Translator Disclaimer
1 June 2011 Karyotype diversity of the offspring resulting from reproduction experiment between diploid male and triploid female of silver Prussian carp, Carassius gibelio (Cyprinidae, Actinopterygii)
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Populations of silver Prussian carp (Carassius gibelio) are known to exhibit different ploidy levels among their individuals. No consistent information is available regarding chromosome number of triploid biotype. Generally diploids have 100 chromosomes while triploids have 150–160 chromosomes. The karyotype of the C. gibelio triploid biotype is characterized by a variable number of small chromosomal elements called supernumerary chromosomes. Here we report the results of a reproduction experiment between a diploid male and triploid female with respect to chromosome numbers of the parents and their offspring. Thirty metaphases of both parents and fifteen individuals of the offspring were investigated. We found variability in chromosome numbers among analysed offspring with a fluctuation from 150 to 159. In comparison, the chromosome numbers of male and female individuals were found to be 100 and 159 respectively. Our results show a high chromosomal plasticity of the Carassius gibelio triploid biotype.

Introduction

Silver Prussian carp (Carassius gibelio, Bloch, 1782) occurs in a vast territory of Eurasia in two main biotypes: diploid — evolutionary tetraploid with 100 chromosomes and triploid — evolutionary hexaploid with approximately 150 chromosomes (Kottelat & Freyhof 2007). The triploid biotype is also known for its gynogenetic form of reproduction — sperm dependent parthenogenesis (Golovinskaya et al. 1965, Peňáz et al. 1979). Some authors use the term allogynogenesis to describe a specific form of reproduction of silver Prussian carp wherein the male sperm partially contributes to the genome of offspring (Yi et al. 2003, Zhao et al. 2004).

The original distribution of silver Prussian carp throughout Europe is unclear due to a number of introductions, confusion with feral goldfish (Carassius auratus), as well as misinterpretation of the taxonomical status of C. gibelio in older literature (Kottelat 1997, Kalous et al. 2004). Although there are many ambiguities of the origin; the expansion of the triploid biotype of C. gibelio in Central Europe is well documented (Holčík & Žitňan 1978). Lusk et al. (1977) described the first occurrence of an all female population of C. gibelio in a lower stretch of the River Dyje in the territory of the Czech Republic. The study of Peňáz et al. (1979) and Lusk & Baruš (1978) revealed that the fish were all triploids and female, and therefore should reproduce only gynogenetically. The carp aquaculture in the Czech Republic was then responsible for the expansion of the triploid biotype of C. gibelio to two other major European basins of the Elbe and Oder. This was caused by a number of reasons, e.g. the accidental introduction of silver Prussian carp into common carp stock or its use as baitfish by anglers, as well as its occasional escapes during the draining of ponds or due to floods (Lusk et al. 1980, Kubečka 1989, Slavík & Bartoš 2004). Surprisingly, at the beginning of the 1990's, males and diploids started to appear within the population of C. gibelio in the River Dyje alluvium (Halačka et al. 2003, Lusková et al. 2004). In a relatively short time, the once all female triploid population transformed to a diploid-polyploid complex with various percentages of males reaching 43 % (Vetešník 2005). Similar complexes were also recorded from other places in Europe (Černý & Sommer 1994, Abramenko et al. 1998, Tóth et al. 2000). Few cytogenetic studies exist on the European population of C. gibelio and the results are quite variable especially in the triploid biotype — see Table 1. In any case, cytogenetics can be considered a crucial approach in explaining mechanisms of mysterious phenomena within former all female populations of C. gibelio such as a sudden appearance of males and a ploidy level reduction from 3n to 2n in a short period (Ráb et al. 2007). Here we present the results of a reproduction experiment between diploid male and triploid female originating from the locality where the population of silver Prussian carp was originally established within the Czech Republic.

Table 1.

Chromosome numbers of Carassius gibelio reported from Europe.

t01_115.gif

Material and Methods

Parental fish were captured during the spring of 2006 in alluvium of the River Dyje close to its confluence with the River Morava, in South Moravia — Czech Republic. Fish were transported to the University of South Bohemia, Research Institute of Fish Culture and Hydrobiology in Vodňany, Czech Republic. Prior to any handling, the fish were anaesthetized with 0.6 ml.l-1 2-phenoxyethanol (Merck Co., Darmstadt, Germany). Hormonal stimulation and gamete collection followed the methodology of Linhart et al. (2003), while fertilization and egg incubation in experimental trays were carried out according to Linhart et al. (2006). Blood was sampled according to Svobodová et al. (1991). Ploidy levels of both specimens were determined as a relative DNA content in erythrocytes by means of flow cytometry (Partec CCA I; Partec GmbH, EU) using 4′, 6-diamidino-2-phenylindol (DAPI). Samples were processed according to Flajšhans et al. (2008). Erythrocytes of a diploid male gave a relative DNA content of 2n as the diploid standard.

A number of the hatched offspring (approximately 100 fish larvae) and both parental specimens were subsequently kept in aquaria until chromosome preparation was carried out.

Parental male and female were investigated using a standard direct procedure for chromosome preparation from the kidneys according to Ráb & Roth (1988). Both male and female nuclei suspensions were dropped on slides and air-dried.

Fifteen specimens of offspring were investigated from 2008 to 2010 using a non-destructive method of chromosome preparation from regenerated tissue of caudal fin; a slightly modified protocol of Völker & Kullmann (2006) was used. The result of a single preparation was, in most cases, composed of two slides with three nuclei rings per specimen. Staining was processed in a buffered 5 % solution of Giemsa-Romanowski for 10 minutes, and 30 best metaphase spreads per individual were examined each time using a system composed of a Microscope Olympus BX41TF (magnification 1000 ×), an Olympus SP-350 digital camera and a computer with QuickPHOTO MICRO version 2.3 software (PROMICRA, s.r.o., Praha, Czech Republic) running on Microsoft®) Windows®) XP.

Chromosome counting was carried out on a PC through the use of QuickPHOTO-MICRO version 2.3 software with a “Counting Points” function. We counted all chromosomes and chromosomal structures, and we did not separate microchromosomes due to their difficult definition and unclear size limits with respect to others chromosomes.

Fig. 1.

Frequency distribution of chromosome numbers of individuals of offspring resulting from reproduction experiment, a) two individuals with modal number of chromosomes 150, b) one individual with modal number of chromosomes 151, c) six individuals with modal number of chromosomes 156, d) three individuals with modal number of chromosomes 158, e) three individuals with modal number of chromosomes 159.

f01_115.jpg

Results

Male and female were identified by flowing cytometry as diploid and triploid respectively. The modal chromosome number of diploid parental male was 100 (70.0 % of investigated metaphases) and the modal chromosome number of triploid female was 159 (46.6 % of investigated metaphases). Fifteen analysed individuals of offspring were divided into five groups with different chromosome numbers — see Fig. 1.

Discussion

Several decades after the appearance of the C. gibelio triploid biotype in the territory of the Czech Republic, a fascinating change of ploidy and the male female ratio within the population was observed. A cytogenetic study, conducted shortly after the appearance of all female triploid biotype of C. gibelio in South Moravia, recorded 160 chromosomes and six microchromosomes (Peňáz et al. 1979). Unfortunately, no other karyological data from the Czech Republic have been available since 1979.

Our analysis of C. gibelio caught in the same locality after almost 30 years revealed different chromosome numbers for male and female, 100 (Fig. 2) and 159 (Fig. 3) respectively. A reproduction experiment of the 2n male and 3n female shows a variability of chromosome numbers in 15 specimens of the offspring (sex undetermined). It is clear that the C. gibelio triploid biotype does not bear a defined number of chromosomes, although it does oscillate above 150. This is in agreement with Zhou & Gui (2002) and supports the hypothesis of close relations between East Asian and European populations of triploid biotypes of silver Prussian carp (Kalous & Šlechtová 2004, Kalous et al. 2007) in terms of karyology. The presented findings can also explain inequality in older literature regarding chromosome numbers of C. gibelio in Europe (see Table 1). In previous times, authors commonly investigated only few specimens from one locality caught at the same time, and therefore they came to the conclusion that the triploid biotype of C. gibelio possesses only one specific number of chromosomes. There is also always a high probability of error when the chromosomes in metaphases are counted; this is primarily due to their high numbers, small size, and the presence of small chromosomal elements called microchromosomes or supernumerary chromosomes (Boroń 1994). Although many authors published karyotypes of C. gibelio, they are generally in disagreement. Without additional staining or in situ hybridisation it is very complicated to be oriented in karyological structure. We therefore present only chromosome numbers gained from a sizable dataset. Fifteen analysed individuals of the offspring were divided into five groups according to their modal chromosome numbers: 150, 151, 156, 158 and 159. This variability supports a process of interaction between male and female gametes after the fertilization of eggs from 3n individual with the sperm of 2n male. In any case, this interaction leads to a production of triploid offspring. Since a genetic analysis of progeny was not performed, we can not be sure whether these are recombinant offspring, or that some/all of the individuals are of gynogenetic origin. The most common modal chromosome number of offspring was 156 (Fig. 4), which is also often recorded from other studies (Yi et al. 2003, Zhao et al. 2004). Tóth et al. (2005) found 148–156 chromosomes within the offspring of diploid male and triploid female. Unfortunately, the authors grouped together the chromosome numbers of analysed specimens resulting from the aforementioned reproduction experiment, and it is not clear if the variability was observed among the offspring or just within the metaphases.

Fig. 2.

Metaphase of diploid male parent of silver Prussian carp (2n = 100) (× 1000).

f02_115.jpg

Fig. 3.

Metaphase of triploid female parent of silver Prussian carp (3n = 159) (× 1000).

f03_115.jpg

Fig. 4.

Metaphase of triploid offspring specimens of silver Prussian carp with most common chromosome number (3n = 156) (× 1000).

f04_115.jpg

The dual reproduction modes, including gynogenesis and sexual reproduction, have been demonstrated to coexist in the triploid silver Prussian carp (Gui & Zhou 2010). In other words, when the eggs are inseminated by heterologous sperm from other species, they produce a clonal lineage of all females by gynogenesis. However, when homologous sperm of triploid (evolutionary hexaploid) male inseminate eggs of triploid (evolutionary hexaploid) female, the responding development mode is sexual reproduction, which produces recombinant offspring. This reproduction strategy requires production of sperm with a “haploid” chromosome number (in triploids this means a 1.5 ploidy level). The discovery of haploid sperm production of diploid C. gibelio males and aneuploid sperm production (close to 1.5n) in triploid C. gibelio males was proven by Flajšhans et al. (2008). The theoretical fertilization of eggs of 3n female by homologous sperm (1n) of diploid male should result in offspring with approximately 125 chromosomes. Our results do not support this hypothesis because all of the analysed specimens of the offspring were identified to be triploids with at least 151 chromosomes. It seems that silver Prussian carp with 125 chromosomes are rare, or the number of chromosomes is not in accordance with the viability of fertilized egg or even cannot be formed in ova.

The variability in karyological structure was found in the gynogenetic fish Poecilia formosa, which is of hybrid origin (Lamatsch et al. 2004). Hybridisation is considered a main evolutionary factor in the occurrence of gynogenetic polyploid animals (Dawley 1989, Vrijenhoek et al. 1989). In the case of triploid biotype of C. gibelio, it is not clear which species could have been the parental ones. However, recent findings of a much higher genetic variability of the genus Carassius in Eurasia presented by Takada et al. (2010) and Rylková et al. (2010) open new perspectives in finding a potential parental species.

Acknowledgements

We thank Martin Flajšhans and his colleagues from FROV, JČU in Vodňany for the reproduction of fish, flow cytometry analyses, and his valuable advices regarding the problems associated with ploidy levels of silver Prussian carp. We also thank Šárka Pelikánová and Jörg Bohlen for their meticulous care of the fish. We appreciate proof reading of the manuscript made by Brian Kavalir and finally, we are grateful to two anonymous referees for their comments and recommendations. This study was financially supported by grants: GACR 206/05/2159, IRP FAPPZ, CZU No. MSMT 604670901 and IRP IAPG No. AV0Z50450515.

Literature

1.

Abramenko M.I., Poltavtseva T.G. & Vasetskii S.G. 1998: Discovery of triploid males in lower Don populations of the crucian carp Carassius auratus gibelio (Bloch, 1782). Doklady akademii Nauk 363 (3): 415–418. (in Russian)  Google Scholar

2.

Boroń A. 1994: Karyotypes of diploid and triploid silver crucian carp Carassius auratus gibelio (Bloch). Cytobios 80: 117–124. Google Scholar

3.

Cherfas N.B. 1966: The natural triploidy in females of unisexual form of silver crucian carp (Carassius auratus gibelio, Bloch). Genetika 5: 16–24. (in Russian)  Google Scholar

4.

Černý J. & Sommer N. 1994: Age, growth and production of the silver crucian carp (Carassius auratus L.) in a former side-arm of the middle River Danube in 1985–1990. Biológia (Bratislava) 49: 247–254. (in Slovak)  Google Scholar

5.

Dawley R.M. 1989: An introduction to unisexual vertebrates. In: Dawley R.M. & Bogart J.P (eds.), Evolution and ecology of unisexual vertebrates. Bulletin 466, New York State Museum, Albany , New York : 1–18. Google Scholar

6.

Fister S. & Soldatovic B. 1989: Karyotype analysis of a gynogenetic population of Carassius auratus gibelio, Bloch (Cyprinidae) from Pancevacki Rit. Acta Veterinaria-Beograd 39 (5–6): 259–268. Google Scholar

7.

Flajšhans M., Rodina M., Halačka K., Vetešník L., Gela D., Lusková V. & Lusk S. 2008: Characteristics of sperm of polyploid Prussian carp, Carassius gibelio (Bloch). J. Fish Biol. 73: 323–328. Google Scholar

8.

Golovinskaya K.A., Romashov D.D. & Cherfas N.B. 1965: Unisexual and bisexual crucian carp (Carassius auratus gibelio, Bloch) forms. Vopr. Ikhtiol. 5: 614–629. (in Russian)  Google Scholar

9.

Gui J.F. & Zhou L. 2010: Genetic basis and breeding application of clonal diversity and dual reproduction modes in polyploid Carassius auratus gibelio. Sci. China Life Sci. 53: 409–415. Google Scholar

10.

Halačka K., Lusková V. & Lusk S. 2003: Carassius “gibelio” in fish communities of the Czech Republic. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 3 (1): 133–138. Google Scholar

11.

Holčík J. & Žitňan R. 1978: On the expansion and origin of Carassius auratus in Czechoslovakia. Folia Zool. 27: 279–288. Google Scholar

12.

Kalous L., Bohlen J. & Ráb P. 2004: What fish is Carassius gibelio: taxonomic and nomenclatoric notes. ECI XI, Tallin 2004, Abstract Book : 26–27. Google Scholar

13.

Kalous L. & Šlechtová V. 2004: Carassius gibelio autochthonous or exotic species in Europe: molecular phylogenetic evidence. ECI XI, Tallin 2004, Abstract Book : 122. Google Scholar

14.

Kalous L., Šlechtová V., Jr. , Bohlen J., Petrtýl M. & Švátora M. 2007: First European record of Carassius langsdorfii from the Elbe basin. J. Fish Biol. 70 (Suppl. A): 132–138. Google Scholar

15.

Kottelat M. 1997: European freshwater fishes. Biologia Bratislava 52 (Suppl. 5): 51–53. Google Scholar

16.

Kottelat M. & Freyhof J. 2007: Handbook of European freshwater fishes. 1st ed. Publications Kottelat, Cornol , SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar

17.

Kubečka J. 1989: Spreading of the German Carp, Carassius auratus (Linnaeus, 1758), in the middle course of the Elbe River. Muzeum a současnost, Roztoky, ser. natur. 3: 43–50 . ( in Czech ) Google Scholar

18.

Lamatsch D.K., Nanda I., Schlupp I., Epplen J.T., Schmid M. & Schartl M. 2004: Distribution and stability of supernumerary microchromosomes on natural populations of the Amazon molly, Poecilia formosa. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 106: 189–194. Google Scholar

19.

Linhart O., Rodina M., Gela D., Kocour M. & Rodriguez M. 2003: Improvement of common carp artificial reproduction using enzyme for elimination of eggs stickiness. Aquat. Living Resour. 16: 450–456. Google Scholar

20.

Linhart O., Rodina M., Flajšhans M., Mavrodiev N., Nebesářová J., Gela D. & Kocour M. 2006: Studies on sperm of diploid and triploid tench, Tinca tinca (L.). Aquacult. Int. 14: 9–25. Google Scholar

21.

Lusk S., Baruš V. & Veselý V. 1977: On the occurrence of Carassius auratus in the Morava River drainage area. Folia Zool. 26: 377–381. Google Scholar

22.

Lusk S. & Baruš V. 1978: Morphometric features of Carassius auratus from the drainage area of the Morava River. Folia Zool. 27: 177–190. Google Scholar

23.

Lusk S., Baruš V. & Kirka A. 1980: Current spreading and importance of the giebel (Carassius auratus gibelio, Bloch) in Czechoslovakia. Živočišná výroba 25 (11): 871–878. ( in Czech with English summary ) Google Scholar

24.

Lusková V., Halačka K., Vetešník L. & Lusk S. 2004: Changes of ploidy and sexuality status of “Carassius auratus” populations in the drainage area of the River Dyje (Czech Republic). Ecohydrology & Hydrobiologv 4 (2): 165–171. Google Scholar

25.

Peňáz M., Ráb P. & Prokeš M. 1979: Cytological analysis, gynogenesis and early development of Carassius auratus gibelio. Acta Sc. Nat. Brno 13 (7): 1–33. Google Scholar

26.

Ráb P. & Roth P. 1988: Cold-blooded vertebrates. In: Balíček P., Forejt J. & Rubeš J. (eds.), Methods of chromosome analysis. Cytogenet. Biol. Soc. Brno : 115–124. ( in Czech ) Google Scholar

27.

Ráb P., Bohlen J., Rábová M., Flajšhans M. & Kalous L. 2007: Cytogenetics as a tool in fish conservation: the present situation in Europe. In: Pisano E., Ozouf-Costaz C., Foresti F. & Kapoor B.G. (eds.), Fish cytogenetics 2007. Science Publishers, Enfield : 215–241. Google Scholar

28.

Raicu P., Taisescu E. & Bănărescu P. 1981: Carcissius carcissius and C. auratus, a pair of diploid and tetraploid representative species (Pisces, Cyprinidae). Cytologia 46: 233–240. Google Scholar

29.

Rylková K., Kalous L., Šlechtová V. & Bohlen J. 2010: Many branches, one root: first evidence for a monophyly of the morphologically highly diverse goldfish (Carcissius auratus). Aquaculture 302: 36–41. Google Scholar

30.

Slavík O. & Bartoš L. 2004: What are the reasons for the Prussian carp expansion in the upper Elbe River, Czech Republic? J. Fish Biol. 65 (Suppl. A): 240–253. Google Scholar

31.

Svobodová Z., Pravda D. & Paláčková J. 1991: Unified methods of haematological examination of fish. Manuals of Research Institute of Fish Culture and Hydrobiology, Vodňany 22: 31. Google Scholar

32.

Takada M., Tachihara K., Kon K., Yamamoto G., Iguchi K., Miya M. & Nishida M. 2010: Biogeography and evolution of the Carcissius auratus — complex in East Asia. BMC Evol. Biol. 10: 7. Google Scholar

33.

Tóth B., Váradi L., Várkonyi E. & Hidas A. 2000: Silver crucian carp (Carcissius auratus gibelio, Bloch) in the Danube river basin. Tiscia monograph series 42: 61—65. Google Scholar

34.

Tóth B., Várkonyi E., Hidas A., Edviné Meleg E. & Váradi L. 2005: Genetic analysis of offspring from intra- and interspecific crosses of Carcissius auratus gibelio by chromosome and RAPD analysis. J. Fish Biol. 66: 784–797. Google Scholar

35.

Vetešník L. 2005: Biological characteristic of silver Prussian carp (Carcissius auratus) under the aspect of different ploidy level between individuals. Ph.D. thesis at Mendel University in BrnoGoogle Scholar

36.

Völker M. & Kullmann H. 2006: Sequential chromosome banding from single acetic acid fixed embryos of Chromaphyosemion killifishes (Cyprinodontiformes, Nothobranchiidae). Cybium 30: 171–176. Google Scholar

37.

Vrijenhoek R.C., Dawley R.M., Cole C.J. & Bogart J.P. 1989: A list of known unisexual vertebrates. In: Dawley R. & Bogart J. (eds.), Evolution and ecology of unisexual vertebrates. Bulletin 466. Albany , New York State Museum : 19–23. Google Scholar

38.

Vujosevic M., Zivkovic S., Rimsa D., Jurisic S. & Cakic P. 1983: The chromosomes of 9 fish species from the Dunabe basin in Yugoslavia. Acta. Biol. Jug.-Ichthyologia 15: 29–40. Google Scholar

39.

Yi M.S., Li Y.Q., Liu J.D., Zhou L., Yu Q.X. & Gui J.F. 2003: Molecular cytogenetic detection of paternal chromosome fragments in allogynogenetic gibel carp, Carcissius auratus gibelio, Bloch. Chromosome Res. 11: 665–671. Google Scholar

40.

Zhao J., Liu L.G. & Chen X.L. 2004: Karyotypic analysis of the multiple tetraploid allogynogenetic Pengze crucian carp and its parents. Aquaculture 237: 117–129. Google Scholar

41.

Zhou L. & Gui J.F. 2002: Karyotypic diversity in polyploid gibel carp, Carcissius auratus gibelio, Bloch. Genetica 115: 223–232. Google Scholar
Lukáš Kalous and Martin Knytl "Karyotype diversity of the offspring resulting from reproduction experiment between diploid male and triploid female of silver Prussian carp, Carassius gibelio (Cyprinidae, Actinopterygii)," Folia Zoologica 60(2), 115-121, (1 June 2011). https://doi.org/10.25225/fozo.v60.i2.a5.2011
Received: 8 June 2010; Accepted: 1 November 2010; Published: 1 June 2011
JOURNAL ARTICLE
7 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top