DNA barcoding of threatened fishes of Bangladesh

Zarif Hossain; Nusrat Jahan Sanzida; Md. Anwarul Azim Akhand; Md. Sagir Ahmed

doi:10.3329/brc.v7i2.54373

Authors

Zarif Hossain Department of Oceanography, University of Dhaka, Dhaka1000, Bangladesh
Nusrat Jahan Sanzida Department of Zoology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka1000, Bangladesh
Md. Anwarul Azim Akhand Department of Oceanography, University of Dhaka, Dhaka1000, Bangladesh
Md. Sagir Ahmed Department of Zoology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka1000, Bangladesh

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3329/brc.v7i2.54373

Keywords:

COI, Barcoding, Threatened fish, Genetic diversity, Cirrhinus reba, Phylogeny

Abstract

The ichthyofaunal diversity of Bangladesh is declining dramatically due to various anthropogenic factors. For authentic identification at species level, approximately 655 bp of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene of 29 threatened fish species were amplified and a barcode dataset was generated. Among these species, 7% were categorized as Critically Endangered (CR), whereas 55% and 38% were categorized as Endangered (EN) and Vulnerable (VU), respectively. K2P genetic distances were evaluated and found to be increasing with higher taxonomic rank—1.01% to 13.09% within species and 17.42% to 41.57% between species with a DNA barcode gap of 4.33%. The average %GC content of the fish species was 44.7 ± 0.49. On the other hand, the %GC values for the 6 orders—Cypriniformes, Siluriformes, Synbranchiformes, Syngnathiformes, Perciformes and Osteoglossiformes were 44.8 ± 0.81, 45.6 ± 0.61, 44.8 ± 0.85, 47 ± 0.99, 46.3 ± 0.89, 47 ± 0.90, respectively. The %GC content was highest in the first codon followed by the second and third codons for both the individual species and the Orders (1^st>2^nd>3^rd). It was also observed that the most synonymous mutations occur at the 3^rd codon position followed by the 1^st and the 2^nd codons. Finally, genetic variations were identified in Raiamas bola (at position 101), Ompok bimaculatus (at position 396) and Cirrhinus reba (at positions 108, 273, 310, 345, 420, 462, 495, 540 and 591) including 3 incidents of transversion (A instead of C). Thus, two different groups of C. reba emerged in the phylogram. This study, for the first time, focuses on COI based molecular characterization of the threatened fish species of Bangladesh and therefore, might work as a referral study for their authentic identification and in-situ conservation.

References

IUCN Bangladesh, 2015. Red List of Bangladesh Volume 5: Freshwater Fishes. IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Bangladesh Country Office, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, and deWaard JR, 2003. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 270(1512), pp. 313–21.

Bickford D, Lohman DJ, Sodhi NS, Ng PKL, Meier R, Winker K, et al., 2007. Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22(3) pp. 148–55.

Knowlton N, 1993. Sibling Species in the Sea. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 24(1), pp. 189–216.

Jarman SN, and Elliott NG, 2000. DNA evidence for morphological and cryptic Cenozoic speciations in the Anaspididae, `living fossils’ from the Triassic. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 13(4), pp. 624–33.

Chen S, Yao H, Han J, Liu C, Song J, Shi L, et al., 2010. Validation of the ITS2 region as a novel DNA barcode for identifying medicinal plant species. PLoS ONE, 5(1).

Hollingsworth PM, Forrest LL, Spouge JL, Hajibabaei M, Ratnasingham S, van der Bank M, et al., 2009. A DNA barcode for land plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(31), pp. 12794–7.

Ward RD, Zemlak TS, Innes BH, Last PR, and Hebert PDN, 2005. DNA barcoding Australia’s fish species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1462), pp. 1847–57.

Miller SE, 2007. DNA barcoding and the renaissance of taxonomy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(12), pp. 4775–6.

Tautz D, Arctander P, Minelli A, Thomas RH, and Vogler AP, 2003. A plea for DNA taxonomy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(2), pp. 70-74.

Hubert N, Hanner R, Holm E, Mandrak NE, Taylor E, Burridge M, et al., 2008. Identifying Canadian freshwater fishes through DNA barcodes. PLoS ONE, 3(6).

Frézal L, and Leblois R, 2008. Four years of DNA barcoding: current advances and prospects. Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 8(5), pp. 727–36.

Ivanova N V., Zemlak TS, Hanner RH, and Hebert PDN, 2007. Universal primer cocktails for fish DNA barcoding. Molecular Ecology Notes, 7(4), pp. 544–8.

Radulovici AE, Archambault P, and Dufresne F, 2010. DNA Barcodes for Marine Biodiversity: Moving Fast Forward? Diversity, 2, pp. 450–72.

Smith PJ, McVeagh SM, and Steinke D, 2008. DNA barcoding for the identification of smoked fish products. Journal of Fish Biology, 72(2), pp. 464–71.

Ward RD, Hanner R, and Hebert PDN, 2009. The campaign to DNA barcode all fishes, FISH-BOL. Journal of Fish Biology, 74(2), pp. 329–56.

Siddiqui K, Islam M, Ahmed Z, and Kabir S, 2007. Encyclopedia of flora and fauna of Bangladesh. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh,.

Barbuto M, Galimberti A, Ferri E, Labra M, Barbuto M, Galimberti A, et al., 2018. DNA barcoding reveals fraudulent substitutions in shark seafood products: The Italian case of ''palombo" (Mustelus spp.) Elsevier, 43(1), pp. 376-381.

H-K Wong E, and Hanner RH, 2008. DNA barcoding detects market substitution in North American seafood. Food Research International, 41(8), pp. 828–37.

Ahmed MS, Chowdhury MMK, and Nahar L, 2019. Molecular characterization of small indigenous fish species (SIS) of Bangladesh through DNA barcodes. Gene, 684, pp. 53–7.

Ahmed MS, Datta SK, and Zhilik AA, 2020. Molecular diversity of freshwater fishes of Bangladesh assessed by DNA barcoding. Bangladesh Journal of Zoology, 48(1), pp. 1–19.

Talwar P, 1991. Inland Fishes of India and Adjacent Countries. CRC Press.

Mamun Chowdhury M, Rahman M, Al Reza H, Sagir Ahmed M, Sharifur Rahman A, Nahar L, et al., 2016. Efficiency of Different DNA Extraction Methods for Fish Tissues: A Comparative Analysis. Article in IOSR Journal of Pharmacy and Biological Sciences, 11(3), pp. 11–5.

Kimura M, 1980. Journal of Molecular Evolution A Simple Method for Estimating Evolutionary Rates of Base Substitutions Through Comparative Studies of Nucleotide Sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 16, pp. 111-120.

Masatoshi Nei, and Sudhir Kumar, 2000. Molecular evolution and phylogenetics. Oxford University Press.

Saitou N, 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 4(4), pp. 406–25.

Felsenstein J, 1985. Confidence Limits On Phylogenies: An Approach Using The Bootstrap. Evolution, 39(4), pp. 783–91.

IUCN, 2020. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-2.

da Silva JM, Creer S, dos Santos A, Costa AC, Cunha MR, Costa FO, et al., 2011. Systematic and evolutionary insights derived from mtDNA COI Barcode diversity in the Decapoda (crustacea: Malacostraca). PLoS ONE, 6(5).

Holmes BH, Steinke D, and Ward RD, 2009. Identification of shark and ray fins using DNA barcoding. Fisheries Research, 95, pp. 280–8.

Jalali SK, 2015. DNA Barcoding for Identification of Agriculturally Important Insects Insect symbionts View project Indo-UK Collaborative Project on Antimicrobial Resistance in NE-INDIA View project. Springer, , pp. 13–23.

Vij S, Purushothaman K, Gopikrishna G, Lau D, Saju JM, Shamsudheen K V., et al., 2014. Barcoding of Asian seabass across its geographic range provides evidence for its bifurcation into two distinct species. Frontiers in Marine Science, 1(AUG).

Ward RD, Holmes BH, and Yearsley GK, 2008. DNA barcoding reveals a likely second species of Asian sea bass (barramundi) (Lates calcarifer). Journal of Fish Biology, 72(2), pp. 458–63.