4.6 Article

DNA barcoding Australia's fish species

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2005.1716

关键词

cytochrome oxidase subunit I; CO1; fish identification; sharks; rays; teleosts

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two hundred and seven species of fish, mostly Australian marine fish, were sequenced (barcoded) for a 655 bp region of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I gene (cox1). Most species were represented by multiple specimens, and 754 sequences were generated. The GC content of the 143 species of teleosts was higher than the 61 species of sharks and rays (47.1% versus 42.2%), largely due to a higher GC content of codon position 3 in the former (41.1% versus 29.9%). Rays had higher GC than sharks (44.7% versus 41.0%), again largely due to higher GC in the 3rd codon position in the former (36.3% versus 26.8%). Average within-species, genus, family, order and class Kimura two parameter (K2P) distances were 0.39%, 9.93%, 15.46%, 22.18% and 23.27%, respectively. All species could be differentiated by their cox1 sequence, although single individuals of each of two species had haplotypes characteristic of a congener. Although DNA barcoding aims to develop species identification systems, some phylogenetic signal was apparent in the data. In the neighbour-joining tree for all 754 sequences, four major clusters were apparent: chimaerids, rays, sharks and teleosts. Species within genera invariably clustered, and generally so did genera within families. Three taxonomic groups-dogfishes of the genus Squalus, flatheads of the family Platycephalidae, and tunas of the genus Thunnus-were examined more closely. The clades revealed after bootstrapping generally corresponded well with expectations. Individuals from operational taxonomic units designated as Squalus species B through F formed individual clades, supporting morphological evidence for each of these being separate species. We conclude that cox1 sequencing, or 'barcoding', can be used to identify fish species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据