Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of mtCOI and 18S rRNA Sequence-Based Characterization of Recently Commercialized Marine Edible Pufferfishes

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The pufferfishes are considered as a serious hazard to consumers since it contains a strong marine toxin which can be lethal to human beings. However, some species of the pufferfishes have commercial value in the food industry and in the aquarium trade. Hence, the identification of pufferfishes plays a major role to find out their type. Analysis of genetic materials is the constitutional source of rapid and accurate species identification method to reveal even intra-specific difference of their phenotypic plasticity when morphological distinctiveness fails to provide intact information. In the present study, twenty marine pufferfish specimens belonging to five different commercially important species were collected from April 2016 to May 2017 from Mandapam region, east coast of Tamil Nadu. Consensus primers of two different genes (mtCOI and 18S rRNA) were employed to compare the genetic variations. Results suggest that the species within the taxa were accurately identified by mtCOI gene when compared to the 18S rRNA gene. Further, the computational analytical tools such as multiple sequence alignment, genetic distance analysis, phylogenetic analysis and motifs were used to study the genetic variation between the species. This investigation recommends the accurate identification of pufferfishes using genetic marker since these species are recently commercialized for human consumption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Strauss RE, Bond CE (1990) Taxonomic methods: morphology. Methods for fish biology. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, pp 109–140

    Google Scholar 

  2. Teletchea F (2009) Molecular identification methods of fish species: reassessment and possible applications. Rev Fish Biol Fish 19:265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wahyuni Sulistiono T, Affandi R (2004) Kebiasaan makanan ikan buntal pisang (Tetraodon lunaris) di Perairan Mayang, Jawa Barat. Jurnal Iktiologi Indonesia 4:25–30

    Google Scholar 

  4. Oliveira JS, Fernandes RSC, Schwartz CA Jr, Bloch C, Melo JAT Jr, Pires OR, Freitas JC (2006) Toxicity and toxin identification in Colomesus asellus, an Amazonian (Brazil) fresh water puffer fish. Toxicon 48:55–63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nelson JS (2006) Fishes of the world. Wiley, New Jersey, p 624

    Google Scholar 

  6. Makoto O, Yoshimichi F, Fumio T, Shingo I (2000) Fatty acid composition of total lipids in pufferfish meat. Food Preserv Sci 26:333–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tuney I (2016) Molecular identification of puffer fish Lagocephalus sceleratus (Gmelin, 1789) and Lagocephalus spadiceus (Richardson, 1845) from Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey. Fresenius Environ Bull 25:1429–1437

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Yedukondala P, Rukminisirisha I (2013) Changes in the muscle biochemical composition of Lagocephalus spadiceus (Richardson, 845) and Lagocephalus lunaris (Bloch and schneider 1801) off visakhapatnam, east coast of India. Int J Sci Res Publ 3:2250–3153

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chunfai Yu, Hoifu Yu (1997) A preliminary study of puffer fishes and their toxins found in Hong Kong waters. J Food Hyg Soc (Jpn) 38:460–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Koizumi K, Hiratsuka S (2009) Fatty acid compositions in muscles of wild and cultured ocellate puffer Takifugu rubripes. Fish Sci 75:1323–1328

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaleshkumar K, Rajaram R, Dinesh P, Ganeshkumar A (2017) First report on distribution of heavy metals and proximate analysis in marine edible puffer fishes collected from Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve, South India. Toxicol Rep 4:319–327

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lakra WS, Goswami M, Singh A (2013) Genetic relatedness and phylogenetics of five Indian pufferfishes. Mitochondrial DNA 24:602–609

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fabrice G, Irene TB, Sandra L (2010) Plant resource use strategies: the importance of phenotypic plasticity in response to a productivity gradient for two subalpine species. Ann Bot 106:637–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Valdez-Moreno M, Vasquez-Yeomans L, Elias-Gutierrez M, Ivanova NV, Hebert PDN (2010) Using DNA barcodes to connect adults and early life stages of marine fishes from the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico: potential in fisheries management. Mar Freshw Res 61:665–671

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ko HL, Wang YT, Chiu TS, Lee MA, Leu MY, Chang KZ, Chen WY, Shao KT (2013) Evaluating the accuracy of morphological identification of larval fishes by applying DNA barcoding. PLoS ONE 8:53451

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hebert PDN, Penton EH, Burns JM, Janzen DH, Hallwachs W (2004) Ten species in one: DNA barcoding reveals cryptic species in the neotropical skipper butterfly Astraptes fulgerator. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:14812–14817

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Carrera E, Martin R, Garcia T, Gonzalez I, Sanz B, Hernandez PE (1996) Development of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the identification of smoked salmon (Salmo salar), trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and bream (Bramaraii). J Food Prot 59:521–524

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Avise JC, Arnold J, Ball RM, Bermingham E, Lamb T, Neigel JE (1987) Intraspecific phylogeography: the mitochondrial DNA bridge between population genetics and systematics. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:489–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, de Waard JR (2003) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc R Soc Biol Sci B 270:313–321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bhadury P, Austen MC (2010) Barcoding marine nematodes: an improved set of nematode 18S rRNA primers to overcome eukaryotic co-interference. Hydrobiologia 641:245–251

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Xia HJ, Brearley C, Elge S, Kaplan B, Fromm H, Mueller-Roeber B (2003) Arabidopsis in ositol polyphosphate 6-/3-kinase is a nuclear protein that complements a yeast mutant lacking a functional ArgR-Mcm1 transcription complex. Plant Cell 15:449–463

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hogg ID, Hebert PDN (2004) Biological identification of springtails (Hexapoda: Collembola) from the Canadian Arctic, using mitochondrial DNA barcodes. Can J Zool 82:749–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Khan SA, Prasanna CP, Lyla PS, Murugan S (2011) Identifying marine fin fishes using DNA barcodes. Curr Sci 101:1152–1154

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lakra WS, Verma MS, Goswami M, Lal KK, Mohindra V, Punia P, Gopalakrishnan A, Ward RD, Hebert P (2011) DNA barcoding of Indian marine fishes. Mol Ecol Resour 11:60–71

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kaleshkumar K, Rajaram R, Vinothkumar S, Ramalingam V, Meetei KB (2015) DNA barcoding of selected species of pufferfishes (Order: Tetraodontiformes) of Puducherry coastal waters along south-east coast of India. Indian J Fish 62:98–103

    Google Scholar 

  26. Neafsey DE, Palumbi SR (2003) Genome size evolution in pufferfish: a comparative analysis of diodontid and tetraodontid pufferfish genomes. Genome Res 13:821–830

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Kai W, Kikuchi K, Fujita M, Suetake H, Fujiwara A, Yoshiura Y, Ototake M, Venkatesh B, Miyaki V, Suzuki Y (2003) A genetic linkage map for the tiger pufferfish, Takifugu rubripes. Genetics 171:227–238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sambrook J, Maccallum P, Russel D (2001) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 3rd edn, vols 1,2 and 3. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2100 pp, soft cover

  29. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ (1994) CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucl Acids Res 22:4673–4680

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Odorico D, Miller D (1997) Variation in the ribosomal internal transcribed spacers and 5.8S rDNA among five species of Acropora (Cnidaria; Scleractinia): patterns of variation consistent with reticulate evolution. Mol Biol Evol 14:465–473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schäffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ (1997) Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucl Acids Res 25:3389–3402

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S (2013) MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol 30:2725–2729

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Letunic I, Bork P (2016) Interactive tree of life (iTOL) v3: an online tool for the display and annotation of phylogenetic and other trees. Nucl Acids Res 44:242–245

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Bailey TL, Boden M, Buske FA, Frith M, Grant C, Clementi L, Ren J, Li WW, Noble WS (2009) MEME SUITE: tools for motif discovery and searching. Nucl Acids Res 37:202–208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bensasson D, Zhang DX, Hartl DL, Hewitt GM (2001) Mitochondrial pseudogenes: evolution’s misplaced witnesses. Trends Ecol Evol 16:314–321

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Holmes BH, Steinke D, Ward RD (2009) Identification of shark and ray fins using DNA barcoding. Fish Res 95:280–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wong EH-K, Hanner RH (2008) DNA barcoding detects market substitution in North American seafood. Food Res Int 41:828–837

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Zemlak TS, Ward RD, Connell AD, Holmes BH, Hebert PDN (2009) DNA barcoding reveals overlooked marine fishes. Mol Ecol Resour 9:237–242

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. de Astarloa JMD, Mabragaña E, Hanner R, Figueroa DE (2008) Morphological and molecular evidence for a new species of longnose skate (Rajiformes: Rajidae: Dipturus) from Argentinean waters based on DNA barcoding. Zootaxa 1921:35–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Asgharian H, Sahafi HH, Ardalan AA, Shekarriz S, Elahi E (2011) Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 barcode data of fish of the Nayband National Park in the Persian Gulf and analysis using meta-data flag several cryptic species. Mol Ecol Resour 11:461–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Santini F, Nguyen MTT, Sorenson L, Waltzek TB, Lynch Alfaro JW, Eastman JM, Alfaro ME (2013) Do habitat shifts drive diversification in teleost fishes? An example from the pufferfishes (Tetraodontidae). J Evol Biol 26:1003–1018

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Dahruddin H, Hutama A, Busson F, Sauri S, Hanner R, Keith P, Hubert N (2017) Revisiting the ichthyo diversity of Java and Bali through DNA barcodes: taxonomic coverage, identification accuracy, cryptic diversity and identification of exotic species. Mol Ecol Resour 17:288–299

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the authorities of Bharathidasan University for providing the desired facilities for this research. They also thank University Grants Commission/Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship (UGC/RGNF), New Delhi, Government of India, for financial assistance.

Funding

This work was partly funded by the University Grants Commission/Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship (UGC/RGNF), New Delhi, Government of India (F1-17.1/2016-17/RGNF-2015-17-SC-TAM-19298/(SA-III Web site).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DNA Barcoding and Marine Genomics Laboratory, Department of Marine Science, School of Marine Sciences, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, 620 024, India

    Karunanidhi Kaleshkumar & Rajendran Rajaram

Authors
  1. Karunanidhi Kaleshkumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rajendran Rajaram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajendran Rajaram.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to publish this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Significance Statement

Two different genes (mtCOI and 18S rRNA) were employed to compare the genetic variations among five marine commercial pufferfish species. The findings suggested that the COI gene acts as the best marker when compared to 18S rRNA for molecular identification. For the first time, the authors reported the expressed sequence tag (functional region) of COI gene isolated from marine pufferfishes. Further, the deposition of 18S rRNA gene sequence is the first report into the NCBI database.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaleshkumar, K., Rajaram, R. Analysis of mtCOI and 18S rRNA Sequence-Based Characterization of Recently Commercialized Marine Edible Pufferfishes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India, Sect. B Biol. Sci. 90, 391–403 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-019-01111-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-019-01111-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation