Next Article in Journal
Effects of Radiation Therapy on Neural Stem Cells
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessing Genetic Diversity for a Pre-Breeding Program in Piaractus mesopotamicus by SNPs and SSRs
Previous Article in Journal
The RabGAP Gene Family in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and Wild Relatives: Identification, Interaction Networks, and Transcriptional Analysis during Plant Development and in Response to Salt Stress
Previous Article in Special Issue
Molecular Data Reveal Multiple Lineages in Piranhas of the Genus Pygocentrus (Teleostei, Characiformes)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Genes
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/genes10090639
genes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

DNA Barcoding Reveals High Levels of Divergence among Mitochondrial Lineages of Brycon (Characiformes, Bryconidae)

by
Pábila S. S. Arruda
1,
Daniela C. Ferreira
2,
Claudio Oliveira
3 and
Paulo C. Venere
2,*
1
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Conservação da Biodiversidade, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Avenida Fernando Correia da Costa, 2367, Cuiabá, Mato Grosso 78060-900, Brazil
2
Departamento de Biologia e Zoologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Avenida Fernando Correia da Costa, 2367, Cuiabá, Mato Grosso 78060-900, Brazil
3
Departamento de Morfologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho—UNESP, Rubião Jr S-N, Botucatu, São Paulo 18618-970, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Genes 2019, 10(9), 639; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10090639
Submission received: 30 July 2019 / Revised: 20 August 2019 / Accepted: 21 August 2019 / Published: 23 August 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genetics of Neotropical fishes: Conservation, Management and Evolution)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Brycon is an important group of Neotropical fish and the principal genus of the family Bryconidae, with 44 valid species that are found in some Central American rivers and practically all the major hydrographic basins of South America. These fish are medium to large in size, migratory, omnivorous, important seed dispersers for riparian forests, and bioindicators of environmental quality, given that they are found preferentially in rivers with clean, well oxygenated water. Many Brycon species are important fishery resources and some are farmed. Morphological and molecular studies have nevertheless indicated that the group is not monophyletic and has a number of unresolved taxonomic problems. Given this, the present study aimed to identify the Molecular Operational Taxonomic Units (MOTUs) of the genus using the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) gene, with analyses of genetics distance (NJ), maximum likelihood (ML), and Bayesian Inference (BI), combined with two different species delimitation approaches (GMYC and ABGD). The results indicate that at least 31 MOTUs exist within the 18 species identified a priori based on their morphology. Many of these lineages require further investigation for a more definitive classification.

1. Introduction

The genus Brycon Müller & Troschel, 1844 is one of the most diverse groups of Neotropical fish of the order Characiformes, with 44 valid species [1]. The species of this genus are found to the west of the Andes, in rivers in Peru, Colombia, and Ecuador, and also east of this cordillera, in the basins of the Orinoco, Amazon, Tocantins-Araguaia, Plate, and São Francisco rivers, as well as most of the river systems of the Guianas, and the coastal rivers of eastern Brazil, between the mouth of the São Francisco River and the Paraíba do Sul basin [1,2].
Brycon are medium to large sized fish, with a total length of between 16 cm in B. pesu and 70 cm in B. orbignyanus. In Brazil, these fish have a number of common names, including matrinchã, jatuarana, piabanha, pirapitinga, piracanjuba, and piraputanga, while in English, they are sometimes referred to as South American trout [3,4]. These fish are migratory and are bioindicators of environmental quality, given that they prefer rivers with clean and highly oxygenated water [2,5]. Brycon are also important seed dispersers, but have an omnivorous diet, which includes invertebrates and small vertebrates, in addition to fruit and seeds [2,3,5,6,7].
The taxonomy and phylogeny of Brycon are still poorly defined, and up to now, it has not been possible to identify unique, derived characteristics that define the genus [1]. Given this, the analysis of molecular markers has provided increasingly valuable insights into the evolutionary relationships within the genus. One fundamentally important approach here is the biological identification system based on DNA sequences known as the DNA barcode, as proposed by Hebert et al. [8], which focuses on a short sequence of the mitochondrial DNA, which has become a global system for the identification of animal species, in particular, when the identification of the taxon based on morphological criteria is impossible or unreliable.
Many recent studies have applied this approach to species identification and have proved its rapidity and reliability for the identification of taxa through species-specific criteria [8,9]. The DNA barcoding approach has been shown to be particularly effective for the delimitation of fish species, including both marine [9,10] and freshwater groups [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. In addition to complementing traditional taxonomic methods, the DNA barcode provides a new perspective on fish species diversity, given the extreme morphological diversity of many forms, which often hampers the reliable diagnosis of species, as in the case of Brycon.
A recent review of Brycon [1] included the descriptions of three new species from South America, east of the Andes, B. howesi, B. dulcis and B. vonoi, and also invalidated a number of species, including B. cephalus, which was synonimized with B. amazonicus, and B. bicolor and B. brevicauda, which were synonimized with B. falcatus. Despite proposing this synonimization, the author also found that many of the specimens identified as B. falcatus varied considerably in size and the pigmentation of the caudal fins, which may reflect phenotypic plasticity. The author also concluded that this species is represented by two distinct morphotypes in the upper Tapajós and Xingu basins, which are subtly distinct in body size and the spotting of the adipose fin.
Given the morphological complexity in the species of Brycon, the present study adopted a molecular approach to identify the different Molecular Operational Taxonomic Units (MOTUs) found in the hydrographic basins of the Neotropical region. This study was based on a number of different approaches for species delimitation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Sample Collection

All the tissue samples and voucher specimens analyzed in the present study were collected during previous surveys of a number of different hydrographic basins in South and Central America (Table S1) and were acquired with the collaboration of researchers from a number of different Brazilian institutions. Samples from a total of 350 individuals were collected, representing 18 Brycon species defined based on morphological characteristics. Some of the voucher specimens are available in the fish collection of the Federal University of Mato Grosso (CPUFMT) and the Laboratory of Fish Biology and Genetics (LBP) of the Paulista State University in Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil. In addition, two other Bryconidae species were used in the analyses, one belonging to Henochilus and one to Chilobrycon. Two Salminus species (BOLD systems accession numbers BSB477-10 and BSB150-10) were included as outgroup.

2.2. Extraction of the DNA, Amplification, Purification, and Sequencing

The total genomic DNA was extracted using the saline extraction protocol [19]. Partial sequences of the cytochrome c oxidase I gene (COI) were amplified with the Fish F1 (5’-TCAACCAACCACAAAGACATTGGCAC-3’) and Fish R1 (5’-TAGACTTCTGGGTG GCCAAAGAATCA-3’) primers [9].
The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) was prepared in a final volume of 25 µL, containing 1.5 μL of dNTP (1.25 mM), 2.5 μL of 10× buffer, 0.5 μL of the COI Fish-F1 primer (10 mM), 0.5 μL of the COI Fish-R1 primer (10 mM), 1.0 μL of MgCl2 (50 mM), 0.2 μL of Taq DNA Polymerase (Ludwig, 5 U/μL), 1 μL of DNA, and ultrapure water to complete the final volume. The reactions were processed in a thermocycler (Applied Byosystems, Veriti), with initial denaturation at 94 °C for 5 min, followed by 35 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 45 s, annealing at 50 °C for 60 s, and extension at 72 °C for 60 s, with a final extension at 72 °C for 5 min.
The amplified PCR products were visualized in 1% agarose gel and purified by the enzymatic method using Illustra ExoProStar enzymes (GE Healthcare Life Sciences, Buckinghamshire, UK). The fragments were sequenced in an ABI 3500 automatic sequencer (Applied Biosystems®, Austin, TX, USA), supplied by Myleus Biotechnology (www.myleus.com), Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.

2.3. Data Analysis

The Geneious R9 program [20] was used to define the consensus sequences and verify the presence of stop codons. The sequences were aligned using the MUSCLE algorithm [21]. The Kimura-2-Parameter (K2P) model of nucleotide substitution was used to determine the intra- and interspecific genetic distances, based on analyses run in MEGA v7.0 [22]. The patterns of divergence indicated by the genetic distances were plotted in a dendrogram based on the Neighbor-Joining (NJ) algorithm, with 1000 bootstrap replicates [23].
The Optimum Threshold (OT) was calculated from the data matrix and used for the delimitation of species. The LocalMinima function, which is based on the barcode gap concept, was applied here, using the SPIDER (SPecies IDentity and Evolution) package [24] of the R software (http://www.R-project.org).
The Generalized Mixed Yule Coalescence (GMYC) phylogenetic model was used to delimit the species groups and, subsequently, the identification of the MOTUs [25]. An ultrametric tree was generated in BEAST v.2.4.6 [26], with the (TIM3+I+G) substitution model calculated in JModelTest 2.1.7 [27], using a relaxed molecular clock with a lognormal distribution and the birth–death model. Three independent runs of 50 million generations were conducted, and the runs were subsequently combined in LogCombiner v.2.4.6 [28]. The first 25% of the sampling was discarded. The data mix and the Effective Sample Size (ESS) were verified in Tracer v.1.6. [29]. The delimitation of species by GMYC was run on the (species.h-its.org/gmyc) web server using the single limit method.
The Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery (ABGD) method was used to analyze genetic distances in the (http://wwwabi.snv.jussieu.fr/public/abgd/) web interface, using the Kimura 2-Parameter (K2P) model of nucleotide substitution, at the default setting [30]. Bayesian Inference (BI) was run in MrBayes 3.1.2 [31] with four chains, 50 million generations, trees sampled every 1000 generations and 25% burn-in. Maximum likelihood analysis (ML) was performed in the Garli 2.0 program [32]. Clade support was estimated based on 1000 bootstrap pseudoreplicates. The trees obtained in the Garli program were summarized by majority consensus in the SumTrees program. The ML and BI trees were visualized and edited in Figtree, version 1.4.3 [33].
Further analysis of populations genetics were run in three cases, i.e., B. falcatus, B. pesu and B. amazonicus, to identify and interpret the levels of genetic variation found among the MOTUs identified in these species. The number of haplotypes, and the indices of haplotype (Hd) and nucleotide (π) diversity were obtained in the DnaSP v5 (DNA Sequence Polymorphism) program [34]. The relationships among the different haplotypes were evaluated using a haplotype network constructed using the Median—Joining [35] method, run in PopART 1.7 [36]. The genetic differentiation of the MOTUs was determined by the results of an Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA) run in Arlequin 3.5 [37].

3. Results

3.1. Species Delimitation

The final data matrix used for analysis was composed of 350 sequences of 597 bases. No saturation in nucleotide substitution by either transition (R² = 0.9259) or transversion (R² = 0.7874) was identified. The Bayesian Inference (BI) analysis identified a total of 31 MOTUs in the 20 study species (18 Brycon species, Henochilus wheatlandii, and Chilobrycon deuterodon), defined a priori, based on morphological criteria, with an OT of genetic divergence of 0.0182 (or 1.82%), and high statistical support for both the ML and the BI analyses. All other analyses produced similar results. NJ identified 31 MOTUs (Figure S1). ML identified 30 MOTUs, B. falcatus 2 and 3 MOTUs were not differentiated statistically (Figure S2). The GMYC analyses only recovered 30 MOTUs (Figure S3), however, this is due to the fact that the B. pesu MOTUs were not differentiated statistically (referred to here as samples 3 and 4). By contrast, the ABGD analysis recovered 33 MOTUs, including two each in B. gouldingi and B. alburnus (Figure 1).
According to the combined analyses, the species identified initially as B. falcatus is composed of five distinct lineages: B. falcatus lineage 1, from the Orinoco basin, and the Madeira and Juruena rivers; B. falcatus lineage 2, from the Tocantins-Araguaia basin; B. falcatus lineage 3, from the Culuene River, in the Xingu basin; B. falcatus lineage 4, from the Teles Pires, Juruena, Arinos, and Rio Verde rivers, which are all tributaries of the Tapajós, and B. falcatus lineage 5, from the Juruena, Arinos, and Teles Pires rivers (Tapajós basin), and the Araguaia River (Figure 2). The greatest interspecific genetic distance was recorded between B. falcatus lineages 1 and 2 (0.143 ± 0.019), that is, 14.3%, whereas the smallest distance was 0.028 ± 0.008 (2.8%), between B. falcatus lineages 2 and 3 (Table S2).
In B. pesu, the NJ and ABGD analyses indicated the existence of seven distinct lineages: B. pesu lineage 1, from the Tarumã and Negro rivers, in the Negro basin; B. pesu lineage 2, from the Madeira River; B. pesu lineage 3, from the Madeira, Negro, and Branco rivers; B. pesu lineage 4, from the Orinoco River; B. pesu lineage 5, from the Tapajós, Tracuá, and Igarapé (Tapajós basin); B. pesu lineage 6, from the Araguaia and Xavantinho rivers (Tocantins-Araguaia basin), the Culuene and Xingu rivers (Xingu basin), and the Iratapuru and Jari rivers, in the Amazon basin, and B. pesu lineage 7, from the Juruena, Arinos, and Teles Pires rivers in the Tapajós basin (Figure 3). The greatest interspecific distance (12.4%) was recorded between B. pesu lineages 2 and 3 (0.124 ± 0.017), while the smallest distance (2.8%) was found between B. pesu lineages 4 and 5, that is, 0.028 ± 0.007 (Table S2). In the GMYC analysis, however, B. pesu lineages 3 and 4 were considered to form a single MOTU. In this case, the threshold time was −0.0087, which indicates that the lineages have yet to undergo a speciation. Negative threshold values indicate diversification events. The probability of the null model was 1044.005, and the ML of the GMYC model was 1061.177. B. amazonicus was also represented by two lineages, separated by a genetic distance of 0.023 ± 0.007 (2.3%) between the samples from the Amazon and Orinoco basins (Figure 1).
The ABGD analysis identified seven partitions. Partition 1 was made up of 93 MOTUs, while partition 7 had only a single MOTU. Partition 6 (Prior maximal distance p = 0.012) best represented the data, and identified 33 distinct lineages, with additional lineages being recognized in B. gouldingi and B. petrosus, resulting in a larger number of MOTUs than that recorded in the other analyses.

3.2. Diversity Genetic of the B. falcatus, B. pesu, and B. amazonicus Lineages

The haplotype network of B. falcatus, based on 139 sequences of 540 base pairs (bps) included 28 haplotypes (Figure 4), with haplotype diversity (Hd) of 0.888 ± 0.012 and nucleotide diversity (π) of 0.07410 ± 0.002. The results of the AMOVA indicates that greater variation exists between the lineages/groups (MOTUs) of B. falcatus (96.72%) than within these groups (1.75%) or within populations (1.53%) (Table 1).
The haplotype network of B. pesu was based on 86 sequences of 589 bps, which generated 23 haplotypes (Figure 5), with a haplotype diversity (Hd) of 0.883 ± 0.034 and nucleotide diversity (π) of 0.05812 ± 0.005. As in B. falcatus most of the variation (AMOVA: 91.96%) was found between lineages (Table 2).
The haplotype network of B. amazonicus was based on 16 sequences of 589 bps, which were arranged in four haplotypes (Figure 6), with haplotype diversity (Hd) of 0.642 ± 0.081 and nucleotide diversity (π) of 0.01129 ± 0.00096. As in the other two Brycon species (Table 1 and Table 2), most of the variation found in the AMOVA (97.52%) was between the two lineages (Table 3).

4. Discussion

The species delimitation analyses presented here recognized a larger number of genetic lineages than the 20 species identified a priori, based on morphological criteria. In particular, B. falcatus, B. pesu, and B. amazonicus are represented by two or more MOTUs, separated by a high degree of genetic diversity. A number of previous studies of genetic species delimitation in Neotropical fish have produced similar findings, in which the nominal species identified on the basis of morphological characteristics were recovered as distinct molecular taxonomic units [13,16,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45].
The discrimination of species based on partial COI sequences requires that the intraspecific genetic variation is lower than that found between species. A 2% threshold was proposed by [46] for the delimitation of fish species. The threshold identified in the present study (1.82%) is consistent with this assumption, given that the same number of MOTUs was obtained, whether a 2% or a 1.82% threshold was considered (Table S2).
The GMYC, ABGD, BI, and ML approaches have been applied increasingly for the delimitation of species, although some studies [44,45,47,48] have recovered a larger number of lineages using the GMYC approach in comparison with the other methods. The results of the present study contrasted with this pattern, however, given that the GMYC analysis did not separate B. pesu lineages 3 and 4 into distinct MOTUs, even though they were separated by genetic distances of over 1.82% (3.2%). While the genetic distance between these lineages was greater than the OT, these MOTUs are found in distinct basins, with B. pesu lineage 4 in the Orinoco basin, and B. pesu lineage 3 from the Madeira, Negro, and Branco rivers. In addition, the ABGD analysis revealed a larger number of lineages due to the division of B. gouldingi and B. alburnus into two lineages each, despite the fact that the genetic distances are relatively small (0.1% and 1%, respectively) in comparison with the OT.
In all the analyses conducted in the present study, the clade of the Brycon lineages from the east of the Andes included Chilobrycon, which is consistent with Abe et al. [49] phylogenetic analysis of the Bryconidae, and reinforces the hypothesis that the genus Brycon is in fact a paraphyletic group. Travenzoli et al. [50] obtained similar results in an integrated study of approximately 15 bryconine species, in which they identified Henochilus as the sister group of B. ferox, further reinforcing the paraphyletism of the genus. The most basal species in the analysis of Abe et al. [49] were those from the west of the Andes, that is, B. henni, B. petrosus and B. chagrensis. In the present study, B. chagrensis, B. dentex, B. henni, B. alburnus, B. petrosus, and Chilobrycon deuterodon, which all occur to the east of the Andes, were also grouped together.
In the specific case of B. falcatus, in which five MOTUs were identified in the present study, it is important to note that Abe et al. had already identified at least two distinct clades, which they referred to as B. falcatus, from the Orinoco River, and B. cf. falcatus, from the Xingu [49]. These authors also examined specimens identified as B. pesu and concluded that this taxon did in fact constitute a species complex [1,49]. The results of the present study further reinforce these previous findings and point to the existence of cryptic species (or misidentified taxa) within the populations assigned to B. falcatus and B. pesu.
Based on its morphology, B. falcatus had previously been recognized as an amply distributed species, present in many of the freshwater basins of the Neotropical region. More recently, however, a number of studies have shown that this group is characterized by considerable morphological and meristic variation, which hampers the determination of the possible taxonomic units [1], and the identification of valid species, even by specialists. It is also important to note here that, while many MOTUs are found in distinct drainage basins, some are found within the same hydrographic system, that is, samples collected from the same basins that represented distinct, sympatric taxonomic units, as in the case of B. falcatus lineages 1, 4, and 5 from the Tapajós River. A similar situation was confirmed in the B. pesu species complex, where B. pesu lineages 2 and 3 are sympatric in the Madeira River, and B. pesu lineages 5 and 7 are sympatric in the Tapajós basin.
The level of genetic differentiation found in the B. falcatus lineages by the AMOVA also confirmed the differences found among the MOTUs, indicating that they are structured, as observed in the haplotype network (Figure 4). The geographic differentiation of populations is even more apparent, then, when the differences among haplotypes are taken into account. It was also possible to confirm that the molecular distances between pairs of haplotypes from different basins are much greater than those recorded within a given region [51]
B. pesu, as defined currently, has an ample geographic distribution, with records from the Amazon, Tocantins-Araguaia, and Orinoco basins, and the river systems of Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana. As in the case of B. falcatus, however, this ample distribution may simply reflect the inadequate classification of this group. In fact, several authors have previously proposed that B. pesu represents a species complex, composed of a number of different taxonomic units that have yet to be described as valid species [1]. This complex appears to have passed through a rapid process of diversification over the past 6.7 ± 2.0 million years, a period that coincides with the formation of the Amazon and Orinoco basins [49]. The results of the present study are consistent with this viewpoint and confirm this hypothesis, given the identification of at least seven distinct taxonomic units, with both allopatric and sympatric MOTUs. The ample genetic divergence among the MOTUs was confirmed by the AMOVA, and in particular, by the B. pesu haplotype network (Figure 5).
In addition to B. falcatus and B. pesu, B. amazonicus is also represented by two distinct MOTUs, one from the Amazon basin (B. amazonicus lineage 1) and the other (B. amazonicus lineage 2) from the Orinoco River, which were separated by a mean genetic distance of 2.3%, which is within the OT and indicates that the taxon may in fact include two valid species, B. amazonicus and a second, as yet unidentified taxon.
Although the data reveal candidate species, it is important to emphasize that analysis based on only one gene is not conclusive, but represents an important step in studies on species delimitation. In this way, the findings of the present study reinforce the need for a more detailed morphological analysis, integrated with molecular data from more informative genes, for the identification of the potential new species (MOTUs) identified here. The data obtained in the present study also represent an important source of reference for the understanding of the mechanisms involved in the genetic diversification of this important, and highly complex group of Neotropical fish.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/10/9/639/s1, Table S1: General table of data about the sampled species, Table S2: Intra and interspecific distance among detected MOTUS, Figure S1: Neighbor joining tree based on the cytochrome c oxidase I gene for Brycon, Figure S2: Maximum likelihood tree based on the cytochrome c oxidase I gene for Brycon species, Figure S3: GMYC tree based on the cytochrome c oxidase I gene for Brycon species.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.S.S.A., P.C.V. and D.C.F.; methodology, P.S.S.A.; validation, P.S.S.A., P.C.V. and D.C.F.; formal analysis, P.S.S.A.; investigation, P.S.S.A.; resources, P.C.V., C.O. and D.C.F.; data curation, P.S.S.A., P.C.V. and C.O.; writing—original draft preparation, P.S.S.A.; writing—review and editing, P.S.S.A., P.C.V., D.C.F. and C.O.; visualization, P.S.S.A.; supervision, P.C.V. and D.C.F.; project administration, P.S.S.A.; funding acquisition, P.C.V. and C.O.

Funding

This research was funded by (PCV) Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, grant number 421733/2017-9 INAU II, 446925/2014-4 and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior-Brazil (CAPES)-Finance Code 001. CO received financial support from Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo-FAPESP grants 2016/09204-6, 2014/26508-3 and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico-CNPq proc. 306054/2006-0 (CO).

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade for authorizing the capture of the fish (IBAMA/ICMBIO license12174-2). They also thank Flávio C.T. Lima and Hugmar Painz da Silva for the valuable suggestions made at the beginning of the work and the identification of part of the studied species.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Lima, F.C.T. A revision of the cis-andean species of the genus Brycon Müller & Troschel (Characiformes: Characidae). Zootaxa 2017, 4222, 1–189. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lima, F.C.T. Subfamily Bryconinae (Characins, Tetras). In Checklist of the Freshwater Fishes of South and Central America, 1st ed.; Reis, R.E., Kullander, S.O., Ferraris, C.J., Jr., Eds.; EDIPUCRS: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2003; pp. 174–181. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lima, F.C.T.; Castro, R.M.C. Brycon vermelha, a new species of characid fish from the Rio Mucuri, a coastal river of eastern Brazil (Ostariophysi: Characiformes). Ichthyol. Explor. Freshwaters. 2000, 11, 155–162. [Google Scholar]
  4. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, M.P.; Lopera-Barrero, N.M.; Ribeiro, R.P.; Povh, J.A.; Vargas, L.; Sirol, R.N.; Jacometo, C.B. Diversidad genética de piracanjuba usada en programas de repoblación con marcadores microsatélites. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 2010, 45, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Goulding, M. The Fishes and the Forest. Explorations in Amazonian Natural History; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1980; p. 280. [Google Scholar]
  6. Gomiero, L.M.; Briani, D.C.; Giasson, L.O.M. Vertebrados consumidos por Brycon opalinus (Pisces, Characidae) em rios do Parque Estadual da Serra do Mar, SP. Biota Neotrop. 2006, 6, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gomiero, L.M.; Manzatto, A.G.B.; Braga, F.M.S. The role of riverine forests for food supply for the omnivorous fish Brycon opalinus Cuvier, 1819 (Characidae) in the Serra do Mar, Southeast Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2008, 68, 321–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Hebert, P.D.N.; Cywinska, A.; Ball, S.L.; Dewaard, J.R. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 2003, 270, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Ward, R.D.; Zemlak, T.S.; Innes, B.H.; Last, P.R.; Hebert, P.D.N. Dna barcoding Australia’s fish species. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2005, 360, 1847–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Mabragaña, E.; Díaz de Astarloa, J.M.; Hanner, R.; Zhang, J.; Castro, M.G. DNA Barcoding Identifies Argentine Fishes from Marine and Brackish Waters. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e28655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hubert, N.; Hanner, R.; Holm, E.; Mandrak, N.E.; Taylor, E.; Burridge, M.; Watkinson, D.; Dumont, P.; Curry, A.; Bentzen, P.; et al. Identifying Canadian freshwater fishes through DNA barcodes. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e2490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Costa-Silva, G.J.; Rodriguez, M.S.; Roxo, F.F.; Foresti, F.; Oliveira, C. Using Different Methods to Access the Difficult Task of Delimiting Species in a Complex Neotropical Hyperdiverse Group. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0135075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Roxo, F.F.; Ochoa, L.E.; Costa-Silva, G.J.; Oliveira, C. Species delimitation in Neoplecostomus (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) using morphologic and genetic approaches. DNA Barcodes. 2015, 3, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gomes, L.C.; Pessali, T.C.; Sales, N.G.; Pompeu, P.S.; Carvalho, D.C. Integrative taxonomy detects cryptic and overlooked fish species in a Neotropical river basin. Genetica 2015, 143, 581–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shen, Y.; Guan, L.; Wang, D.; Gan, X. DNA barcoding and evaluation of genetic diversity in Cyprinidae fish in the midstream of the Yangtze River. Ecol. Evol. 2016, 6, 2702–2713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Machado, C.D.B.; Ishizuka, T.K.; Freitas, P.D.D.; Valiati, V.H.; Galetti, P.M., Jr. DNA barcoding reveals taxonomic uncertainty in Salminus (Characiformes). Syst. Biodivers. 2016, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ribolli, J.; Scaranto, B.M.; Shibatta, O.A.; Bombardelli, R.Q.; Zaniboni-Filho, E. DNA barcoding confirms the occurrence of Rhamdia branneri and Rhamdia voulezi (Siluriformes: Heptapteridae) in the Iguaçu River Basin. Neotrop. Ichthyol. 2017, 15, e160147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Laskar, B.A.; Kumar, V.; Kundu, S.; Darshan, A.; Tyagi, K.; Chandra, K. DNA barcoding of fishes from River Diphlu within Kaziranga National Park in northeast India. Mitochondrial DNA Part A 2019, 30, 126–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Aljanabi, S.M.; Martinez, L. Universal and rapid salt-extraction of high quality genomic DNA for PCR-based techniques. Nuleic. Acids. Research. 1997, 25, 4692–4693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kearse, M.; Moir, R.; Wilson, A.; Stones-Havas, S.; Cheung, M.; Sturrock, S.; Buxton, S.; Cooper, A.; Markowitz, S.; Duran, C.; et al. Geneious Basic: An integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 2012, 28, 1647–1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Edgar, R.C. MUSCLE: Multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 32, 1792–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tamura, K.; Stecher, G.; Peterson, D.; Filipski, A.; Kumar, S. MEGA 6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 6.0. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30, 2725–2729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Saitou, N.; Nei, M. The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1987, 406–425. [Google Scholar]
  24. Brown, S.D.J.; Collins, R.A.; Boyer, S.; Lefort, M.C.; Malumbres-Olarte, J.; Vink, C.J.; Cruickshank, R.H. Spider: An R package for the analysis of species identity and evolution, with particular reference to DNA barcoding. Mol. Ecol. Res. 2012, 12, 562–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pons, J.; Barraclough, T.G.; Gomez-Zurita, J.; Cardoso, A.; Duran, D.P.; Hazell, S.; Kamoun, S.; Sumlin, W.D.; Vogler, A.P. Sequence-based species delimitation for the DNA taxonomy of undescribed insects. Syst. Biol. 2006, 55, 595–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bouckaert, R.; Heled, J.; Kühnert, D.; Vaughan, T.; Wu, C.-H.; Xie, D. Drummond AJ. BEAST 2: A software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS. Comput. Biol. 2014, 10, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Posada, D. jModelTest: Phylogenetic model averaging. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2008, 25, 1253–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Drummond, A.J.; Suchard, M.A.; Xie, D.; Rambaut, A. Bayesian phylogenetics with BEAUTi and the BEAST 1.7. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2012, 29, 1969–1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rambaut, A.; Suchard, M.A.; Xie, D.; Drummond, A.J. Tracer v1.6. 2013. Available online: http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/tracer/ (accessed on 2 February 2019).
  30. Puillandre, N.; Lambert, A.; Brouillet, S.; Achaz, G. ABGD, Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery for primary species delimitation. Mol. Ecol. 2012, 21, 1864–1877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ronquist, F.; Huelsenbeck, J.F. MrBayes: Bayesian phylogenetic inferenceunder mixed models. Bioinformatics 2003, 19, 1572–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zwickl, D.J. Genetic Algorithm Approaches for the Phylogenetic Analysis of Large Biological Sequence Datasets Under the Maximum Likelihood Criterion. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  33. Rambaut, A. FigTree v1.4.3. 2016. Available online: http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/ (accessed on 2 February 2019).
  34. Librado, P.; Rozas, J. DnaSP v5: A software for comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data. Bioinformatics 2009, 25, 1451–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bandelt, H.J.; Forster, P.; Röhl, A. Median-joining networks for inferring intraspecific phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1999, 16, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Leigh, J.W.; Bryant, D. POPART: Full-feature software for haplotype network construction. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2015, 6, 1110–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Excoffier, L.; Lischer, H.E.L. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: A new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol. Ecol. Res. 2010, 10, 564–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Costa, F.O.; Landi, M.; Martins, R.; Costa, M.H.; Costa, M.E.; Carneiro, M.; Alves, M.J.; Steinke, D.; Carvalho, G.R. A Ranking System for Reference Libraries of DNA Barcodes: Application to Marine Fish Species from Portugal. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pereira, L.H.G.; Hanner, R.; Foresti, F.; Oliveira, C. Can DNA barcoding accurately discriminate megadiverse Neotropical freshwater fish fauna? BMC Genet. 2013, 14, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bellafronte, E.; Mariguela, T.C.; Pereira, L.H.G.; Oliveira, C.; Moreira-Filho, O. DNA barcode of Parodontidae species from the La Plata river basin—applying new data to clarify taxonomic problems. Neotrop. Ichthyol. 2013, 11, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Knebelsberger, T.; Landi, M.; Neumann, H.; Kloppmann, K.; Sell, A.F.; Campbell, P.D.; Laakmann, S.; Raupach, M.J.; Carvalho, G.R.; Costa, F.O. A reliable DNA barcode reference library for the identification of the North European shelf fish fauna. Mol. Ecol. Res. 2014, 14, 1060–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Landi, M.; Dimech, M.; Arculeo, M.; Biondo, G.; Martins, R.; Carneiro, M.; Carvalho, G.R.; Lo Brutto, S.; Costa, F.O. DNA Barcoding for Species Assignment: The Case of Mediterranean Marine Fishes. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e106135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Díaz, J.; Villanova, G.V.; Brancolini, F.; Del Pazo, F.; Posner, V.N.; Grimberg, A.; Arranz, E.S. First DNA barcode reference library for the identification of South American freshwater fish from the lower Paraná River. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0157419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Serrano, E.A.; Melo, B.F.; Freitas-Souza, D.; Oliveira, M.L.M.; Utsunomia, R.; Oliveira, C.; Foresti, F. Species delimitation in neotropical fishes of the genus Characidium (Teleostei, Characiformes). Zoo Scr. 2018, 48, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mateussi, N.T.B.; Melo, B.F.; Forest, F.; Oliveira, C. Molecular Data Reveal Multiple Lineages in Piranhas of the Genus Pygocentrus (Teleostei, Characiformes). Genes 2019, 10, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ward, R.D. DNA barcode divergence among species and genera of birds and fishes. Mol. Ecol. Res. 2009, 9, 1077–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, W.; Ma, X.; Shen, Y.; Mao, Y.; He, S. The fish diversity in the upper reaches of the Salween River, Nujiang River, revealed by DNA barcoding. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Silva-Santos, R.; Ramirez, J.L.; Galetti, P.M., Jr.; Freitas, P.D. Molecular Evidences of a Hidden Complex Scenario in Leporinus cf. Friderici Front. Genet. 2018, 9, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Abe, K.T.; Mariguela, T.C.; Avelino, G.S.; Foresti, F.; Oliveira, C. Systematic and historical biogeography of the Bryconidae (Ostariophysi: Characiformes) suggesting a new rearrangement of its genera and an old origin of Mesoamerican ichthyofauna. BMC Evol. Biol. 2014, 14, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Travenzoli, N.M.; Silva, P.C.; Santos, U.; Zanuncio, J.C.; Oliveira, C.; Dergam, J.A. Cytogenetic and Molecular Data Demonstrate that the Bryconinae (Ostariophysi, Bryconidae) Species from Southeastern Brazil Form a Phylogenetic and Phylogeographic Unit. PLoS ONE. 2015, 10, e0137843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Excoffier, L.; Smouse, P.E. Quattro JM. Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: Application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 1992, 131, 479–491. [Google Scholar]
Genes 10 00639 g001 550
Figure 1. Bayesian Inference topology based on the cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) gene. The bars at the side of the tree represents the results of the analyses of species delimitation. The numbers next to the nodes represent the posterior probability/bootstrap values of the ML analyses.
Figure 1. Bayesian Inference topology based on the cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) gene. The bars at the side of the tree represents the results of the analyses of species delimitation. The numbers next to the nodes represent the posterior probability/bootstrap values of the ML analyses.
Genes 10 00639 g001
Genes 10 00639 g002 550
Figure 2. Distribution of the Molecular Operational Taxonomic Units (MOTUs) of Brycon falcatus identified in the molecular analyses.
Figure 2. Distribution of the Molecular Operational Taxonomic Units (MOTUs) of Brycon falcatus identified in the molecular analyses.
Genes 10 00639 g002
Genes 10 00639 g003 550
Figure 3. Distribution of the MOTUs of Brycon pesu identified in the molecular analyses.
Figure 3. Distribution of the MOTUs of Brycon pesu identified in the molecular analyses.
Genes 10 00639 g003
Genes 10 00639 g004 550
Figure 4. Haplotype network of the five mitochondrial lineages (MOTUs) identified in Brycon falcatus. Each circle represents a single haplotype and its size is proportional to its frequency.
Figure 4. Haplotype network of the five mitochondrial lineages (MOTUs) identified in Brycon falcatus. Each circle represents a single haplotype and its size is proportional to its frequency.
Genes 10 00639 g004
Genes 10 00639 g005 550
Figure 5. Haplotype network of the seven mitochondrial lineages (MOTUs) identified in Brycon pesu. Each circle represents a single haplotype and its size is proportional to its frequency.
Figure 5. Haplotype network of the seven mitochondrial lineages (MOTUs) identified in Brycon pesu. Each circle represents a single haplotype and its size is proportional to its frequency.
Genes 10 00639 g005
Genes 10 00639 g006 550
Figure 6. Haplotype network of the two mitochondrial lineages (MOTUs) identified in Brycon amazonicus. Each circle represents a single haplotype and its size is proportional to its frequency.
Figure 6. Haplotype network of the two mitochondrial lineages (MOTUs) identified in Brycon amazonicus. Each circle represents a single haplotype and its size is proportional to its frequency.
Genes 10 00639 g006
Table
Table 1. Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA) of the samples of Brycon falcatus.
Table 1. Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA) of the samples of Brycon falcatus.
Source of the Variationd.f.Sum of SquaresComponents of the Variance% Variation
Among groups42626.83825.06425 Va96.72
Among populations within groups37.0160.45465 Vb1.75
Within populations13151.7790.39526 Vc1.53
Table
Table 2. Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA) of the samples of Brycon pesu.
Table 2. Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA) of the samples of Brycon pesu.
Source of the Variationd.f.Sum of SquaresComponents of the Variance% Variation
Among groups61271.18120.05707 Va91.96
Among populations within groups320.3351.21388 Vb5.57
Within populations7641.0550.54019 Vc2.48
Table
Table 3. Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA) of the samples of Brycon amazonicus.
Table 3. Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA) of the samples of Brycon amazonicus.
Source of the Variationd.f.Sum of SquaresComponents of the Variance% Variation
Among groups148.1255.97295 Va97.52
Among populations within groups20.4170.04094 Vb0.67
Within populations121.3330.11111 Vc1.81

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Arruda, P.S.S.; Ferreira, D.C.; Oliveira, C.; Venere, P.C. DNA Barcoding Reveals High Levels of Divergence among Mitochondrial Lineages of Brycon (Characiformes, Bryconidae). Genes 2019, 10, 639. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10090639

AMA Style

Arruda PSS, Ferreira DC, Oliveira C, Venere PC. DNA Barcoding Reveals High Levels of Divergence among Mitochondrial Lineages of Brycon (Characiformes, Bryconidae). Genes. 2019; 10(9):639. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10090639

Chicago/Turabian Style

Arruda, Pábila S. S., Daniela C. Ferreira, Claudio Oliveira, and Paulo C. Venere. 2019. "DNA Barcoding Reveals High Levels of Divergence among Mitochondrial Lineages of Brycon (Characiformes, Bryconidae)" Genes 10, no. 9: 639. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10090639

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop