| Literature DB >> 24977703 |
Giorgio Aglieri1, Chiara Papetti2, Lorenzo Zane3, Giacomo Milisenda1, Ferdinando Boero4, Stefano Piraino1.
Abstract
Genetic drift and non-random mating seldom influence species with large breeding populations and high dispersal potential, characterized by unstructured gene pool and panmixia at a scale lower than the minimum dispersal range of individuals. In the present study, a set of nine microsatellite markers was developed and used to investigate the spatio-temporal genetic patterns of the holoplanktonic jellyfish Pelagia noctiluca (Scyphozoa) in the Southern Tyrrhenian Sea. Homozygote excess was detected at eight loci, and individuals exhibited intra-population relatedness higher than expected by chance in at least three samples. This result was supported by the presence of siblings in at least 5 out 8 samples, 4 of which contained full-sib in addition to half-sib dyads. Having tested and ruled out alternative explanations as null alleles, our results suggest the influence of reproductive and behavioural features in shaping the genetic structure of P. noctiluca, as outcomes of population genetics analyses pointed out. Indeed, the genetic differentiation among populations was globally small but highlighted: a) a spatial genetic patchiness uncorrelated with distance between sampling locations, and b) a significant genetic heterogeneity between samples collected in the same locations in different years. Therefore, despite its extreme dispersal potential, P. noctiluca does not maintain a single homogenous population, but rather these jellyfish appear to have intra-bloom localized recruitment and/or individual cohesiveness, whereby siblings more likely swarm together as a single group and remain close after spawning events. These findings provide the first evidence of family structures and consequent genetic patchiness in a species with highly dispersive potential throughout its whole life cycle, contributing to understanding the patterns of dispersal and connectivity in marine environments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24977703 PMCID: PMC4076186 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099647
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Map of the study locations.
Squares indicate locations for which temporal replicates are available; circles indicate location without temporal replicates.
Pelagia noctiluca sampling information.
| Sampling Site | Sampling Year | Abbreviation | N | Co-ordinates |
| Northern Adriatic Sea | 2006 | NAD06 | 52 | 44°23′N, 14°44′E |
| Ustica Island | 2010 | UST10 | 43 | 38°41′N, 13°10′E |
| Ustica Island | 2011 | UST11 | 36 | 38°41′N, 13°10′E |
| Ustica Island | 2012 | UST12 | 24 | 38°41′N, 13°10′E |
| Ischia Island | 2010 | ISC10 | 13 | 40°44′N, 13°56′E |
| Lipari Island | 2011 | LIP11 | 53 | 38°28′N, 14°57′E |
| Messina Strait | 2011 | MES11 | 14 | 38°13′N, 15°38′E |
| Messina Strait | 2012 | MES12 | 24 | 38°13′N, 15°38′E |
The table displays sampling sites and collection years, the population sample acronym, the number of individuals and the sampling coordinates.
General information about microsatellite markers in Pelagia noctiluca.
| Locus | Repeat Motif | Genbank Acc. No. | Primers sequence (5′-3′) | Size Range (bp.) | Primer label | Multiplex Panel | T Annealing (°C) |
|
| (TCA)8 | KF896613 |
| 117–135 | 6-FAM | 1 | 57 |
|
| (CT)10 | KF896614 |
| 179–229 | 6-FAM | 1 | 57 |
|
| (CA)12 | KF896615 |
| 261–319 | 6-FAM | 1 | 57 |
|
| (AAC)7 | KF896616 |
| 158–191 | VIC | 1 | 57 |
|
| (TGT)9 | KF896617 |
| 139–169 | 6-FAM | 2 | 57 |
|
| (TTG)8 | KF896618 |
| 202–256 | 6-FAM | 2 | 57 |
|
| (CT)8 | KF896619 |
| 301–385 | 6-FAM | 2 | 57 |
|
| (TGT)7 | KF896620 |
| 206–239 | VIC | 2 | 57 |
|
| (TTG)8 | KF896621 |
| 126–150 | NED | 2 | 57 |
For each locus, the upper sequence refers to the forward primer, the lower sequence refers to the reverse primer.
Label at the 5′– end of the forward primers.
Loci showing the same number were amplified together in the same multiplex PCR.
Summary of genetic variability for all Pelagia noctiluca samples.
| Locus | Population | |||||||||||||||
| ISC10 | UST10 | LIP11 | MES11 | |||||||||||||
| NA | Ho | He | HWE | NA | Ho | He | HWE | NA | Ho | He | HWE | NA | Ho | He | HWE | |
|
| 2 | 0.153 | 0.270 | 0.234 | 4 | 0.186 | 0.175 | 1.000 | 4 | 0.264 | 0.269 | 0.730 | 3 | 0.143 | 0.140 | 1.000 |
|
| 7 | 0.700 | 0.847 | 0.329 | 7 | 0.317 | 0.671 |
| 14 | 0.489 | 0.833 |
| 6 | 0.429 | 0.724 |
|
|
| 11 | 0.615 | 0.886 |
| 16 | 0.534 | 0.894 |
| 15 | 0.585 | 0.877 |
| 9 | 0.714 | 0.843 | 0.149 |
|
| 4 | 0.333 | 0.634 |
| 4 | 0.405 | 0.524 |
| 6 | 0.283 | 0.537 |
| 3 | 0.429 | 0.442 | 1.000 |
|
| 5 | 0.692 | 0.796 | 0.169 | 7 | 0.400 | 0.814 |
| 9 | 0.547 | 0.800 |
| 6 | 0.714 | 0.767 | 0.558 |
|
| 4 | 0.307 | 0.396 | 0.526 | 6 | 0.286 | 0.427 |
| 8 | 0.377 | 0.515 | 0.034 | 6 | 0.429 | 0.487 | 0.622 |
|
| 9 | 0.615 | 0.880 | 0.089 | 15 | 0.524 | 0.852 |
| 18 | 0.472 | 0.880 |
| 10 | 0.538 | 0.883 |
|
|
| 5 | 0.692 | 0.646 | 0.647 | 7 | 0.511 | 0.617 | 0.187 | 7 | 0.528 | 0.589 | 0.030 | 6 | 0.571 | 0.653 | 0.165 |
|
| 6 | 0.818 | 0.749 | 0.182 | 8 | 0.767 | 0.675 | 0.951 | 8 | 0.529 | 0.751 |
| 6 | 0.857 | 0.807 | 0.926 |
Eight sampling sites at nine microsatellite loci are described, including total number of alleles (NA), observed (Ho), expected heterozygosity (He) and probabilities of deviation from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE).
Values in bold indicate significant HWE deviations (α = 0.05).
FIS values calculated with and without null alleles correction.
| FIS Estimates | ||||
| Locus | Uncorrected | 95% C.I. | Corrected | 95% C.I. |
|
| 0.317 | −0.008 | ||
|
| 0.428 | 0.091 | ||
|
| 0.318 | 0.112 | ||
|
| 0.310 | 0.122 | ||
|
| 0.380 | 0.040 | ||
|
| 0.201 | 0.100 | ||
|
| 0.414 | 0.149 | ||
|
| 0.069 | n.e. | ||
|
| 0.150 | 0.051 | ||
|
|
| 0.214–0.371 |
| 0.058–0.113 |
Locus by locus and over all loci FIS values were calculated for the original and the corrected dataset after Microchecker v. 2.2.3 analysis.
n.e.: Not evaluated due to HWE and no changes in the corrected dataset.
Relatedness index p-values after Monte Carlo simulation testing.
| A | |||||||
| POP | UST10 | UST11 | UST12 | ISC10 | LIP11 | MES11 | MES12 |
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
| 0.936 | |||||
|
| 0.989 | 0.720 | 0.204 | ||||
|
| 0.232 | 0.399 | 0.555 | 0.541 | |||
|
| 0.189 | 0.752 | 0.992 |
| 0.748 | ||
|
| 0.541 | 0.972 | 0.985 | 0.216 | 0.978 |
| |
|
| 0.433 | 0.818 |
| 0.761 | 0.995 | 0.889 |
|
Probability that relatedness index (r) could be higher than observed within the population samples pairs. A: Taking into account the presence of null alleles; B: Not considering null alleles. Intra-population comparisons are in diagonals. Significant values are in bold. All relatedness values are reported in Tables S3 and S4.
Frequencies of Half Sib and Full Sib dyads estimated by A) ML-Relate and B) Colony.
| A | ||||
| Populations | Frequencies | |||
| HS _NNA | HS_NA | FS_NNA | FS_NA | |
|
| 0.03619 | 0.02488 | 0.00150 | 0,00301 |
|
| 0.01357 | 0.01432 | 0.00226 | 0,00226 |
|
| 0.01131 | 0.00980 | 0.00000 | 0,00075 |
|
| 0.00000 | 0.00075 | 0.00075 | 0,00075 |
|
| 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 |
|
| 0.03544 | 0.03544 | 0.00452 | 0,0015 |
|
| 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 |
|
| 0.00377 | 0.00301 | 0.00075 | 0,00075 |
| p-values | 0.3250 | 0.8436 | ||
HS: half-sib dyads; FS: full-sib dyads; NNA: no null alleles accounted for; NA: null alleles accounted for.
In each table, the last row reports the p-values of the t test comparing each category of estimated frequencies (e.g. FS “with nulls” vs. FS “without nulls”).
Figure 2Family structure in four Pelagia noctiluca Mediterranean populations.
The first line of each dendrogram shows the extended sibship networks produced by Colony v. 2.0.4.1. For each population, in this line the squares indicate the number of individuals linked by kinship (directly or indirectly). For example the number “34”indicates that 34 individuals are linked together by kinship. Separate squares refer to individuals with no connections. The second line shows the Full Sib (FS) families nested in the sibship network. Namely, since each network includes all the individuals linked by a certain level of kinship (individuals sharing one or two parents), when any, in the second line the FS individuals (sharing both parents) were reported, specifying the number of families and the respective number of family members (in brackets). For example, the numbers “4(2)” indicate the presence in the upper sibship network of 4 FS families composed by 2 individuals each.
Pairwise FST and respective p-values.
| POP | NAD06 | UST10 | UST11 | UST12 | ISC10 | LIP11 | MES11 | MES12 |
|
| 0.0762 | 0.1211 |
| 0.5771 | 0.1445 | 0.0693 |
| |
|
| 0.0090 | 0.2960 |
| 0.1963 | 0.1943 | 0.0205 |
| |
|
| 0.0079 | 0.0054 | 0.0195 | 0.9893 | 0.9355 | 0.0605 |
| |
|
|
|
| 0.0167 | 0.1719 |
| 0.0019 | 0.9014 | |
|
| 0.0045 | 0.0129 | 0.0000 | 0.0157 | 0.9775 | 0.2471 | 0.0049 | |
|
| 0.0064 | 0.0059 | 0.0000 |
| 0.0000 | 0.1318 |
| |
|
| 0.0192 | 0.0246 | 0.0171 | 0.0488 | 0.0128 | 0.0149 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 0.0000 | 0.0410 |
|
|
FST values for the original uncorrected dataset calculated with Arlequin ver. 3.5.1.3 (Excoffier and Lischer 2010). FST values are reported below the diagonal, while p-values are shown above the diagonal. In bold, significant values, after Bonferroni correction (α = 0.00179).