Genetic variability in tench (Tinca tinca L.) as revealed by PCR-RFLP analysis of mitochondrial DNA

Figures & data

Table 1 Description of the populations.

Population	Code	N	Status	Geographical location
Alcantara°	ALC	5	Wild	River Alcantara, Italy
Badajoz	BAD	10	Cultured	Badajoz, Spain
Bolsena°	BOL	21	Wild	Lake Bolsena, Italy
Bracciano	BRA	4	Wild	Lake Bracciano, Italy
China	CHI	10	Cultured	Wuhan, China
Döllnsee	DÖL	10	Wild	Lake Döllnsee, Germany
Felchowsee	FEL	8	Wild	Lake Felchowsee, Germany
Golden	GOL	10	Cultured	Colour variety developed in Vodñany, the Czech Republic
Hungary	HUN	10	Cultured	Hungary, collected at Vodnany live gene bank
Iseo	ISE	3	Wild	Lake Iseo, Italy
Königswartha	KÖW	10	Cultured	Königswartha, Germany
Marianske Lazne	MAL	10	Cultured	Czech Republic, year class 1998
Pianalto°	PIA	57	Cultured	Poirino highland, Italy
Romania	ROM	10	Cultured	Romania, collected at Vodnany live gene bank
Trasimeno°	TRA	9	Wild	Lake Trasimeno, Italy
Turkey	TUR	11	Wild	Lake Sapanca, Turkey
Valagola°	VAL	13	Wild	Lake Valagola, Italy
Velke Mezirici	VEM	10	Cultured	The Czech Republic
Vodñany 1998	VOD	10	Cultured	The Czech Republic, year class 1998

° From Lo Presti et al., 2010a.

Table 2 Approximate fragment size of the restriction morphs observed by digesting 4 mtDNA segments with 7 different endonucleases.

mtDNA segment	ND1						ND6
Endonuclease	Alu I		Hae III	Hinf I		Msp I	Hind III		Hinf I	Msp I	Sau3A I
Restriction morph	A	B	A	A	B	A	A	B	A	A	A
Fragment size, bp			964
	570	570			383	496		576
	317			328	328	346				316	361
				308	308		310		287
		185		226			266		275	260	215
		132		157		177
	74	74
	58	58	55
									14

mtDNA segment	Cyt b				D-loop
Endonuclease	Alu I			Hae III		Hinf I	Sau3A I		Alu I		Ase I		Hae III		Hinf I
Restriction morph	A	B	C	A	B	A	A	B	A	B	A	B	A	B	A
Fragment size (bp)	985		1146	1146	1059
		707				495			634	634	758	659	596	596	568
						480	305	320					402
		278					297	297							375
							224	234	240			270
	161	161					213	225	∼220	119	119
						129					99	132
					87		70		90	90	86	86
						42			34	34	35	35			55
									∼20

Table 3 Composite haplotypes and their overall frequency (P).

Haplotype	ND1	ND6	cyt b	D-loop	P
H1	AAAA	AAAA	AAAA	AAAA	0.498
H2	BABA	BAAA	BAAB	AAAA	0.307
H3	AAAA	AAAA	AAAA	BAAA	0.039
H4	AAAA	AAAA	ABAA	BAAA	0.004
H5	AAAA	AAAA	CAAA	AAAA	0.039
H6	AAAA	AAAA	AAAA	AABA	0.004
H7	BABA	BAAA	BAAB	AABA	0.017
H8	BABA	BAAA	BAAB	ABAA	0.043
H9	BABA	AAAA	BAAB	ABAA	0.048

Figure 1 Neighbour-Joining tree of the composite haplotypes. Only bootstrap values higher than 40% are shown.

Table 4 Within-population variability: haplotype frequency, haplotype (H) and nucleotide (π) diversity (mean value ± standard error).

POP	H1	H2	H3	H4	H5	H6	H7	H8	H9	H ± SE	π ± SE
BAD	-	1.000	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
CHI	-	1.000	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
TUR	-	0.636	-	-	-	-	0.364	-	-	0.509±0.101	0.014±0.014
FEL	0.625	0.125	-	-	-	0.125	-	-	0.125	0.643±0.184	0.078±0.052
KÖW	1.000	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
DÖL	1.000	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
ROM	0.200	0.800	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.356±0.159	0.058±0.040
HUN	-	1.000	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
GOL	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.000	-	-
MAL	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.000	-	-	-
VEM	0.300	0.700	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.467±0.132	0.076±0.049
VOD	-	1.000	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
ALC	0.400	-	0.600	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.600±0.175	0.014±0.015
BRA	1.000	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
BOL	0.762	-	0.238	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.381± 0.101	0.009±0.010
ISE	1.000	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
PIA	0.860	0.140	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.246±0.067	0.028±0.020
TRA	0.778	-	0.111	0.111	-	-	-	-	-	0.417±0.191	0.014±0.014
VAL	0.308	-	-	-	0.692	-	-	-	-	0.462±0.110	0.010±0.011

Table 5 Nucleotide divergence within population (diagonal) and between populations (above the diagonal); significance (*) of the exact test of Raymond and Rousset (1995) for population differentiation (below the diagonal).

	BAD	CHI	TUR	FEL	KOW	DOE	HUN	ROM	GOL	MAL	VEM	VOD	PIA	VAL	BOL	TRA	ALC
BAD	0.00	0.00	0.11	3.43	6.00	6.00	0.00	0.13	2.00	1.00	0.40	0.00	4.42	6.46	6.05	6.03	6.30
CHI	.	0.00	0.11	3.43	6.00	6.00	0.00	0.13	2.00	1.00	0.40	0.00	4.42	6.46	6.05	6.03	6.30
TUR	.	.	0.51	3.45	6.11	6.11	0.11	0.24	2.11	1.11	0.51	0.11	4.53	6.57	6.16	6.14	6.41
FEL	*	*	*	2.89	0.18	0.18	3.43	1.71	3.43	4.18	1.05	3.43	0.10	0.64	0.23	0.21	0.48
KÖW	*	*	*	.	0.00	0.00	6.00	3.73	6.00	7.00	2.80	6.00	0.11	0.46	0.05	0.03	0.30
DöL	*	*	*	.	.	0.00	6.00	3.73	6.00	7.00	2.80	6.00	0.11	0.46	0.05	0.03	0.30
HUN	.	.	.	*	*	*	0.00	0.13	2.00	1.00	0.40	0.00	4.42	6.46	6.05	6.03	6.30
ROM	.	.	.	*	*	*	.	2.13	1.73	1.13	-0.19	0.13	2.49	4.19	3.78	3.76	4.03
GOL	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	0.00	1.00	1.80	2.00	4.70	6.46	6.05	6.03	6.30
MAL	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	0.00	1.40	1.00	5.42	7.46	7.05	7.03	7.30
VEM	.	.	*	*	*	*	.	.	*	*	2.80	0.40	1.73	3.26	2.85	2.83	3.10
VOD	.	.	.	*	*	*	.	.	*	*	.	0.00	4.42	6.46	6.05	6.03	6.30
PIA	*	*	*	*	.	.	*	*	*	*	*	*	1.47	0.57	0.15	0.13	0.41
VAL	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	0.46	0.51	0.49	0.76
BOL	*	*	*	*	.	.	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	0.38	-0.03	0.06
TRA	*	*	*	.	.	.	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	.	0.61	0.06
ALC	*	*	*	.	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	.	.	0.60

Figure 2 Neighbour-Joining tree of 19 tench populations.

Lo PrestiR. GascoL. LisaC. ZoccaratoI. Di StasioL. 2010a PCR-RFLP analysis of mitochondrial DNA in tench (Tinca tinca L.) J. Fish Biol 76 401 407

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

RaymondM. RoussetF. 1995 An exact test for population differentiation Evolution 49 1280 1283

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar