| Literature DB >> 28095487 |
M E Maggia1, Y Vigouroux1, J F Renno2,3, F Duponchelle2,3, E Desmarais4, J Nunez2,3, C García-Dávila3,5, F M Carvajal-Vallejos6, E Paradis4, J F Martin7, C Mariac1.
Abstract
Tropical rainforests harbor extraordinary biodiversity. The Amazon basin is thought to hold 30% of all river fish species in the world. Information about the ecology, reproduction, and recruitment of most species is still lacking, thus hampering fisheries management and successful conservation strategies. One of the key understudied issues in the study of population dynamics is recruitment. Fish larval ecology in tropical biomes is still in its infancy owing to identification difficulties. Molecular techniques are very promising tools for the identification of larvae at the species level. However, one of their limits is obtaining individual sequences with large samples of larvae. To facilitate this task, we developed a new method based on the massive parallel sequencing capability of next generation sequencing (NGS) coupled with hybridization capture. We focused on the mitochondrial marker cytochrome oxidase I (COI). The results obtained using the new method were compared with individual larval sequencing. We validated the ability of the method to identify Amazonian catfish larvae at the species level and to estimate the relative abundance of species in batches of larvae. Finally, we applied the method and provided evidence for strong temporal variation in reproductive activity of catfish species in the Ucayalí River in the Peruvian Amazon. This new time and cost effective method enables the acquisition of large datasets, paving the way for a finer understanding of reproductive dynamics and recruitment patterns of tropical fish species, with major implications for fisheries management and conservation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28095487 PMCID: PMC5241143 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Neighbor joining tree built with 89 sequences of Pimelodidae species.
The 89 sequences correspond to all the individuals present in our database, and the tree was built according to the Tamura-Nei model. Stars identify the four species used for the production of PCR probes, and the color bars show the proportions of each species in the two samples produced using the two sequencing methods.
Data on the alignment of the COI sequences for the Napo and Maranon samples.
The table summarizes the results and estimated frequencies of each species identified using next generation sequencing (NGS) and the Sanger approach. For the next generation approaches, a "Mock" was prepared with equimolar DNA from each larva and a "Bulk" with DNA extracted from a batch of larvae. The number of reads, the percentage of mismatches, the percentage of base coverage, the average coverage depth, maximum coverage and estimated frequency are given for each species. For the Sanger approach (Nap-S, Mar-S), the number of individuals sequenced and the frequency of the species is given. Species are denoted including the family name “Family_Genus_species”. When coverage was considered low (below 60%), the data are underlined and the identification is only given at the genus level (denoted Family_Genus_(species)_spX).
| Number of reads | Mismatch (%) | Bases with coverage (%) | Average coverage depth | Maximum coverage depth | Estimated frequency (%) | Individuals | Frequency (%) | Number of reads | Mismatch (%) | Bases with coverage (%) | Average coverage depth | Maximum coverage depth | Estimated frequency (%) | |
| Pimelodidae | 1,128 | 0.2 | 99.3 | 234.4 | 718.0 | 56.1 | 41 | 62.1 | 1,933 | 0.3 | 99.3 | 401.8 | 1,204.0 | 80.5 |
| Pimelodidae | 123 | 0.2 | 97.5 | 24.8 | 85.0 | 6.1 | 5 | 7.6 | 84 | 0.2 | 97.7 | 17.3 | 54.0 | 3.5 |
| Pimelodidae | 277 | 0.1 | 98.7 | 58.7 | 108.0 | 13.8 | 1 | 1.5 | 5 | 0.1 | 37.2 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 0.2 |
| Pimelodidae | 76 | 0.1 | 100.0 | 16.0 | 37.0 | 3.8 | 7 | 10.6 | 76 | 0.1 | 96.5 | 16.0 | 35.0 | 3.2 |
| Pimelodidae | 8 | 0.1 | 67.0 | 1.7 | 5.0 | 0.4 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Pimelodidae | 38 | 0.4 | 73.9 | 8.0 | 27.0 | 1.9 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Pimelodidae | 17 | 0.0 | 3.4 | 16.0 | 0.8 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Pimelodidae | 21 | 0.2 | 85.0 | 4.7 | 10.0 | 1.0 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Pimelodidae | 6 | 0.1 | 1.3 | 6.0 | 0.3 | 1 | 1.5 | 7 | 0.1 | 1.4 | 6.0 | 0.3 | ||
| Pimelodidae | 1 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Pimelodidae | 317 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 71.1 | 114.0 | 15.8 | 6 | 9.1 | 18 | 0.2 | 98.0 | 3.9 | 9.0 | 0.7 |
| Pimelodidae | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 215 | 0.2 | 98.7 | 45.2 | 89.0 | 9.0 | ||||
| Pimelodidae | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 44 | 0.3 | 81.6 | 9.1 | 22.0 | 1.8 | ||||
| Pimelodidae | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0.5 | 65.5 | 2.1 | 6.0 | 0.4 | ||||
| Cetopsidae | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 10 | 0.3 | 68.2 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 0.4 | ||||
| TOTAL | 2,012 | 100.0 | 66 | 100.0 | 2,402 | 100.0 | ||||||||
| Number of reads | Mismatch (%) | Bases with coverage (%) | Average coverage depth | Maximum coverage depth | Estimated frequency (%) | Individuals | Frequency (%) | Number of reads | Mismatch (%) | Bases with coverage (%) | Average coverage depth | Maximum coverage depth | Estimated frequency (%) | |
| Pimelodidae | 1,551 | 0.2 | 99.3 | 322.8 | 851.0 | 45.5 | 44 | 43.1 | 2,132 | 0.2 | 99.3 | 441.7 | 1,483.0 | 37.3 |
| Pimelodidae | 1,009 | 0.5 | 98.8 | 211.1 | 635.0 | 29.6 | 37 | 36.3 | 1,691 | 0.5 | 98.8 | 351.0 | 1,137.0 | 29.6 |
| Pimelodidae | 164 | 0.1 | 100.0 | 34.5 | 83.0 | 4.8 | 9 | 8.8 | 76 | 0.1 | 87.3 | 16.0 | 36.0 | 1.3 |
| Pimelodidae | 107 | 0.1 | 98.8 | 21.9 | 64.0 | 3.1 | 3 | 2.9 | 91 | 0.1 | 94.0 | 18.3 | 80.0 | 1.6 |
| Pimelodidae | 131 | 0.3 | 93.4 | 26.9 | 76.0 | 3.8 | 3 | 2.9 | 80 | 0.3 | 100.0 | 16.4 | 58.0 | 1.4 |
| Pimelodidae | 305 | 0.1 | 98.8 | 63.9 | 103.0 | 8.9 | 2 | 2.0 | 752 | 0.1 | 98.8 | 158.7 | 237.0 | 13.2 |
| Pimelodidae | 34 | 0.0 | 74.3 | 7.2 | 22.0 | 1.0 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Pimelodidae | 7 | 0.1 | 1.5 | 7.0 | 0.2 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Pimelodidae | 63 | 0.1 | 94.6 | 13.3 | 26.0 | 1.9 | 1 | 1.0 | 8 | 0.2 | 35.9 | 1.7 | 8.0 | 0.1 |
| Pimelodidae | 13 | 0.2 | 74.8 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 0.4 | 1 | 1.0 | 53 | 0.1 | 90.1 | 12.4 | 22.0 | 0.9 |
| Pimelodidae | 27 | 0.3 | 76.8 | 5.8 | 13.0 | 0.8 | 0 | 0.0 | 656 | 0.2 | 98.8 | 137.9 | 230.0 | 11.5 |
| Pimelodidae | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 173 | 0.6 | 99.3 | 35.6 | 101.0 | 3.0 | ||||
| Pimelodidae | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.7 | 22.5 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| TOTAL | 3,411 | 100.0 | 102 | 100.0 | 5,713 | 100.0 | ||||||||
Fig 2Validation of estimated species frequencies.
Correlation between frequencies of species as a function of the sequencing method. The frequencies estimated with the Sanger method and the frequencies estimated with the Mock-NGS and Bulk-NGS methods from the Napo and Maranon samples were correlated.
Fig 3Changes in water flow and in specific richness over time.
Flow and specific richness were compared in the Ucayalí River in March and October 2014. Flow values came from records at the Requena site (id 10074800) on the Ucayalí River. Flow data were provided by the SO-HYBAM (Observation Service—Geodynamical, hydrological and biogeochemical control of erosion/alteration and material transport in the Amazon basin) and SENAMHI (Servicio Nacional de Meteoloría e Hidrología), Peru.