Identification and characterization of microsatellite DNA markers developed in ide Leuciscus idus and Siberian roach Rutilus rutilus

Abstract

The first five microsatellite markers for the ide, Leuciscus idus , and four microsatellite markers for the Siberian roach, Rutilus rutilus , were designed. Cross-amplification of ide markers was examined in Siberian roach and vice versa. The number of alleles per locus ranged from three to 13 in ide and from two to eight in roach. The expected heterozygosity ranged from 0.313 to 0.909 in ide and from 0.119 to 0.775 in roach. These markers could be used to evaluate the genetic population structure of these species and other fish from the Cyprinidae family.

Isolation of microsatellite markers inSqualius lucumonis(Bianco, 1983) and cross-species amplification within the family Cyprinidae and other freshwater fish species

“…Microsatellites markers have been developed for several Cyprinidae species, including Squalius aradensis, S. cephalus, Leuciscus souffia, L. idus, and L. leuciscus (Mesquita et al 2003;Barinova et al 2004;Larno et al 2005;Vyskocilova et al 2007;Muenzel et al 2008;Dubut et al 2009;Boto et al 2011). Furthermore previous studies pointed out the usefulness of cross-species amplification of microsatellites in Cyprinidae to establish markers for population genetics studies (Muenzel et al 2008;Dubut et al 2010).…”

Two multiplexed sets of 21 and 18 microsatellites for Phoxinus phoxinus (L.) and Gobio gobio (L.) developed by cross-species amplification

“…To identify amplifiable loci, 56 published primer sets developed for Cyprinidae species were tested: BL1-2b, BL1-30, BL1-36, BL1-44, BL1-61, BL1-84, BL1-98, BL1-153, BL1-158, BL1-T2 and BL2-114 (Dubut et al 2009a(Dubut et al , 2012; Ca1 and Ca3 (Dimsoski et al 2000); CnaB-030, CnaD-112, CnaF-177, CtoA-254, CtoE-249, CtoF-172, CtoG-075 and CtoG-216 (Dubut et al 2010); CypG9, CypG24 and CypG30 (Baerwald and May 2004); IV04 (Salgueiro et al 2003); LC27 (Vyskočilová et al 2007); LceC1 and LceA149 (Larno et al 2005); LleA-029, LleA-071, LleA-131, LleA-150, LleA-191, LleB-048, LleB-071, LleB-072, LleC-049, LleC-090 andLleC-184 (Dubut et al 2009b, 2010); Lco1, Lco3 and Lco5 (Turner et al 2004); Lid8 and Rru4 (Barinova et al 2004); Lsou5, Lsou8, Lsou10, Lsou19, Lsou29 and Lsou34 (Muenzel et al 2007); MFW1 (Crooijmans et al 1997); N7K4 (Mesquita et al 2003); Ppro132 (Bessert and Ortí 2003); Rhca20 (Girard and Angers 2006); Rser10 (Dawson et al 2003); and Z21908 (Shimoda et al 1999). …”

“…However, only 10 loci were selected for G. gobio. Therefore, 12 additional primers pairs for loci previously detected as polymorphic for G. gobio (Holmen et al 2005;Vyskočilová et al 2007;Hamilton and Tyler 2008) were tested: Ca13 and Ca14 (Dimsoski et al 2000); LC293 (Vyskočilová et al 2007); Lco4 (Turner et al 2004); Lid1 ( Barinova et al 2004); and Z1206, Z6804, Z8249, Z10362, Z11841, Z14008 and Z15401 (Shimoda et al 1999). These 12 markers were tested on G. gobio, permitting the selection of three additional loci using the protocols and criteria described above.…”

Untitled

“…10pairs of microsatellite primers, CypG3, CypG24, CypG27, CypG30 (Baerwald& May, 2004), Rru2, Rru4, Lid1 (Barinova, Yadrenkina, Nakajima, & Taniguchi, 2004), Z21908 (ZFIN, 2003, Ca1 and Ca3 (Dimsoski, Toth, & Bagley, 2000) (Table 1),were selected to investigate the genetic diversity between R. kutum populations based on the studies by Hamilton and Tayler (2008)and Rezaei et al (2011).PCR reactions were performed using a thermal cycler system (Bio-RAD MJ Mini Thermal Cycler, USA) with a reaction volume of 12.5 μl. The thermal cycling conditions were as follows: 3 min at 94 0 C, followed by 35 cycles of 30 s at the annealing temperatures given in Table 1, 1 min at 72 0 C and 3 min at 72 0 C (Rezaei et al, 2011).…”