Conservation Genetics Resources

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 545–548 | Cite as

Microsatellite marker isolation and development for the giant Pacific Octopus (Enteroctopus dofleini)

  • R. K. Toussaint
  • G. K. Sage
  • S. L. Talbot
  • D. Scheel
Technical Note

Abstract

We isolated and developed 18 novel microsatellite markers for the giant Pacific octopus (Enteroctopus dofleini) and examined them for 31 individuals from Prince William Sound (PWS), Alaska. These loci displayed moderate levels of allelic diversity (averaging 11 alleles per locus) and heterozygosity (averaging 65%). Seven loci deviated from Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) due to heterozygote deficiency for the PWS population, although deviations were not observed for all these loci in other populations, suggesting the PWS population is not in mutation-drift equilibrium. These novel microsatellite loci yielded sufficient genetic diversity for potential use in population genetics, individual identification, and parentage studies.

Keywords

Microsatellite markers Enteroctopus dofleini Population genetics 

References

  1. Barry P (2010) Examination of gear type efficacy, tagging methodology, and population structure for establishing a directed Enteroctopus dofleini fishery. School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences. Master of Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AKGoogle Scholar
  2. Berry SS (1912) A review of the cephalopods of western North America. Bul Bur Fish 30(761):296–336Google Scholar
  3. Botstein D, White RI, Skolnick M, Davis RW (1980) Construction of a genetic linkage map in man using restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Am J Hum Genet 32:182–190Google Scholar
  4. Buford M, Wayne R (1993) Microsatellites and their application to population genetic studies. Curr Opin Genet Dev 3:939–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Guo SW, Thompson E (1992) Performing the exact test of Hardy–Weinberg proportion for multiple alleles. Biometrics 48:361–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hochberg FG (1998) Class cephalopoda. In: Scott PV, Blake JA (eds) Taxonomic atlas of the benthic fauna of the Santa Barbara basin and the western Santa Barbara channel. Santa Barbara California Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 8. The Mollusca Part I: The Aplacophora Polyplacophora Scaphopoda Bivalvia and Cephalopoda, pp 175–236Google Scholar
  7. Nixon M (1998) In: Voss NA, Vecchione M, Toll RB, Sweeney MJ (eds) Overview of cephalopod characters systematics and biogeography of cephalopods, vol I. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 7–9Google Scholar
  8. Oetting WS, Lee HK, Flanders DJ, Wiesner GL, Sellers TA, King RA (1995) Linkage analysis with multiplexed short tandem repeat polymorphisms using infrared fluorescence and M13 tailed primers. Genomics 30:450–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Park SDE (2001) Trypanotolerance in West African cattle and the population genetic effects of selection. PhD thesis, University of DublinGoogle Scholar
  10. Pickford GE (1964) Octopus dofleini (Wulker) the giant octopus of the North Pacific. Bull Bingham Oceanogr Collect 19:1–70Google Scholar
  11. Promega Corporation (2011) PowerStat (Version 1.2). http://www.promega.com/Fgeneticidtools/powerstats/
  12. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (Version 12): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249Google Scholar
  13. Reuter RF, Connors ME, Ducisumo J, Gaichas S, Ormseth O, Tenbrink T (2010) Managing non-target data-poor species using catch limits: lessons from the Alaskan groundfish fishery. Fish Manag Ecol 17:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Scheel D (2002) Characteristics of habitats used by Enteroctopus dofleini in Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet Alaska PSZN. Mar Ecol 41(3):185–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stewart NC Jr, Via LE (1993) A rapid CTAB DNA isolation technique useful for RAPD fingerprinting and other PCR applications. Biotechniques 147:48–749Google Scholar
  16. Sunnucks P (2000) Efficient genetic markers for population biology. Trends Ecol Evol 15:199–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Valieré N (2003) GIMLET: a computer program for analyzing genetic individual identification data. Mol Ecol Notes 2:377–379Google Scholar
  18. Waits LP, Luikart G, Taberle P (2001) Estimating the probability of identity among genotypes in natural populations: cautions and guidelines. Mol Ecol 10:249–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weir JL (1996) Genetic data analysis. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. K. Toussaint
    • 1
  • G. K. Sage
    • 2
  • S. L. Talbot
    • 2
  • D. Scheel
    • 1
  1. 1.Alaska Pacific UniversityAnchorageUSA
  2. 2.United States Geological SurveyAnchorageUSA

Personalised recommendations