The application of DNA fingerprinting in the analysis of gynogenesis in tilapia
ABSTRACT The technique of DNA fingerprinting using human minisatellite probes is applied to the study of gynogenetically derived fish in two tilapia species, Oreochromis aureus and O. niloticus. In O. aureus, analysis of the progeny of a cross between two putative mitogynes provides unexpected evidence of transmission of some paternal DNA during gynogenesis. In O. niloticus, DNA fingerprinting provides confirmation of exclusively maternal transmission during gynogenesis but mitogynes and meiogynes cannot be distinguished unambiguously.
- SourceAvailable from: Dunja K Lamatsch[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Amazon molly, Poecilia formosa, is an all-female fish of hybrid origin which reproduces by gynogenesis, i.e. it depends on sperm of males of closely related species to trigger parthenogenetic development of the embryo. Therefore the offspring is clonal and identical to the mother. In rare cases the exclusion mechanism fails and paternal introgression occurs. This may result either in triploid offspring - if the whole haploid chromosome set of the sperm fuses with the diploid egg nucleus - or in siblings with microchromosomes - if only subgenomic amounts of paternal DNA are included. In one of our diploid, microchromosome-carrying laboratory stocks we observed eight triploid individuals which all developed into males. We investigated the mitotic and meiotic chromosomes, the synaptonemal complex (SC), and sperm production of these males, and compared them to males of the gonochoristic parental species (P. latipinna and P. mexicana) and their hybrids. This comparison revealed that P. formosa males are functional males with reduced effective fertility. They show a deviation from the typical 23 bivalents in the synaptonemal complexes as well as in diakinesis due to the triploid state. They produced offspring but only with gynogenetic Amazon molly females. This shows that the probably aneuploid sperm from P. formosa males can trigger parthenogenetic development of unreduced eggs.Cytogenetics and cell genetics 02/2000; 91(1-4):148-56.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Fertilization of Oreochromis aureus eggs with UV-irradiated sperm from the closely related species O. niloticus, followed by diploidy restoration, produced offspring with lower embryo viability and higher skeletal deformation rates than siblings generated AquacultureHub.org: http://www.aquaculturehub.org01/2001;
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Meiotic gynogenetic and triploid sea bass were produced by pressure shocks according to a previously published protocol. Pressure-treated groups did not survive as well as controls during early development and larval rearing. Performances, sexual maturation and carcass quality were examined over a period of 34–45 months. At the age of 34 months, growth of the gynogenetic fish was comparable to that of the control but inferior in the triploid fish. A predominance of male fish was found within the triploid groups, while diploid and meiotic gynogenetic fish showed equal proportions of the sexes. Gonadal maturation in triploid fish was significantly impaired, particularly in the females that showed rudimentary ovaries. Triploid males exhibited primary maturation but proved to be gametically sterile. Pressure-induced triploids did not grow as well as diploids, but these results might be ascribed to specific on-growing conditions (communal rearing). The performance of gynogenetic sea bass was comparable to that of control. The superiority of diploid fish over their triploid counterparts was confirmed during the final growing period and more clearly so in females. Performances of triploids varied according to their maternal origin. Overall, striking qualitative differences between diploid and triploid fish were found at the age of 34 and 45 months, although the results varied in a gender-specific manner. A strong maternal effect was also observed. The potential advantages of triploid sea bass for aquaculture purposes are discussed.Aquaculture 01/2004; 230:41-64. · 2.01 Impact Factor