My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9411
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9411
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:35 PM
Creation date
5/17/2009 11:51:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9411
Author
Williamson, J. H., D. C. Morizot and G. J. Carmichael.
Title
Biochemical Genetics of Endangered Colorado Pikeminoow from the Green, Yampa, Colorado, and San Juan Rivers.
USFW Year
1998.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />9 <br />72 C. For routine screening, PCR products were fractionated on 1.5% agarose gels and visualized by <br />staining with ethidium bromide. Appropriately sized bands were plugged with Pasteur pipets and used as <br />templates for a second round of 30 PCR cycles which differed only in an increased annealing temper were <br />purchased from GIBCOBRL (Grand Island, NY), New England BioLabs (Beverly, MA), Promega ature <br />of 52 C. To more accurately estimate the size of small fragments, representative samples were fractionated <br />on 3.5% non-denaturing acrylamide gels (Sambrook et al., 1989). <br />DNA from the second PCR amplifications was digested with restriction enzymes which <br />(Madison, WI), or U. S. Biochemicals (Cleveland, OH). Reactions were buffered and incubated according <br />to manufacturers' instructions. Restriction enzymes used were Bbs I, Bsu 36 1, Dde 1, Hae III, Hha 1, <br />Hinc II, Hind 111, Hinf 1, Msp 1, Nla 111, Rsa 1, Sau 96 1, Tfi 1, and Taq I (Appendix 2; Tables 1 and <br />2). Products were visualized with ethidium bromide on agarose gels. <br />Findings and Discussion <br />The purpose of this work is to describe analyses of biochemical genetic polymorphisms and to <br />report on a PCR-based assay of potential Mendelian polymorphisms from anonymous single-copy nuclear <br />DNA techniques. The intent had been to examine or repeat full analysis of 89 loci on samples of YOY.fish <br />from each designated location, but several circumstances (see below) prevented completion of these <br />analyses. <br />Not fully sampling all populations for all loci violates a basic statistical assumption of the <br />BIOSYS-1 population genetic analyses. The decision to analyze only polymorphic loci was due to limited <br />funding. Also, field notes and laboratory records indicate that samples or bodies of YOY Colorado <br />pikeminnow from the upper Green River and lower Green River were incomplete. Fish'heads' were <br />removed to obtain otoliths. This removal of otoliths or heads containing otoliths inadvertently resulted in <br />viscera removal, particularly liver, leaving muscle and fin only. The result was loss of resolution of liver <br />specific loci and brain/eye specific loci, and loss of this resolution precluded potential examination of fish <br />for many loci that would have allowed calculation of population genetic parameters for indigenous fish <br />1 populations. <br />All biologists involved with the Colorado pikeminnow genetics study design and collections agreed <br />that adult and juvenile fish not be killed to obtain necropsy samples needed for some loci. Statistical <br />assumptions necessary to compute the population genetic analyses were not met. These unmet statistical <br />assumptions include but are not limited to the following: 1) Lack of randomness,z Because of budget <br />limitations and the decision by the Biology Committee to not use necropsy tissue samples on adult <br />Colorado pikeminnow, we had to limit analyses on most adult populations to biochemical loci that had been <br />determined to be polymorphic and that could be taken by biopsy. This limitation meant that the samples <br />were biased toward variation which would greatly inflate values of population structure or variability. <br />These values were predetermined to be biased and not random, by budgetary and study design; 2) Highly <br />varied sample size. Sample sizes for various locations were inconsistent because of tissue losses and <br />depauperate populations; 3) Lack of independence. Some collection sites overlapped for some YOY, <br />juvenile, and adults sampled. This inadvertent overlap makes comparison between sites moot because of <br />the need for independent samples. Interpretation of data from juveniles was problematic or ambiguous <br />because of potential hatchery or wild origins; 4) Lack of population definition. Samples were collected in <br />multiple years for budgetary and logistical reasons. Analyses of relatedness of YOY to adults on spawning <br />sites was lost when YOY were collected in different years from purported adult spawners; 5) Lack of <br />statistical power. Population statistical analyses were designed on data from balanced populations. This <br />makes population parameters powerful for detecting change from healthy populations. However, in our <br />opinion the use of these tools on known unbalanced, depauperate, populations does little to define <br />population structure. We are convinced of the robustness of the tests if statistical assumptions were met, <br />which they were not. <br />The BIOSYS-1 analyses were thus allowed for our use as limited tools only and are not completely <br />valid as analyses to determine basic population genetic characters such as average heterozygosities,
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.