4.2 Article

Genetic variation in bloom-forming ichthyotoxic Pseudochattonella species (Dictyochophyceae, Heterokonta) using nuclear, mitochondrial and plastid DNA sequence data

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYCOLOGY
卷 43, 期 4, 页码 413-422

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09670260802299602

关键词

cox1; Dictyochophyceae; genetic variation; harmful algae; psbA; Pseudochattonella; rbcL; rDNA

资金

  1. University of Oslo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports on genetic variation within bloom-forming ichthyotoxic algae in the genus Pseudochattonella. One aim of this study was to search for further molecular evidence to separate the two species, Pseudochattonella farcimen and Pseudochattonella verruculosa using DNA sequences with different levels of variability and from three different cell compartments (the nucleus, mitochondria and plastids). Secondly, the genetic variability among Pseudochattonella strains within a bloom and between blooms in successive years in the Skagerrak was assessed. We also aimed to determine the identity of Pseudochattonella strains from two other geographical locations. Using molecular data (LSU and SSU rDNA, rbcL, psbA and cox1) our results demonstrate clear delineation of the two Pseudochattonella species. The barcoding marker cox1 was well suited to separating the two closely related dictyochophyte species. Pseudochattonella strains from Germany and New Zealand were almost identical in five DNA regions to the P. verruculosa reference strain, NIES 670, suggesting that blooms in these geographical areas consisted of P. verruculosa. Comparison of DNA sequences from P. farcimen-strains within a bloom and between blooms in the Skagerrak in 2001 and 2006 suggests the existence of a homogeneous and stable population over a 5-year period. Intraspecific and intraclonal variations in the ITS rDNA were revealed within both P. farcimen and P. verruculosa eliminating ITS rDNA as a marker to differentiate among individuals and/or populations of Pseudochattonella.

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

4.2
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