Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Genome size estimation of brackishwater fishes and penaeid shrimps by flow cytometry

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Molecular Biology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Flow cytometry was used for estimating the genome size of five brackishwater finfish and four shrimp species. The genome size for Lutjanus argentimaculatus was 0.95 ± 0.10 and 0.79 ± 0.01 pg for Scatophagus argus. The genome sizes for Chanos chanos (0.72 ± 0.01 pg), Etroplus suratensis (1.71 ± 0.16 pg) and Liza macrolepis (0.87 ± 0.02 pg) which are important aquaculture species are reported for the first time in this study. The phylogenetic tree constructed using sixty-seven sequence accessions of cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (COI) gene of Lates calcarifer revealed two separate clades. The Indian Lates calcarifer species with estimated genome size of 0.44 ± 0.02 pg belonged to a clade different than that of South East Asia and Australia reported to have larger genome size. The genome size for the four major species of genus Penaeus (Penaeus monodon, Penaeus indicus, Penaeus vannamei and Penaeus japonicus) were found in similar range. The genome size of female shrimps ranged from 2.91 ± 0.03 pg (P. monodon) to 2.14 ± 0.02 pg (P. japonicus). In male shrimps, the genome size ranged from 2.86 ± 0.06 pg (P. monodon) to 2.19 ± 0.02 pg (P. indicus). Significant difference was observed in the genome size between male and female shrimp of all species except in P. monodon. The highest relative difference of 12.78% was observed in the genome size between the either sex in P. indicus. The interspecific relative difference of 30.59% in genome size was highest between the male shrimps of P. monodon and P. indicus and 35.98% between the female shrimps of P. monodon and P. japonicus. The stored gills and pleopod tissues could be successfully used up to 3 weeks to estimate the genome size in shrimps.

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

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Quinn NL, Gutierrez AP, Koop BF, Davidson WS (2012) Genomics and genome sequencing: benefits for finfish aquaculture. In: Muchlisin Z (ed) Aquaculture. InTech, Rijeka, pp 127–154

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hemmer-Hansen J, Therkildsen NO, Pujolar JM (2014) Population genomics of marine fishes: next-generation prospects and challenges. Biol Bull 227:117–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilhelm J, Pingoud A, Hahn M (2003) Real-time PCR-based method for the estimation of genome sizes. Nucleic Acids Res 31:56–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brainerd EL, Slutz SS, Hall EK, Phillis RW (2001) Patterns of genome size evolution in tetraodontiform fishes. Evolution 55:2363–2368

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhu D, Song W, Yang K, Cao X, Gul Y, Wang W (2012) Flow cytometric determination of genome size for eight commercially important fish species in China. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim 48:507–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jeffery NW, Gregory TR (2014) Genome size estimates for crustaceans using Feulgen image analysis densitometry of ethanol-preserved tissues. Cytometry 85:862–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hare EE, Johnston JS (2011) Genome size determination using flow cytometry of propidium iodide-stained nuclei. Methods Mol Biol 772:3–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dufresne F, Jeffery N (2011) A guided tour of large genome size in animals: what we know and where we are heading. Chromosome Res 19:925–938

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Griffith OL, Moodie GEE, Civetta A (2003) Genome size and longevity in fish. Exp Gerontol 38:333–337

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gregory TR (2004) Genome size is not correlated positively with longevity in fishes (or homeotherms). Exp Gerontol 39:859–860

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hardie DC, Hebert PD (2003) The nucleotypic effects of cellular DNA content in cartilaginous and ray-finned fishes. Genome 46:683–706

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hardie DC, Hebert PD (2004) Genome-size evolution in fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 61:1636–1646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jeffery NW, Hultgren K, Chak STC, Gregory TR, Rubenstein DR (2016) Patterns of genome size variation in snapping shrimp. Genome 59:393–402

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Alfsnes K, Leinaas HP, Hessen DO (2017) Genome size in arthropods; different roles of phylogeny, habitat and life history in insects and crustaceans. Ecol Evol 7:5939–5947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rees DJ, Belzile C, Glemet H, Dufresne F (2008) Large genomes among caridean shrimp. Genome 51:159–163

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vij S, Kuhl H, Kuznetsova IS, Komissarov A, Yurchenko AA et al (2016) Chromosomal-level assembly of the asian seabass genome using long sequence reads and multi-layered scaffolding. PLoS Genet 12:e1006500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Folmer O, Black M, Hoeh W, Lutz R, Vrijenhoek R (1994) DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome coxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol 3:294–299

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ward RD, Zemlak TS, Innes BH, Last PR, Hebert PD (2005) DNA barcoding Australia’s fish species. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 360:1847–1857

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tiersch TR, Chandler RW (1989) Chicken erythrocytes as an internal reference for analysis of DNA content by flow cytometry in grass carp. Trans Am Fish Soc 118:713–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dolezel J, Bartos J, Voglmayr H, Greilhuber J (2003) Nuclear DNA content and genome size of trout and human. Cytometry 51A:127–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hall TA (1999) BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucl Acids Symp Ser 41:95–98

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lanfear R, Frandsen PB, Wright AM, Senfeld T, Calcott B (2017) PartitionFinder 2: new methods for selecting partitioned models of evolution for molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses. Mol Biol Evol 34:772–773

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Guindon S, Dufayard JF, Lefort V, Anisimova M, Hordijk W, Gascuel O (2010) New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst Biol 59:307–321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Stamatakis A (2014) RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30:1312–1313

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gregory TR (2017) Animal Genome Size Database. http://www.genomesize.com

  26. Bernardi G, Wiley EO, Mansour H, Miller MR, Orti G, Haussler D, O’Brien SJ, Ryder OA, Venkatesh B (2012) The fishes of Genome 10K. Mar Genom 7:3–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hinegardner R, Rosen DE (1972) Cellular DNA content and the evolution of teleostean fishes. Am Nat 106:621–644

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Yue GH, Zhu ZY, Lo LC, Wang CM, Lin G, Feng F, Pang HY, Li J, Gong P, Liu HM, Tan J (2009) Genetic variation and population structure of Asian seabass (Lates calcarifer) in the Asia-Pacific region. Aquaculture 293:22–28

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Vij S, Purushothaman K, Gopikrishna G, Lau D, Saju JM, Shamsudheen KV, Kumar KV, Basheer VS, Gopalakrishnan A, Hossain MS, Sivasubbu S et al (2014) Barcoding of Asian seabass across its geographic range provides evidence for its bifurcation into two distinct species. Front Mar Sci 1:30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ward RD, Holmes BH, Yearsley GK (2008) DNA barcoding reveals a likely second species of Asian sea bass (barramundi) (Lates calcarifer). J Fish Biol 72:458–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Peruzzi S, Chatain B, Menu B (2005) Flow cytometric determination of genome size in European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata), thinlip mullet (Liza ramada), and European eel (Anguilla anguilla). Aquat Living Resour 18:77–81

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Huang SW, Lin YY, You EM, Liu TT, Shu HY, Wu KM, Tsai SF, Lo CF, Kou GH, Ma GC, Chen M (2011) Fosmid library end sequencing reveals a rarely known genome structure of marine shrimp Penaeus monodon. BMC Genom 12:242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Libertini A, Panozzo M, Scovacricchi T (1990) Nuclear DNA content in Penaeus kerathurus (Forskal, 1775) and P. japonicus Bate, 1888 (Crustacea, Decapoda). In: 25th European Marine Biology Symposium E.M.B.S. Ferrara

  34. Xavier PL, Senhorini JA, Pereira-Santos M, Fujimoto T, Shimoda E, Silva LA, dos Santos SA, Yasui GS (2017) A flow cytometry protocol to estimate DNA content in the yellowtail tetra Astyanax altiparanae. Front Genet 8:131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chow S, Dougherty WJ, Sandifer PA (1990) Meiotic chromosome complements and nuclear DNA contents of four species of shrimps of the genus Penaeus. J Crustacean Biol 10:29–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The funding for the work carried out in the present study under the project on ICAR-CRP-Genomics entitled “Whole genome sequencing of Indian white shrimp Peneaus indicus” is greatly acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. S. Shekhar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The fishes used in the experiment during the blood collection, were anesthetized with 2-Phenoxyethanol (Sigma-Aldrich, Co., St. Louis, MO, USA). The blood was collected using 5-ml syringe containing 0.01 M phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) from the caudal vein of the fish. The permission was obtained from the Institute Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC) of ICAR-Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture, Chennai, India to carry out the experiments in fishes. The standard operating procedures in the experiment were followed which were set for the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee by the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA), Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change, Government of India.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Swathi, A., Shekhar, M.S., Katneni, V.K. et al. Genome size estimation of brackishwater fishes and penaeid shrimps by flow cytometry. Mol Biol Rep 45, 951–960 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-018-4243-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-018-4243-3

Keywords

Navigation