visualizing Structure output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv Genet Resour 4:359–361.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9548-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14:2611–2620.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02553.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jakobsson M, Rosenberg NA (2007) CLUMPP: a cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics 23:1801–1806.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rosenberg NA (2004) distruct: a program for the graphical display of population structure. Mol Ecol Notes 4:137–138.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-8286.2003.00566.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Barnes TC, Izzo C, Bertozzi T et al (2014) Development of 15 microsatellite loci from mulloway, Argyrosomus japonicus (Pisces: Sciaenidae) using next generation sequencing and an assessment of their cross amplification in other sciaenids. Conserv Genet Resour 6:345–348.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-013-0090-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Eo SH, Lee WS, Lee BJ et al (2016) Microsatellite markers for the Ussuri white-toothed shrew (Soricidae: Crocidura lasiura) developed by Ion Torrent sequencing and their application to the shrew populations in disturbed forests. Genes Genomics 38:351–357.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13258-015-0375-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gutiérrez EG, Hernández Canchola G, León Paniagua LS et al (2017) Isolation and characterization of microsatellite markers for Sturnira parvidens and cross-species amplification in Sturnira species. PeerJ 5:e3367.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Maduna SN, Rossouw C, da Silva C et al (2017) Species identification and comparative population genetics of four coastal houndsharks based on novel NGS-mined microsatellites. Ecol Evol 7:1462–1486.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Song W, Zhu D, Lv Y, Wang W (2017) Development and characterization of 29 polymorphic microsatellite loci of Megalobrama pellegrini by next-generation sequencing technology and cross-species amplification in related species. PeerJ Preprints 4:e2490v1.  https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2490V1 Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vianna JA, Noll D, Mura-Jornet I et al (2017) Comparative genome-wide polymorphic microsatellite markers in Antarctic penguins through next generation sequencing. Genet Mol Biol 40:676–687.  https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4685-gmb-2016-0224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Glenn TC, Dessauer HC, Braun MJ (1998) Characterization of microsatellite DNA loci in American Alligators. Copeia 1998:591–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dever JA, Densmore LD (2001) Microsatellites in Morelet’s crocodile (Crocodylus moreletii) and their utility in addressing crocodilian population genetics questions. J Herpetol 35:541–544.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1565981 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fitzsimmons NN, Tanksley S, Forstner MRJ et al (2001) Microsatellite markers for Crocodylus: new genetic tools for population genetics, mating system studies and forensics. In: Grigg GC, Seebacher F, Franklin CE (eds) Crocodilian biology and evolution. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton; pp 51–57Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zucoloto RB, Verdade LM, Coutinho LL (2002) Microsatellite DNA library for Caiman latirostris. J Exp Zool 294:346–351.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.10190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Godshalk R (2006) Phylogeography and conservation genetics of the yacare caiman (Caiman yacare) of South America. University of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Oliveira DP, Farias IP, Marioni B et al (2010) Microsatellite markers for mating system and population analyses of the spectacled caiman Caiman crocodilus (Linnaeus 1758). Conserv Genet Resour 2:181–184.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-010-9221-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zucoloto RB, Villela PMS, Verdade LM, Coutinho LL (2006) Cross-species microsatellite amplification in South American Caimans (Caiman spp and Paleosuchus palpebrosus). Genet Mol Biol 29:75–78.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-47572006000100015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hekkala ER, Amato G, DeSalle R, Blum MJ (2010) Molecular assessment of population differentiation and individual assignment potential of Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) populations. Conserv Genet 11:1435–1443.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-009-9970-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ojeda GN, Amavet PS, Rueda EC et al (2017) Mating system of Caiman yacare (Reptilia: Alligatoridae) described from microsatellite genotypes. J Hered 108:135–141.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esw080 Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lapbenjakul S, Thapana W, Twilprawat P et al (2017) High genetic diversity and demographic history of captive Siamese and Saltwater crocodiles suggest the first step toward the establishment of a breeding and reintroduction program in Thailand. PLoS ONE 12:e0184526.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184526 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Magnusson WE (1992) Paleosuchus trigonatus. Cat Am Amphib Rept 555.1–555.3Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Campos Z, Muniz F, Magnusson WE (2017) Extension of the geographical distribution of Schneider’s Dwarf Caiman, Paleosuchus trigonatus (Schneider, 1801) (Crocodylia: Alligatoridae), in the Amazon-Cerrado transition. Brazil Check List 13:91–94.  https://doi.org/10.15560/13.4.91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Amavet P, Rosso E, Markariani R, Piña CI (2008) Microsatellite DNA markers applied to detection of multiple paternity in Caiman latirostris in Santa Fe, Argentina. J Exp Zool Part A Ecol Genet Physiol 309:637–642.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Davis LM, Glenn TC, Elsey RM et al (2001) Multiple paternity and mating patterns in the American alligator, Alligator mississippiensis. Mol Ecol 10:1011–1024.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2001.01241.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lance SL, Tuberville TD, Dueck L et al (2009) Multiyear multiple paternity and mate fidelity in the American alligator, Alligator mississippiensis. Mol Ecol 18:4508–4520.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04373.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hu Y, Wu XB (2010) Multiple paternity in Chinese alligator (Alligator sinensis) clutches during a reproductive season at Xuanzhou Nature Reserve. Amphib Reptil 31:419–424.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853810791769446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wang H, Yan P, Zhang S et al (2017) Multiple paternity: a compensation mechanism of the Chinese alligator for inbreeding. Anim Reprod Sci 187:124–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2017.10.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Dever JA, Strauss RE, Rainwater TR et al (2002) Genetic diversity, population subdivision, and gene flow in Morelet’s Crocodile (Crocodylus moreletii) from Belize, Central America. Copeia 2002:1078–1091.  https://doi.org/10.1643/0045-8511(2002)002%5B1078:GDPSAG%5D2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    de Thoisy B, Hrbek T, Farias IP et al (2006) Genetic structure, population dynamics, and conservation of Black caiman (Melanosuchus niger). Biol Conserv 133:474–482.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Campos JC, Mobaraki A, Abtin E et al (2018) Preliminary assessment of genetic diversity and population connectivity of the Mugger Crocodile in Iran. Amphibia-Reptilia 39:126–131.  https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-16000173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Grigg G, Kirshner D (2015) Biology and evolution of crocodylians, 1st edn. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, 672 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2010) Introduction to conservation genetics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 642 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Evolution (LEGAL), Department of GeneticsFederal University of Amazonas (UFAM)ManausBrazil
  2. 2.Graduate Program in Genetics, Conservation and Evolutionary BiologyNational Institute for Amazonian Research (INPA)ManausBrazil
  3. 3.Wildlife LaboratoryBrazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) PantanalCorumbáBrazil

Personalised recommendations