Widespread utility of highly informative AFLP molecular markers across divergent shark species

Journal of Heredity

Volumn 97, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 607-611

  Zenger, Kyall R ^a   Stow, Adam J ^b   Peddemors, Victor ^c   Briscoe, David A ^b   Harcourt, Robert G ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU NATAL   (South Africa)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MOLECULAR MARKER;

AMPLIFIED FRAGMENT LENGTH POLYMORPHISM; ARTICLE; ENDANGERED SPECIES; GALEOMORPHII; GENE LOCUS; GENE ORDER; GENETIC CONSERVATION; GENETIC IDENTIFICATION; GENETIC MARKER; GENETIC POLYMORPHISM; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOME ANALYSIS; MORPHOLOGICAL TRAIT; NONHUMAN; ORDO; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLE SIZE; SHARK;

ANIMALS; GENETIC MARKERS; GENOME; POLYMORPHISM, GENETIC; RANDOM AMPLIFIED POLYMORPHIC DNA TECHNIQUE; SHARKS;

CARCHARIAS TAURUS; CARCHARODON; CARCHARODON CARCHARIAS; CHONDRICHTHYES; GALEOCERDO CUVIER; GALEOMORPHII; ORECTOLOBUS; ORECTOLOBUS ORNATUS;

EID: 33845956229     PISSN: 00221503     EISSN: 14657333     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jhered/esl044     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Anderson JA, Churchill GA, Autrique JE, Tanksley SD, Sorrells ME. 1993. Optimizing parental selection for genetic linkage maps. Genome. 36:181-186.
2. Baum JK, Myers RA, Kehler DG, Worm B, Harley SJ, Doherty PA. 2003. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science. 299:389-392.
3. Bensch S, Akesson M. 2005. Ten years of AFLP in ecology and evolution: why so few animals? Mol Ecol. 14:2899-2914.
4. Campbell D, Duchesne P, Bernatchez L. 2003. AFLP utility for population assignment studies: analytical investigation and empirical comparison with microsatellites. Mol Ecol. 12:1979-1991.
5. Gerber S, Mariette S, Streiff R, Bodénés C, Kremer A. 2000. Comparison of microsatellites and amplified fragment length polymorphism markers for parentage analysis. Mol Ecol. 9:1037-1048.
6. Feldheim KA, Gruber SH, Ashley MV. 2001. Population genetic structure of the lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris) in the western Atlantic: DNA microsatellite variation. Mol Ecol. 10:295-303.
7. Heist EJ. 2004. Genetics of sharks, skates and rays. In: Carrier JC, Musick JA, Heithaus MR, editors. Biology of sharks and their relatives. New York: CRC Press. p. 471-485.
8. Heist EJ, Jenkot JL, Keeney DB, Lane RL, Moyer GR, Reading BJ, Smith NL. 2003. Isolation and characterization of polymorphic microsatellite loci in nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum). Mol Ecol Notes. 3:59-61.
9. Mariette S, Le Corre V, Austerlitz F, Kremer A. 2002. Sampling within the genome for measuring within-population diversity: trade-offs between markers. Mol Ecol. 11:1145-1156.
10. Martin AP, Naylor GJP, Palumbi SR. 1992. Rates of mitochondrial DNA evolution are slow in sharks compared to mammals. Nature. 357:153-155.
11. Nei M. 1987. Molecular evolutionary genetics. New York: Columbia University Press.
12. Nelson JS. 1994. Fishes of the world. New York: Wiley.
13. Otway NM, Bradshaw CJA, Harcourt RG. 2004. Estimating the rate of quasi-extinction of the Australian sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus) population using deterministic age- and stage-classified models. Biol Conserv. 119:341-350.
14. Pardini AT, Jones CS, Noble LR, Kreiser B, Malcolm H, Bruce BD, Stevens JD, Cliff G, Scholl MC, Francis M, et al. 2001. Sex-biased dispersal of great white sharks. Nature. 412:139-140.
15. Schrey A, Heist EJ. 2002. Microsatellite markers for the shortfin mako and cross-species amplification in Lamniformes. Conserv Genet. 3:459-461.
16. Smith SE, Au DW, Show C. 1998. Intrinsic rebound potentials of 26 species of Pacific sharks. Aust J Marine Freshw Res. 49:663-678.
17. Stow A, Zenger K, Briscoe D, Gillings M, Peddemores V, Otway N, Harcourt R. 2006. Isolation and genetic diversity of endangered grey nurse shark (Carcharias taurus) populations. Biol Lett. 2:308-311.
18. Swartz FJ, Maddock MB. 2002. Cytogenetics of the elasmobranchs: genomic evolution and phylogenetic implications. Mar Freshw Res. 53:491-502.
19. Wang Z, Baker AJ, Hill GE, Edwards SV. 2004. Reconciling actual and inferred population histories in the house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) by AFLP analysis. Evolution. 57:2852-2864.
20. Whitehead A, Anderson SL, Kuivila KM, Roach JL, May B. 2003. Genetic variation among interconnected populations of Catostomus occidentalis: implications for distinguishing impacts of contaminants from biogeographical structuring. Mol Ecol. 12:2817-2833.
21. Vekemans X, Beauwens T, Lemaire M, Roldan-Ruiz I. 2002. Data from amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers show indication of size homoplasy and of a relationship between degree of homoplasy and fragment size. Mol Ecol. 11:139-151.
22. Vos P, Hogers R, Bleeker M, Reijans M, Van de Lee T, Hornes M, Frijters A, Pot J, Peleman J, Kuiper M, et al. 1995. AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res. 23:4407-4414.