| Literature DB >> 26147421 |
A'wani Aziz Nurdalila1, Hamidun Bunawan2, Subbiah Vijay Kumar3, Kenneth Francis Rodrigues4, Syarul Nataqain Baharum5.
Abstract
Taxonomic confusion exists within the genus Epinephelus due to the lack of morphological specializations and the overwhelming number of species reported in several studies. The homogenous nature of the morphology has created confusion in the Malaysian Marine fish species Epinephelus fuscoguttatus and Epinephelus hexagonatus. In this study, the partial DNA sequence of the 16S gene and mitochondrial nucleotide sequences of two gene regions, Cytochrome Oxidase Subunit I and III were used to investigate the phylogenetic relationship between them. In the phylogenetic trees, E. fuscoguttatus was monophyletic with E. hexagonatus species and morphology examination shows that no significant differences were found in the morphometric features between these two taxa. This suggests that E. fuscoguttatus is not distinguishable from E. hexagonatus species, and that E. fuscoguttatus have been identified to be E. hexagonatus species is likely attributed to differences in environment and ability to camouflage themselves under certain conditions. Interestingly, this finding was also supported by Principal Component Analysis on Attenuated Total Reflectance-Fourier-transform Infrared (ATR-FTIR) data analysis. Molecular, morphological and meristic characteristics were combined with ATR-FTIR analysis used in this study offer new perspectives in fish species identification. To our knowledge, this is the first report of an extensive genetic population study of E. fuscoguttatus in Malaysia and this understanding will play an important role in informing genetic stock-specific strategies for the management and conservation of this highly valued fish.Entities:
Keywords: 16S; Epinephelus fuscoguttatus; Epinephelus hexagonatus; cytochrome oxidase; species identification
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26147421 PMCID: PMC4519877 DOI: 10.3390/ijms160714884
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1NJ evolutionary of 16S gene. The square shapes represent E. fuscoguttatus, and the round shapes represent E. hexagonatus. Numbers represent grouper cluster. Branches corresponding to partitions reproduced in less than 70% of the bootstrap replicates are collapsed. I–VI represent six unique of haplotypes.
Figure 2Morphology, morphometric and meristic characteristics (A) Epinephelus hexagonatus; (B) Epinephelus fuscoguttatus; (C) Bones of Epinephelus hexagonatus and (D) Bones of Epinephelus fuscoguttatus.
Definitions of morphometric measurements and meristic counts used in this study.
| Characters | Description |
|---|---|
| Total length (TL) | Tip of the lower jaw to the end of caudal fin |
| Fork length (FL) | Tip of the upper jaw to the tail base |
| Standard length (SL) | Tip of the upper jaw to the end of caudal fin |
| Head length (HL) | From the front of the upper lip to the posterior end of the opercular |
| Caudal fin length (CFL) | From tail base to tip of the caudal fin |
| Dorsal fin length (DFL) | Front of the upper lip to the origin of the dorsal fin |
| Pectoral fin length (PFL) | From base to tip of the pectoral fin |
| Anal fin length (AFL) | Front of the upper lip to the origin of the anal fin |
| Mouth length (ML) | Straight line measurement between the snout tip and posterior |
| Snout length (SnL) | The front of the upper lip to the flesh anterior edge of the orbit |
| Body width length (BwL) | The greatest width just posterior to the gill opening |
| Pelvic fin ray | Number of soft fin rays in the pelvic fin |
| 1st dorsal fin ray | Number of soft fin rays in 1st dorsal fin |
| 2nd dorsal fin ray | Number of soft fin rays in 2nd dorsal fin |
| Anal fin ray | Number of soft fin rays in anal fin Caudal fin ray |
| Anal fin ray | Number of soft fin rays in anal fin Caudal fin ray |
| Pectoral fin ray | Number of soft fin rays in pectoral fin |
Morphometric and meristic measurements.
| Morphometrics | Meristics | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurements (cm) | Min | Max/Mean | Mean ± SD | TL (%) | Measurement | Range | Mean ± SD | ||||||
| EF | EH | EF | EH | EF | EH | EF | EH | EF | EH | EF | EH | ||
| Total length (TL) | 58 | 58 | 61 | 59 | 59.5 ± 1.13 | 58.5 ± 1.21 | |||||||
| Fork length (FL) | 50.5 | 49.4 | 53.7 | 53.3 | 52.3 ± 1.31 | 51.4 ± 0.89 | 87.8 | 87.8 | Pelvic fin ray | 6 to 7 | 6 to 7 | 6.5 ± 0.53 | 6.5 ± 0.5 |
| Standard length (SL) | 48.3 | 45.2 | 51.7 | 52 | 50.1 ± 1.18 | 48.6 ± 1.03 | 84 | 83.1 | 1st dorsal fin ray | 11 to 12 | 11 to 12 | 11.6 ± 0.52 | 11.5 ± 0.5 |
| Head length (HL) | 14 | 14 | 15.5 | 14.8 | 14.8 ± 0.47 | 14.4 ± 0.58 | 24.9 | 24.6 | 2nd dorsal fin ray | 9 to 13 | 9 to 14 | 11.1 ± 1.73 | 11.5 ± 1.78 |
| Caudal fin length (CFL) | 5.7 | 5.5 | 6.4 | 7.1 | 6.07 ± 0.25 | 6.3 ± 0.31 | 10.2 | 10.8 | Anal fin ray | 7 to 9 | 7 to 8 | 8 ± 0.82 | 7.5 ± 0.73 |
| Dorsal fin length (DFL) | 13.2 | 14.2 | 16.4 | 15.8 | 15.0 ± 1.13 | 15 ± 1.03 | 25.3 | 25.6 | Caudal fin ray | 14 to 15 | 14 to 15 | 14.5 ± 0.53 | 14.5 ± 0.42 |
| Pectoral fin length (PFL) | 8.2 | 8.2 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 8.85 ± 0.43 | 8.85 ± 0.4 | 14.9 | 15.1 | Pectoral fin ray | 18 to 20 | 17 to 20 | 18.8 ± 0.92 | 18.5 ± 1.13 |
| Anal fin length (AFL) | 7.9 | 7.5 | 11.3 | 10.8 | 9.62 ± 1.21 | 9.15 ± 1.33 | 16.1 | 15.6 | |||||
EF: Epinephelus fuscoguttatus; EH: Epinephelus hexagonatus.
Figure 3Two-dimensional plot using the first two principal components. Green cluster represents location from Sabah (A) and blue cluster represents location fromTerengganu (B). Red plot represents E. hexagonatus and black plot represents E. fuscoguttatus.
Functional Group of FTIR Spectrum.
| Functional Group | Spectrum Region (cm−1) | |
|---|---|---|
| Amines | N–H Stretch | 3500–3300 |
| Carboxylic acids | O–H Stretch | 3000–2500 |
| Carboxylic acids | C=O Stretch | 1700–1500 |
| Alkenes | C–H Bend | 1430–1290 |
| Alcohols | C–O | 1260–1000 |
| Amines | N–H Bend | ~800 |