| Literature DB >> 21731689 |
Allen Benziger1, Siby Philip, Rajeev Raghavan, Palakkaparambil Hamsa Anvar Ali, Mithun Sukumaran, Josin C Tharian, Neelesh Dahanukar, Fibin Baby, Reynold Peter, Karunakaran Rema Devi, Kizhakke Veetil Radhakrishnan, Mohamed Abdulkather Haniffa, Ralf Britz, Agostinho Antunes.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Malabar snakehead Channa diplogramma is one of the most enigmatic and least understood species within the family Channidae, which comprise one of the most important groups of freshwater food fish in tropical Asia. Since its description from peninsular India in 1865, it has remained a taxonomic puzzle with many researchers questioning its validity, based on its striking similarity with the South East Asian C. micropeltes. In this study, we assessed the identity of the Malabar snakehead, C. diplogramma, using morphological and molecular genetic analyses, and also evaluated its phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary biogeography. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21731689 PMCID: PMC3123301 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021272
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Map showing the distribution range of Channa diplogramma and Channa micropeltes.
Figure 2Types specimen examined in the study.
A) Channa diplogramma (BMNH 1865.7.17.24) B) C. micropeltes (RMNH D2318).
Morphometric characters of Channa diplogramma and C. micropeltes.
|
|
| |||
| Range | Mean (sd) | Range | Mean (sd) | |
|
| 107.24 (589.19) | 312.45 (184.96) | 338.93–654.93 | 502.30 (128.83) |
|
| 85.40 (479.15) | 251.65 (151.66) | 290.87–564.22 | 415.14 (120.11) |
|
| ||||
|
| 25.03 (35.37) | 32.12 (2.82) | 32.23–39.39 | 35.28 (2.64) |
|
| 31.47 (38.75) | 35.04 (2.53) | 30.50–37.57 | 33.25 (2.63) |
|
| 30.98 (38.77) | 34.73 (3.26) | 31.54–38.66 | 34.03 (3.06) |
|
| 31.88 (42.16) | 36.93 (3.41) | 34.28–41.97 | 37.01 (2.91) |
|
| 49.86 (60.25) | 55.66 (3.42) | 46.68–57.08 | 50.64 (3.88) |
|
| 14.16 (25.61) | 19.48 (3.92) | 22.54–26.58 | 24.35 (1.68) |
|
| ||||
|
| 77.14 (81.91) | 79.95 (1.48) | 72.42–86.15 | 82.29 (5.68) |
|
| 20.36 (27.34) | 25.66 (1.99) | 27.76–30.21 | 28.93 (0.93) |
|
| 25.59 (30.86) | 27.98 (1.61) | 26.28–28.03 | 27.25 (0.64) |
|
| 25.13 (30.87) | 27.73 (2.23) | 26.66–30.52 | 27.89 (1.55) |
|
| 25.93 (32.52) | 29.49 (2.28) | 28.38–31.29 | 30.34 (1.17) |
|
| 40.55 (47.98) | 44.47 (2.23) | 40.06–43.64 | 41.51 (1.31) |
|
| 11.27 (20.76) | 15.60 (3.29) | 17.62–22.40 | 20.05 (2.05) |
*P<0.05.
*P<0.01.
Meristic characters of Channa diplogramma and C. micropeltes.
|
|
| |||
| Range | Mean (sd) | Range | Mean (sd) | |
|
| 43–44 | 43.20 (0.42) | 43–44 | 43.40 (0.55) |
|
| 17 | 17.00 (0.00) | 16–17 | 16.60 (0.55) |
|
| 6 | 6.00 (0.00) | 6 | 6.00 (0.00) |
|
| 26–28 | 27.50 (0.71) | 27–29 | 28.00 (0.71) |
|
| 15–17 | 15.30 (0.67) | 14 | 14.00 (0.00) |
|
| 103–105 | 104.20 (0.79) | 86 | 86.00 (0.00) |
|
| 16–20 | 17.80 (1.55) | 23–25 | 24.20 (0.84) |
|
| 30–31 | 30.60 (0.52) | 18–39 | 30.60 (10.26) |
|
| 53–54 | 53.60 (0.52) | 57 | 57.00 (0.00) |
*P<0.0001.
one sample t test.
Figure 3Principle Component Analysis of morphometric and meristic characters of Channa diplogramma and C. micropeltes.
Figure 4Ontogenetic color phases of Channa diplogramma.
A: Fingerling; B: Fingerling, C: Juvenile, D: Juvenile, E: Sub-Adult, F: Sub-Adult, G: Adult, H: Adult (length in millimeters is given as a scale below each specimen); all individuals were collected from the river Meenachil in Kerala, India.
Figure 5Phylogram showing the relationships of the channids used in this study rooted with Notopterus notopterus (AP008925.1).
The nodes for which the divergence time is presented in tables 3 and 4 are labeled as A through H below the branches; the mean time intervals of divergence calculated by the two calibration methods are represented as rectangular bars on the nodes.
Results of divergence time estimation in million years for the various nodes of the phylogenetic tree presented in Figure 5 the calibration point at node X was the earliest channid fossil age from Eocene (∼50 MYA; [51]).
| Node | LMRD | GMRD | NPRS | NPRS-Log | Mean divergence time |
|
| 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 |
|
| 40.49 | 41.72 | 43.35 | 40.25 | 41.425 |
|
| 24.09 | 24.04 | 28.27 | 21.56 | 24.49 |
|
| 7.77 | 8.5 | 13.9 | 7.914 | 9.52 |
|
| 19.19 | 19.74 | 24.14 | 17.67 | 20.185 |
|
| 5.317 | 6.349 | 9.26 | 5.301 | 6.556 |
|
| 38.1 | 37.63 | 40.27 | 36.32 | 38.08 |
|
| 10.65 | 13.64 | 22.42 | 11.13 | 14.46 |
|
| 5.633 | 8.866 | 16.67 | 6.781 | 9.4875 |
*calibration node.
Results of divergence time estimation in million years for the various nodes of the phylogenetic tree presented in Figure 5 the calibration point at node one was the split between Parachanna and Channa calculated by Li et al., (110-84 MYA) [48].
| Node | LMRD | GMRD | NPRS | NPRS-Log | Mean divergence time |
|
| 120 | 116.2 | 115.2 | 120.6 | 118 |
|
| 110-84 | 110-84 | 110-84 | 110-84 | 110-84 |
|
| 56.29 | 55.86 | 62.19 | 52.20 | 56.64 |
|
| 17.68 | 19.76 | 30.34 | 19.25 | 21.76 |
|
| 44.44 | 45.88 | 52.96 | 42.78 | 46.52 |
|
| 12.25 | 14.76 | 20.17 | 12.84 | 15.00 |
|
| 91.01 | 87.44 | 89.79 | 87.63 | 88.97 |
|
| 24.68 | 31.72 | 49.66 | 26.82 | 32.22 |
|
| 12.85 | 20.61 | 36.87 | 16.33 | 21.67 |
*Calibration node.