4.7 Article

Genetic comparison of wild and cultivated European populations of the gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata)

期刊

AQUACULTURE
卷 230, 期 1-4, 页码 65-80

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00434-4

关键词

Sparus aurata; allozymes; microsatellites; mtDNA; aquaculture; population genetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study represents the first large-scale population genetic analysis of the marine fish gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata), one of the most significant species in the South European aquaculture. Six wild and five cultivated sample sets covering the South Atlantic and Mediterranean European area have been screened for allozyme, microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation. Microsatellites showed higher levels of polymorphism than allozymes. The low variability of mtDNA offered no basis for population differentiation. The results reveal levels of variability for S. aurata above those from other sparids. Cultivated populations show a slight decrease of variability related to the wild ones, but not sufficient to document inbreeding depression effects, thus suggesting a fairly proper management. Wild populations reveal a slight degree of differentiation more pronounced with microsatellites than with allozymes, but not apparently associated with geographic or oceanographic factors. The cultivated populations seem to be highly divergent as a result of genetic drift caused by different factors pertaining to their respective histories. With both markers, the two cultivated Spanish sample sets are the most divergent. The high differentiation between cultivated and wild populations from the same area might indicate no evidence for significant genetic flow between them. This study provides an insight into the population structure of S. aurata, although more questions have arisen that need to be solved. This can be achieved by further screening of small-scaled targeted sample sets in the studied area. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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