Genetic discrimination of twoCapoetaspecies in northeastern Anatolia, using mitochondrial 16S rRNA gene

Abstract

The genetic discrimination of two species of the genus Capoeta, C. tinca (Heckel, 1843) and C. banarescui Turan et al., 2006, which is represented by many endemic species in Anatolian Turkey, has been investigated by analysing the partial 16S ribosomal DNA gene (525 bp). A total of 85 fish was sampled from two localities in the Marmara basin and 5 localities in the Black Sea basin. The amount of 16S rDNA sequence divergence separating these two taxa (mean 1.19%) is within the range observed for 16S rDNA variation between other species of freshwater fishes. The derived haplotypes (h: 28) were strictly local and were not shared between species or populations within species. Three types of phylogenetic tree (Bayesian, MP and ML) clearly showed C. banarescui and C. tinca as distinct species separated with significant bootstrap values (BI:94, MP:88, ML:81), confirming previous conclusions based on morphometric and meristic characters. Furthermore, four novel SNPs were identified, allowing discrimination between two species. AMOVA tests revealed that populations of Capoeta in Northeastern Anatolia can be divided into two main groups: Coruh River group, including SVS, TRT and ISP populations, and Yesilirmak-Harsit group, consisting of ALC and HRS populations. These results indicate the effectiveness of mitochondrial 16S rDNA gene sequences for both species identification and the phylogenetic analysis of Capoeta species.

Phylogenetic relationships of freshwater fishes of the genus Capoeta (Actinopterygii, Cyprinidae) in Iran

“…Capoeta species are hexaploid, and their origin has been postulated to be in an ancient hybridization event between tetraploid Luciobarbus and diploid Cyprinion (Yang et al., ). Genetic variation within Capoeta has not been studied in detail, and evidence indicates that the taxonomic status of some groups needs confirmation (Bektaş, Çiftçi, Eroğlu, & Beldüz, ; Levin et al., ; Tsigenopoulos, Durand, Ünlü, & Berrebi, ; Turan, ).…”

Untitled

“…Out of twenty-one Anatolian Capoeta species, six are cross-border (C. barroisi, C. capoeta, C. damascina, C. trutta, C. umbla and C. ekmekciae), fifteen are endemic to Turkish freshwater fauna (C. angorae, C. antalyensis, C. aydinensis, C. baliki, C. banarescui, C. bergamae, C. kosswigi, C. caelestis, C. erhani, C. mauricii, C. oguzelii, C. pestai, C. sieboldii, C. tinca and C. turani). Recent morphological studies (Turan et al, 2006a;Turan et al, 2006b;Turan et al, 2008;Turan et al, 2017;Elp et al, 2018) and molecular studies on the Capoeta genus (Turan, 2008;Bektaş, Çiftçi, Eroğlu, & Beldüz, 2011;Levin et al, 2012: Geiger et al, 2014Alwan, Zareian, & Esmaeili, 2016;Ghanavi, Gonzalez, & Doadrio, 2016;Jouladeh-Roudbar, Eagderi, Ghanavi, & Dadrio 2017;Zareian, Esmaeili, Heidari, Khoshkholgh, & Mousavi-Saber, 2016) to resolve taxonomic uncertainties caused by phenotypic plasticity (Berg, 1949;Banarescu, 1999;Doadrio & Madeira, 2004) have led to an increase in the number of species indicating that the taxonomy of the Capoeta species group has not yet been fully resolved. Recently, Bektaş et al (2017) has been genetically defined Anatolian Capoeta species with a extensive molecular research using cyt b gene sequences.…”