| Literature DB >> 28045054 |
David Cordero1, Marina Delgado2, Baozhong Liu3, Jennifer Ruesink4, Carlos Saavedra1.
Abstract
Globally, the Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) stands as the second most important bivalve species in fisheries and aquaculture. Native to the Pacific coast of Asia, it is now well-established in North America and Europe, where its on-going management reflects local economic interests. The historic record of transfers spans the 20th century and suggests sequential movement from Japan to North America, as a hitch-hiker on oysters, and then intentional introduction in Europe, but global genetic data are missing. We have studied mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite markers in nine populations from Asia, North America and Europe. The results from the two types of markers indicated a good concordance of present-day genetic structure with the reported history of clam transfers across continents, and no evidence of relevant concealed introductions from continental Asia in Europe and North America. However, European populations showed a loss of genetic variability and significant genetic differentiation as compared to their American counterparts. Our study shows that in spite of the increasing ease for species to spread out of their native range, in the case of the Manila clam this has not resulted in new invasion waves in the two studied continents.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28045054 PMCID: PMC5206634 DOI: 10.1038/srep39745
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Variability at the mitochondrial COI locus in Manila clam populations.
(A) Frequencies of the COI clades A, B and C in populations, based on the data obtained previously3336 and in this study. The names of the populations sampled for this study are shown in all-capitals. The sizes of the diagrams are proportional to the number of individuals analyzed. Green arrows indicate the dates and directions of the introduction of the species in North America and Europe. Sampling localities were as follows: CHI-N, Qingdao (China), 36°06′N, 120°13′E; CHI-S, Shenzhen (China), 22°30′N, 114°00′E; EUR-1, Po Delta (Italy), 44°51′N, 12°21′E; EUR-2, Ebro Delta (Spain), 40°46′N, 0°45′E; EUR-3, Ria de Arousa (Spain), 42°38′N, 8°45′W; EUR-4, Ria de Vigo (Spain), 42°19′N, 8°37′W; JAP, Aichi Prefecture (Japan), 34°38′N, 136°53′E; NAM-1, Willapa Bay (USA), 46° 33′N, 123°59′W; NAM-2, Hood Canal (USA), 47°38′N, 122°51′W. (B) Phylogenetic network obtained by the median-joining algorithm67 showing the evolutionary relationships between the COI sequences found in this study and in previous studies3336. The size of each circle is proportional to the total haplotype frequency. The colors of the sectors represent the frequency of the haplotype in each of the four regions studied. Red dots represent hypothetical sequences that have disappeared or have not been sampled. A red star marks a haplotype that appeared in relatively high frequency in Europe only. (C) Pie charts showing the distribution of COI haplotypes in American (boxed) and Japanese populations. Private alleles were pooled in each population. The localities that were the sources of oyster imports in N. America in the 20th century are shown in red dots, and the time periods in which the documented importations took place are given in parentheses. . Pie charts were drawn with Microsoft Excel. Maps were modified with Adobe Illustrator 14.0.0 and Adobe Photoshop Extended 11.0.2.
Figure 2Genetic variability in Manila clam populations.
(a) Nucleotide diversity estimated from the whole set of COI sequences (grey bars), and from the clade A sequences only (white bars). Lack of a white bar in some populations indicates the absence of clade A, not zero diversity. The averages across populations are shown as a horizontal thick line (all clades) or a dashed one (clade A). (b) Heterozygosity at microsatellites. The horizontal black line shows the average across populations. (c) Allelic richness at microsatellites. In all figures, alternate white and gray backgrounds separate groups of populations belonging to different geographic regions (China, Japan, North America, Europe).
Pairwise F values based on microsatellite data (above diagonal) and on COI haplotype frequencies (below diagonal).
| CHI-N | CHI-S | JAP | NAM-1 | NAM-2 | EUR-1 | EUR-2 | EUR-3 | EUR-4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI-N | 0 | ||||||||
| CHI-S | 0 | ||||||||
| JAP | 0 | ||||||||
| NAM-1 | 0 | −0.002 | 0.007 | 0.003 | 0.005 | 0.002 | |||
| NAM-2 | 0.005 | 0 | 0.003 | ||||||
| EUR-1 | 0 | −0.007 | −0.001 | −0.002 | |||||
| EUR-2 | 0.021 | 0.000 | 0 | −0.001 | −4.8E-04 | ||||
| EUR-3 | 0.047 | 0.023 | 0 | −0.003 | |||||
| EUR-4 | 0.031 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0 |
Statistically significant (P < 0.05) values appear in bold, and those significant after applying Bonferroni correction are underlined.
Results of F-statistics and hierarchical F-statistics analysis for models of two and four regions for COI and microsatellites.
| Microsatellites (9 populations) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 0.109 | 0.045 | ||||
| China | 0.063 | 0.015 | ||||
| Japan | 0.041 | — | ||||
| America | 0.005 | 0.001 | ||||
| Europe | 0.034 | 0.001 | ||||
| China-Japan | 0.057 | 0.081 | 0.026 | −0.003 | 0.028 | 0.031 |
| China-America | 0.054 | 0.127 | 0.077 | 0.008 | 0.091 | 0.084 |
| China-Europe | 0.056 | 0.181 | 0.132 | 0.004 | 0.093 | 0.089 |
| Japan-America | 0.033 | 0.065 | 0.033 | 0.001 | 0.028 | 0.028 |
| Japan-Europe | 0.043 | 0.120 | 0.081 | 0.001 | 0.040 | 0.040 |
| America-Europe | 0.024 | 0.115 | 0.093 | 0.001 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| China-Japan-America-Europe | 0.049 | 0.126 | 0.081 | 0.004 | 0.057 | 0.054 |
*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.
Estimates of the mean private alleles richness per locus (A ), computed by the extended rarefaction method78.
| Populations | |
| CHI-N | 0.567 ± 0.32 |
| CHI-S | 0.041 ± 0.03 |
| JAP | 0.565 ± 0.21 |
| NAM-1 | 0.750 ± 0.27 |
| NAM-2 | 0.388 ± 0.23 |
| EUR-1 | 0.023 ± 0.02 |
| EUR-2 | 0.098 ± 0.05 |
| EUR-3 | 0.010 ± 0.01 |
| EUR-4 | 0.234 ± 0.12 |
| Regions | |
| China | 1.21 ± 0.26 |
| Japan | 1.14 ± 0.32 |
| America | 1.43 ± 0.50 |
| Europe | 0.60 ± 0.22 |
Standardized sample sizes of 62 and 72 individuals were used, respectively, for populations and regions.
Figure 3Neighbour joining tree showing the relationships among the 9 populations of Manila clam based on Nei’s D distance estimated from allele frequencies at 7 microsatellite loci.
Bootstrap proportions obtained from 10,000 replications are shown above branches.
Figure 4Bayesian model-based cluster analysis of individual genotypes at 7 microsatellite markers in 9 populations of Manila clam.
Estimated membership fractions for each individual and population are shown for K = 2, K = 3 and K = 4 clusters. Membership fractions corresponding to each cluster in each population for K = 4 are given below the chart, with the most common cluster marked in bold. For K = 4, clusters 1, 2, 3 and 4 are shown in pink, green, purple and blue, respectively.
Results of assignment tests using the algorithm of Paetkau et al. 52.
| Population | Proportion of individuals assigned to populations | Proportion assigned to regions | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI-N | CHI-S | JAP | NAM-1 | NAM-2 | EUR-1 | EUR-2 | EUR-3 | EUR-4 | China | Japan | America | Europe | |
| CHI-N | 0.68 | 0.18 | 0.09 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.84 | 0.16 | — | — |
| CHI-S | 0.16 | 0.73 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.02 | — | — | — | — | 0.86 | 0.05 | 0.09 | — |
| JAP | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.72 | 0.13 | — | — | — | — | — | 0.09 | 0.80 | 0.09 | 0.02 |
| NAM-1 | — | — | 0.06 | 0.82 | 0.03 | — | — | — | 0.03 | — | 0.06 | 0.88 | 0.03 |
| NAM-2 | — | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.23 | 0.63 | — | 0.03 | 0.03 | — | 0.03 | — | 0.91 | 0.06 |
| EUR-1 | — | — | — | 0.24 | 0.11 | 0.45 | — | 0.16 | 0.05 | — | — | 0.42 | 0.58 |
| EUR-2 | 0.02 | — | 0.02 | 0.34 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.24 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.52 | 0.44 |
| EUR-3 | — | — | 0.03 | 0.25 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.50 | 0.05 | — | 0.03 | 0.38 | 0.60 |
| EUR-4 | 0.02 | — | — | 0.27 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.38 | 0.02 | — | 0.42 | 0.56 |
Proportions of individuals in a population assigned with maximum probability to each population and region are given.