Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 279–288 | Cite as

Genetic variability and differentiation of wild and cultured tench populations inferred from microsatellite loci

  • Klaus KohlmannEmail author
  • Petra Kersten
  • Remigiusz Panicz
  • Devrim Memiş
  • Martin Flajšhans
Research Paper


Nine species-specific microsatellites were used to characterize 792 tench, Tinca tinca (L.), from 21 wild and cultured populations. Seven loci were polymorphic expressing four to 22 alleles. A Spanish cultured strain was homozygous at all loci for all individuals studied. Low variability was also observed in a wild population from Sapanca Lake, Turkey and a Chinese cultured strain. In contrast, the highest variabilities were found in wild tench from lake Felchowsee (average number of alleles), and the cultured strain from Königswartha (average heterozygosity), both from Germany. Genetic differentiation between populations was moderate to high. The smallest genetic distances were found between the geographically most distant populations. A Neighbor-Joining tree showed only two major clades consisting of 4 and 17 populations, respectively. Within the smaller clade the Turkish wild and Spanish and Chinese cultured tench formed a sub-cluster with 100% bootstrap support. Possible reasons for the latter unexpected grouping are discussed.


Microsatellites Population genetics Tench Tinca tinca 



This study was partly supported by projects of İstanbul University, UDP-2685/11072008 (D.M.) and of Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic to USB RIFCH No. MSM6007665809 (M.F.).


  1. Cornuet JM, Piry S, Luikart G, Estoup A, Solignac M (1999) New methods employing multilocus genotypes to select or exclude populations as origins of individuals. Genetics 153:1989–2000PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Crooijmans RPMA, Bierbooms VAF, Komen J, Van der Poel JJ, Groenen MAM (1997) Microsatellite markers in common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Anim Genet 28:129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DeWoody JA, Avise JC (2000) Microsatellite variation in marine, freshwater and anadromous fishes compared with other animals. J Fish Biol 56:461–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dieringer D, Schlötterer C (2003) MICROSATELLITE ANALYSER (MSA): a platform independent analysis tool for large microsatellite data sets. Mol Ecol Notes 3:167–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. FAO/UNEP (1981) Conservation of the genetic resources of fish: problems and recommendations. Report of the expert consultation on the genetic resources of fish. Rome, 9–13 June 1980. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 217Google Scholar
  6. Felsenstein J (1993) PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package) version 3.5c. Distributed by the author. Department of Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle. Available at
  7. Flajšhans M, Linhart O, Šlechtová V, Šlechta V (1999) Genetic resources of commercially important fish species in the Czech Republic: Present state and future strategy. Aquaculture 173:471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goudet J (2002) FSTAT, a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices (version Available at
  9. Kohlmann K, Kersten P (1998) Enzyme variability in a wild population of tench (Tinca tinca). Pol Arch Hydrobiol 45:303–310Google Scholar
  10. Kohlmann K, Kersten P (2006) Microsatellite loci in tench: isolation and variability in a test population. Aquac Int 14:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kohlmann K, Kersten P, Flajšhans M (2005) Microsatellite-based genetic variability and differentiation of domesticated, wild and feral common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) populations. Aquaculture 247:253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kohlmann K, Kersten P, Flajšhans M (2007) Comparison of microsatellite variability in wild and cultured tench (Tinca tinca). Aquaculture 272S1:S147–S151Google Scholar
  13. Kumar S, Tamura K, Nei M (2004) MEGA3: integrated software for molecular evolutionary genetics analysis and sequence alignment. Briefings in Bioinformatics 5:150–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kvasnička P, Linhart O (1990) Results and programme of tench (Tinca tinca L.) breeding. Papers of RIFCH Vodnany 19:47–59Google Scholar
  15. Kvasnička P, Flajšhans M, Ráb P, Linhart O (1998) Inheritance studies of blue and golden varieties of tench (Pisces: Tinca tinca L.). J Hered 89:553–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lajbner Z, Linhart O, Kotlik P (2007) Molecular phylogeography of the tench Tinca tinca (Linnaeus, 1758). In: Buj I, Zanella L, Mrakovcic M (eds) The 12th European congress of ichthyology, book of abstracts, Cavtat, 2007, p. 35Google Scholar
  17. Nei M (1987) Molecular evolutionary genetics. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Nei M, Tajima F, Tateno Y (1983) Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data. J Mol Evol 19:153–170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249Google Scholar
  20. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Šlechtová V, Šlechta V, Valenta M (1995) Genetic protein variability in tench (Tinca tinca L.) stocks in Czech Republic. Pol Arch Hydrobiol 42:133–140Google Scholar
  22. Takezaki N, Nei M (1996) Genetic distances and reconstruction of phylogenetic trees from microsatellite DNA. Genetics 144:389–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Tong J, Yu X, Liao X (2005) Characterization of a highly conserved microsatellite marker with utility potentials in cyprinid fishes. J Appl Ichthyol 21:232–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 4:535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Kohlmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Petra Kersten
    • 1
  • Remigiusz Panicz
    • 2
  • Devrim Memiş
    • 3
  • Martin Flajšhans
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Aquaculture and EcophysiologyLeibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland FisheriesBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Division of AquacultureAgricultural University of SzczecinSzczecinPoland
  3. 3.Fisheries Faculty, Aquaculture DepartmentIstanbul UniversityLaleli, IstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.Research Institute of Fish Culture and HydrobiologyUniversity of South Bohemia České BudějoviceVodňanyCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations