Unravelling taxonomic ambiguity of the Mastacembelidae in the Mekong Delta (Vietnam) through DNA barcoding and morphological approaches
https://doi.org/10.4081/tz.2020.72
Accepted: 1 October 2020
HTML: 230
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Morphological-based species identification can be problematic for a comparative worldwide survey if taxonomic keys are limited and inconsistent, as illustrated in the family Mastacembelidae. This study combined DNA barcoding and morphological methods to test species identification of Mastacembelidae in the Mekong Delta with emphasis on taxonomic ambiguity of the precise identification of the fish locally known as chach bong. Fish specimens were collected from fishermen in different regions of the delta. Five presumed species within two genera were recorded. Samples were morphologically measured for morphometric and meristic traits. Representative samples of each species were sequenced at the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene. The number of dorsal fin spines and general morphological appearance are distinguishable among the five presumed species. However, morphometric measurements overlapped between Macrognathus semiocellatus and Macrognathus siamensis. K2P distances based on COI sequences among species were high, ranging from 12.4% to 18.7%. All individuals were separated into monophyletic groups of species, clustered into Mastacembelus and two Macrognathus lineages. Chach bong should be recognized as Mastacembelus favus and not Mastacembelus armatus as previously classified. No Mastacembelus armatus was recorded in the Mekong Delta. GenBank sequences of Mastacembelus armatus formed a sister relationship to Mastacembelus favus although both have the same range of number of dorsal fin spines and similar reticulated patterns on the body. Misidentification between these two species has been widely recorded in international databases of species taxonomy and DNA barcodes. Nonetheless, their genetic distance (12.4%) is higher than conspecific distances of samples from other regions, indicating the two species can be differentiated by DNA barcoding.
Britz R. 1996. Ontogeny of the ethmoidal region and hyopalatine arch in Macrognathus pancalus (Percomorpha, Mastacembeloidei), with Critical Remarks on Mastacembeloid Inter- and Intrarelationships. American Museum Novitates. 3181(2):1–18.
Cakmak E, Alp A. 2010. Morphological differences among the mesopotamian spiny eel, Mastacembelus mastacembelus (Banks & Solander 1794), populations. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 10:87–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4194/trjfas.2010.0113
Decru E, Moelants T, De Gelas K, Vreven E, Verheyen E, Snoeks J. 2016. Taxonomic challenges in freshwater fishes: A mismatch between morphology and DNA barcoding in fish of the north-eastern part of the Congo basin. Molecular Ecology Resources. 16:342–352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12445
Faulwetter S, Vasileiadou A, Kouratoras M, Thanos Dailianis, Arvanitidis C. 2013. Micro-computed tomography: Introducing new dimensions to taxonomy. Zookeys. 263:1–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.263.4261
Fernado M, Kotagama O, de Alwis Goonatilake S. 2019. Mastacembelus armatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T166586A60592409. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-4.RLTS.T166586A6241626.en. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-4.RLTS.T166586A6241626.en
Fricke R, Eschmeyer WN, Fong JD. 2020. Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes: Species by Family/Subfamily. Electronic version accessed 4 May 2020.
Froese R, Pauly D. 2019. FishBase, World Wide Web electronic publication.www.fishbase.org.
Gupta S, Banerjee S. 2016. Food, feeding habit and reproductive biology of tire-track spiny eel (Mastacembelus armatus): A Review. Journal of Aquaculture Research & Development. 7(5):1000429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9546.1000429
Gustiano R, Teugels GG, Pouyaud L. 2003. Revision of the Pangasius kunyit catfish complex, with description of two new species from South-East Asia (Siluriformes; Pangasiidae). Journal of Natural History. 37(3):357–376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/713834687
Hubert N, Hanner R, Holm E, Mandrak NE, Taylor E, Burridge M, Watkinson D, Dumont P, Curry A, Bentzen P, et al. 2008. Identifying Canadian freshwater fishes through DNA barcodes. PLoS ONE. 3:e2490. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002490
Ivanova N V., Zemlak TS, Hanner RH, Hebert PDN. 2007. Universal primer cocktails for fish DNA barcoding. Molecular Ecology Notes. 7(4):544–548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01748.x
Jamaluddin JAF, So N, Tam BM, Ahmad A, Grudpan C, Page LM, Khaironizam MZ, Mohd Nor SA. 2019. Genetic variation, demographic history and phylogeography of tire track eel, Mastacembelus favus (Synbranchiformes: Mastacembelidae) in Southeast Asia. Hydrobiologia. 838(1):163–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-019-03987-3
Johnson GD, Patterson C. 1993. Percomorph phylogeny: a survey of acanthomorphs and a new proposal. Bulletin of Marine Science. 52(1):554–626.
Kano Y, Adnan MS, Grudpan C, Grudpan J, Magtoon W, Musikasinthorn P, Natori Y, Ottomanski S, Praxaysonbath B, Phongsa K, et al. 2013. An online database on freshwater fish diversity and distribution in Mainland Southeast Asia. Ichthyological Research. 60:293–295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10228-013-0349-8
Kimura M. 1980. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 16(2):111–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01731581
Kottelat M. 1998a. Systematics, species concepts and the conservation of freshwater fish diversity in Europe. Italian Journal of Zoology. 65(1):65–72.
Kottelat M. 1998b. Fishes of the Nam Theun and Xe Bangfai basins, Laos, with diagnoses of twenty-two new species (Teleostei: Cyprinidae, Balitoridae, Cobitidae, Coiidae and Odontobutidae). Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters. 9(1):1–128.
Kottelat M. 1999. Nomenclature of the genera Barbodes, Cyclocheilichthys, Rasbora and Chonerhinos (Teleostei: Cyprinidae and Tetraodontidae), with comments on the definition of the first reviser. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology. 47(2):591–600.
Kottelat M. 2001. Fishes of Laos. Colombo: WHT Publications Ltd. 198pp.
Kottelat M. 2013a. The valid generic names for the fish species usually placed in Cyclocheilichthys (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Zootaxa. 3640(4):479–482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3640.3.10
Kottelat M. 2013b. The fishes of the inland waters of Southeast Asia: A catalogue and core bibliography of the fishes known to occur in freshwaters, mangroves and estuaries. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology. Supplement 27:1–663.
Kottelat M. 2016. The fishes of the Nam Theun and Xe Bangfai drainages, Laos. Hydroecologie Appliquee. 19:271–320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/hydro/2015005
Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. 2016. MEGA7: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis Version 7.0 for Bigger Datasets. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 33(7):1870–1874. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw054
Lundberg JG, Kottelat M, Smith GR, Stiassny MLJ, Gill AC. 2000. So many fishes, so little time: An overview of recent ichthyological discovery in continental waters. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 87(1):26–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2666207
Moritz C, Cicero C. 2004. DNA barcoding: Promise and pitfalls. PLoS Biology. 2(10):e354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020354
Packer L, Gibbs J, Sheffield C, Hanner R. 2009. DNA barcoding and the mediocrity of morphology. Molecular Ecology Resources. 9:42–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02631.x
Rainboth WJ. 1996. Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong. FAO species identification field guide for fishery purposes. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 310pp.
Ratnasingham S, Hebert PDN. 2007. BOLD: The Barcode of Life Data System. Molecular Ecology Notes. 7:355–364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x
Roberts TR. 1986. Systematic review of the Mastacembelidae or spiny eels of Burma and Thailand, with description of two new species of Macrognathus. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology. 33(2):95–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905838
Roberts TR, Vidthayanon C. 1991. Systematic revision of the Asian catfish family Pangasiidae, with biological observations and descriptions of 3 new species. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 143:97–144.
Teletchea F. 2009. Molecular identification methods of fish species: Reassessment and possible applications. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 19(3):265–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-009-9107-4
Teugels GG. 1996. Taxonomy, phylogeny and biogeography of catfishes (Ostariophysi, Siluroidei): an overview. Aquatic Living Resources. 9(SupplementS1):9–34.
Tran DD, Shibukawa K, Nguyen TP, Ha PH, Tran XL, Mai VH, Utsugi K. 2013. Fishes of the Mekong Delta, Viet Nam. Viet Nam: Can Tho University Publishing House.174pp.
Travers RA. 1984. A review of the Mastacembeloidei, a suborder of synbranchiform teleost fishes. Part 2: phylogenetic analysis. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History). 47(2):83–150.
Truong TK, Tran TTH. 1993. Classification of freshwater fish in the Mekong Delta, Viet Nam. Viet Nam: Can Tho University. 361pp.
Ward RD, Zemlak TS, Innes BH, Last PR, Hebert PDN. 2005. DNA barcoding Australia’s fish species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 360(1462):1847–1857.
Will KW, Rubinoff D. 2004. Myth of the molecule: DNA barcodes for species cannot replace morphology for identification and classification. Cladistics. 20(1):47–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2003.00008.x
Supporting Agencies
This study was funded by the Can Tho University Improvement Project VN14-P6, supported by Japanese ODA loan.PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Downloads
Citations
