Using Linkage Maps as a Tool To Determine Patterns of Chromosome Synteny in the Genus Salvelinus
- *Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
- †Department of Biology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas 76129
- ‡School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98105
- §Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington 98115
- 1Corresponding authors: Texas Christian University, 2800 S. University Dr., Fort Worth, TX 76129. E-mail: m.c.hale{at}tcu.edu; and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115. E-mail: krista.nichols{at}noaa.gov
2 These authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract
Next generation sequencing techniques have revolutionized the collection of genome and transcriptome data from nonmodel organisms. This manuscript details the application of restriction site-associated DNA sequencing (RADseq) to generate a marker-dense genetic map for Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). The consensus map was constructed from three full-sib families totaling 176 F1 individuals. The map consisted of 42 linkage groups with a total female map size of 2502.5 cM, and a total male map size of 1863.8 cM. Synteny was confirmed with Atlantic Salmon for 38 linkage groups, with Rainbow Trout for 37 linkage groups, Arctic Char for 36 linkage groups, and with a previously published Brook Trout linkage map for 39 linkage groups. Comparative mapping confirmed the presence of 8 metacentric and 34 acrocentric chromosomes in Brook Trout. Six metacentric chromosomes seem to be conserved with Arctic Char suggesting there have been at least two species-specific fusion and fission events within the genus Salvelinus. In addition, the sex marker (sdY; sexually dimorphic on the Y chromosome) was mapped to Brook Trout BC35, which is homologous with Atlantic Salmon Ssa09qa, Rainbow Trout Omy25, and Arctic Char AC04q. Ultimately, this linkage map will be a useful resource for studies on the genome organization of Salvelinus, and facilitates comparisons of the Salvelinus genome with Salmo and Oncorhynchus.
- linkage mapping
- SNPs
- salmonids
- synteny
- recombination
Genetic linkage maps are useful tools in evolutionary genetics for the discovery of Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL), comparative genomics, and in anchoring sequences to specific chromosomal regions. Their use in comparative genomics between nonmodel and model organisms is important as linkage maps can facilitate the identification of candidate genes for traits of interest (Gross et al. 2008; Sarropoulou and Fernandes 2011). Moreover, advancements in sequencing technology have revolutionized the collection of genetic data on nonmodel organisms allowing linkage maps to be quickly constructed in species with limited genetic data (e.g., Sutherland et al. 2016). Despite their uses and the increased ease of their construction, linkage maps in wild species are still scarce (Ellegren 2013).
Salmonids are of interest from an evolutionary and economical perspective (Davidson et al. 2010), and linkage maps are important resources that facilitate the location of genes connected to the development of traits of interest. To that end, there are marker-dense linkage maps available for Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar; Danzmann et al. 2008; Moen et al. 2008; Lien et al. 2011), Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss; Sakamoto et al. 2000; Nichols et al. 2003; Miller et al. 2012; Palti et al. 2015), Sockeye Salmon (O. nerka; Everett et al. 2012; Larson et al. 2016; Everett and Seeb 2014), Coho Salmon (O. kisutch; Kodama et al. 2014), Chum Salmon (O. keta; Waples et al. 2016, Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha; Brieuc et al. 2014; Everett and Seeb 2014; McKinney et al. 2016), Pink Salmon (O. gorbuscha; Limborg et al. 2014), Arctic Char (Salvelinus alpinus; Nugent et al. 2017), and Brook Trout (S. fontinalis; Sutherland et al. 2016). Many of these maps have used Genotype By Sequencing (GBS) approaches and consist of thousands of SNPs distributed throughout the genome. In addition, there are genome sequences available for both O. mykiss (Berthelot et al. 2014) and S. salar (Lien et al. 2016), as well as numerous EST and genome scaffold resources for both species (Palti et al. 2011, 2014; Davidson et al. 2010).
Despite the large amount of available genetic data, salmonid genomics faces several challenges, not least an ancestral salmonid-specific (4R) genome duplication that occurred early in salmonid evolution (Allendorf and Thorgaard 1984). Although salmonid genomes are in the process of rediplodizing, a portion of the genome is still undifferentiated and can exhibit tetrasomic inheritance (∼10% of the Atlantic Salmon genome; Lien et al. 2011, 2016) Failure to identify duplicates (paralogous sequence variants) is problematic as it is difficult to infer gene dosage (and meiotic phase) for paralogs using GBS approaches; this can result in incorrect estimates of recombination (Waples et al. 2016).
Brook Trout (S. fontinalis) is a species of salmonid native to the northern United States and Canada. Although research on Brook Trout has been less intensive than on other salmonids, recent studies have described variation in several evolutionary traits of interest such as morphology, size, age of sexual maturation, and water temperature tolerance (e.g., Varian and Nichols 2010; McKinney et al. 2014; McDermid et al. 2012; Serfas et al. 2012; Kazyak et al. 2013). Many of these traits have been shown to have a genetic basis in other salmonids, including development rate in Rainbow Trout (Sundin et al. 2005; Nichols et al. 2007; Miller et al. 2012), age at maturation in Atlantic Salmon (Barson et al. 2015), migration run timing in Chinook Salmon and Rainbow Trout (Hess et al. 2016), and temperature tolerance in Chinook Salmon (Everett and Seeb 2014) and Rainbow Trout (Narum et al. 2013). However, it is unknown whether the genetic architectures for these traits are conserved between these species and Brook Trout. Having multiple linkage maps for Brook Trout would allow comparisons to be made between the organization of the genome between different populations, a necessary first step in determining the genetic architecture of traits of interest.
The Salvelinus karyotype consists of ∼80 chromosomes, 100 chromosome arms, and more acrocentric than metacentric chromosomes (the salmonid “Type A” karyotype; Phillips and Rab 2001). Oncorhynchus and Salmo have a “Type B” karyotype, which is characterized by having a diploid number of chromosomes close to 60, ∼100 chromosome arms, and more metacentric than acrocentric chromosomes (Hartley 1987; Phillips and Rab 2001). Until recently, the only available linkage maps for Salvelinus were constructed from <350 microsatellite markers (Woram et al. 2004; Timusk et al. 2011; Sauvage et al. 2012). However, Sutherland et al. (2016) mapped <4000 SNP markers in one family of Brook Trout produced by crossing one wild anadromous female from Laval River, Quebec with a male from a domestic population (Sutherland et al. 2016). Although this increases the amount of genomic information for Salvelinus, standing genetic variation is population-specific. Loci that are fixed in one population can be variable in another population. Therefore, constructing linkage maps using different populations of the same species will increase the addition of ordered polymorphic markers. In addition, the karyotypes of several salmonids vary between different populations of the same species [e.g., Arctic Char (Moghadam et al. 2007), Rainbow Trout (Thorgaard 1983), and Atlantic Salmon (Brenna-Hansen et al. 2012)]. Linkage maps are useful tools in comparative genomics, as they allow synteny to be compared between different populations of the same species. Therefore, the goals of this manuscript are twofold: (1) to produce a linkage map for Brook Trout using RADseq methods and (2) to compare the linkage map to linkage maps of Brook Trout (Sutherland et al. 2016), Arctic Char (Nugent et al. 2017), Rainbow Trout (Miller et al. 2012; Palti et al. 2015), and Atlantic Salmon (Lien et al. 2016) using the Atlantic Salmon genome as a reference and the program MapComp (Sutherland et al. 2016). Thus, we aim to increase the understanding the organization of the Salvelinus genome, both with respect to comparisons between Salvelinus and other salmonid genera, and between different species of Salvelinus.
Materials and Methods
Sampling and sequencing
Three F1 families were generated by crossing three adult male Brook Trout from Siskiwit River, MI with three adult females from Tobin Harbor, MI. Both populations spawn on and around Isle Royale, MI. Young fish then spend a period of time (typically several years) feeding in Lake Superior before returning to natal spawning grounds. Both populations have been used in restocking efforts in Lake Superior since the 1990s (Schreiner et al. 2008). The Tobin Harbor strain represents a lacustrine coaster population (i.e., spend all their life in Lake Superior), and the Siskiwit River population was founded from adfluvial fish (i.e., spawn in tributaries to Lake Superior on Isle Royale and then migrate to Lake Superior). The two strains are genetically distinct from each other (Fst = 0.13; Cooper et al. 2010; Stott et al. 2010). The Siskiwit River population has been used for heritability studies of phenotypes connected with migration (Varian and Nichols 2010; McKinney et al. 2014). The Tobin Harbor population has been used to study the ecological differences between coaster and stream living (fluvial) Trout (Huckins and Baker 2008). Crosses were made by applying light pressure on the abdomen and collecting gametes. Gametes were stored for <24 hr at 4° before fertilization. Fertilized embryos were shipped to the aquaculture facility at Purdue University, where all embryos were incubated and reared. Samples were kept in oxygenated water maintained at 8° and kept in constant darkness. A total of 176 F1 samples were generated: 52 from family 1, 54 from family 2, and 70 from family 3. After 55 d post fertilization samples were killed with a lethal dose of MS-222 (Argent Chemicals, Redmond, WA) and placed in 100% ethanol. DNA was extracted from tail tissue via a modified Phenol–Chloroform extraction protocol described in Hecht et al. (2012). DNA quality was assessed quantitatively using a Qubit (ThermoFisher, TX), and qualitatively by running 3 μl on a 1.5% agarose gel stained with ethidium bromide and viewed under UV light. Illumina RADseq was performed on all 182 (parents and F1) samples and RAD libraries were prepared following Miller et al. (2012). GBS loci identified by SbfI-linked Illumina sequencing has been used for SNP discovery in multiple salmonid linkage maps (Everett et al. 2012; Miller et al. 2012; Brieuc et al. 2014; Waples et al. 2016) and we employed a similar methodology using SbfI. Thirty-two samples were pooled on a lane, and six lanes of 100 bp single-end sequencing were conducted on an Illumina HiSequation 2000.
SNP discovery
Raw sequences were quality filtered (minimum Q score of 20) and trimmed (3′ end) to 76 bp using the program using the process RADtags script in STACKS (Catchen et al. 2011). Trimmed sequences from the six parents were individually aligned in ustacks using the “bounded” genotyping model (low = 0.001, high = 0.01) with a minimum stack depth of 10 reads. These stacks were then used to create a catalog of loci in cstacks with a maximum number of two mismatches allowed between any candidate locus. All loci within this database were then compared against themselves to remove repeat sequences using Bowtie 2 (v 2.3.0; Langmead and Salzberg 2012), allowing up to two mismatches. Any locus that aligned to another locus in the catalog was removed from the database. Alignments for each parent and F1 sample were then performed using sstacks with default settings. Genotypes were calculated using the genotypes package in STACKs (default parameters), and SNPs scored in <80% of F1 samples removed. These filtering criteria produced a total of 12,961 candidate SNPs.
Linkage mapping
Linkage maps were constructed using Lep-MAP v 2.0 (Rastas et al. 2013). Separate sex-specific maps of female segregating and male segregating loci were constructed because of the pronounced heterochiasmy exhibited by salmonids (Sakamoto et al. 2000). Pairwise estimates of linkage were carried out for all 12,961 candidate loci. First, the SeperateChromosome command was run with a minimum LOD score of 12, a maximum recombination fraction of 0.4, and a minimum number of markers per linkage group of 10. Any marker that showed evidence of segregation distortion (χ2 test P < 0.001) was removed. Unmapped markers were then rerun against the threshold map using the command JoinSingles, with a minimum LOD score of 5, a minimum LOD difference of 3, a maximum recombination fraction of 0.4, and Mendelian inheritance (χ2 test of segregation distortion P > 0.001). Markers were ordered using the OrderMarkers command using default parameters. This command rearranges the order of the markers on a linkage group and reports the “best” order (lowest LOD likelihood). Linkage groups were drawn using the program MAPCHARTv2.1 (Voorrips 2002).
Synteny with other salmonids
To determine chromosomal organization with Brook Trout and other salmonid linkage maps we used a comparative approach using the program MapComp. This program compared the markers placed on the linkage map reported herein to the Brook Trout linkage map reported in Sutherland et al. (2016), the Arctic Char linkage map reported in Nugent et al. (2017), the Atlantic Salmon linkage map reported in Lien et al. (2016), and the Rainbow Trout linkage map reported in Miller et al. (2012). MapComp compares markers from different linkage mapping studies using their position on a related genome sequence [mapped sequences are aligned to a reference genome using BWA with default parameters (Li and Durbin 2009)]. RADseq loci were mapped to the reference genome if there was a single alignment and a MAPQ score > 10. The Atlantic Salmon genome was used as a reference genome for MapComp for all comparisons because it is more complete (i.e., fewer gaps and unincorporated sequence) than the Rainbow Trout genome. Synteny between linkage groups was only inferred if >5 RADseq loci matched a specific linkage group.
Genotyping and mapping sdY
The parents of all three mapping crosses were used as positive controls to validate whether sdY could be used to accurately determine sex in the F1 samples. PCR conditions followed those reported in Yano et al. (2013) using primers E2S1 and E2AS2. Reactions consisted of 0.1 mM of each primer, 5 μl of 2× Go-Taq PCR buffer (Promega), 50 ng of template DNA, and nanopure water to 10 μl. The presence of male-specific amplification was confirmed by running PCR products on a 1.5% agarose gel stained with GelRed (Biotium) and viewed under UV light. There was no incidence of misassignment between sdY and biological sex for any of the parents, therefore all F1 individuals were genotyped using the methods described above. PCR amplification for 10 candidate males and 10 candidate females was repeated twice to determine accurate assignment of sex. In no incidence was there a mismatch. sdY was added to the mapping dataset by scoring females as homozygotes and males as heterozygotes.
Data availability
Supplemental Material, File S1 contains the input file for Lep-MAP showing genotypes for all three families for the 1990 mapped markers. File S2 contains the consensus sequence, marker ID, female map position, male map position, and linkage group for all mapped markers. File S3 shows the position of mapped markers in the Brook Trout linkage map. File S4 shows Oxford plots comparing the Brook Trout linkage map to (A) the Rainbow Trout linkage map, (B) The Atlantic Salmon linkage map, (C) The Brook Trout linkage map published in Sutherland et al. (2016), and (D) The Arctic Char linkage map. All Oxford plots were drawn by pairing mapped markers through the Atlantic Salmon genome. All RADseq data are uploaded in Data Dryad (doi: 10.5061/dryad.75mt7).
Results
Sequencing
Illumina RADseq produced a total of 427,823,712 quality-filtered sequences for the F1 samples and 39,938,749 quality filtered reads for the parents. The number of quality filtered reads varied from 780,935 to 12,936,817 for the F1 individuals (average number of QF reads = 3,145,762) and from 1,755,890 to 16,643,600 for the parents (average number of QF reads = 6,656,458).
Linkage mapping and placement of the sex marker
A total of 12,961 unique RAD loci were discovered in three F1 families of Brook Trout. The final linkage map consisted of 1990 markers located on 42 linkage groups (genotypes provided in File S1, sequence and position of RAD loci provided in File S2). The number of mapped markers varied per family (1295 for family 1, 1923 for family 2, and 905 for family 3), of which 701 loci were shared between all three families, 728 were shared between two of the three families, and 561 loci were specific to a family. Linkage groups built from female informative meioses ranged from 0 to 185.1 cM with a total map size of 2502.5 cM. The male map totaled 1863.8 cM with individual linkage groups ranging in size from 0 to 112.9 cM (see Table 1 for summary statistics on linkage map and Figure 1 for the complete sex averaged map). These 42 linkage groups likely correspond to the 42 chromosomes described by previous linkage mapping studies in Salvelinus. The sex marker was place on BC35 in an area of low recombination with 26 other markers (File S3).
Sex-averaged Brook Trout linkage map. The bars on the linkage groups (LGs) represent mapped restriction site-associated DNA sequencing (RADseq) loci. Lengths are calculated in Kosambi cM. Two names per LG are given: The top name refers to the linkage map herein (allowing comparison with File S1, File S2, and File S3), whereas the bottom name allows comparison with Sutherland et al. 2016. ^ indicates that two linkage groups were aligned to the same linkage group in Sutherland et al. 2016 and * indicates homology inferred by a small number of markers.
Comparisons within Salvelinus
MapComp was able to determine homology between the linkage map herein and in Sutherland et al. (2016) for all but three Brook Trout chromosomes (BC27, BC37, and BC42). These missing chromosomes likely reflect the small number of mapped markers on these chromosomes rather than differences in the karyotype between the two populations. In addition, five linkage groups in the study herein could not be matched to the Arctic Char linkage map in Sutherland et al. (2016), nor could they be placed (accurately) on the Atlantic Salmon genome. Comparisons with Sutherland et al. (2016) confirmed the presence of eight metacentric chromosomes (BC01–BC08) and 36 acrocentric chromosomes (BC09–BC42). MapComp determined homology for 35 Arctic Char linkage groups with Brook Trout, with AC09, AC34, and AC36 failing to produce homology with any Brook Trout linkage group (Nugent et al. 2017: Table 2). Three Arctic Char chromosome arms (AC01q, AC04q, and AC10) each matched two Brook Trout chromosome arms (BC03 and BC42, BC15 and BC35, and BC06 and BC28, respectively), suggesting separate chromosome rearrangement events after Arctic Char split from Brook Trout (discussed below). See Oxford plots showing synteny in File S4.
Comparisons with Rainbow Trout and Atlantic Salmon
Comparisons with the Atlantic Salmon genome found synteny for all 50 chromosomal arms. However, there were two incidences of two Brook Trout linkage groups [from Sutherland et al. (2016)] matching the same Atlantic Salmon chromosome arm: BC02 and BC37 both matched Ssa17qb (although note that support for a match between BC02 and Ssa17qb was weak) and BC15 and BC17 matched Ssa10qa. See Oxford plots showing synteny in File S4.
A total of 613 Brook Trout loci mapped to unique positions on the draft O. mykiss genome (Berthelot et al. 2014). A total of 40 Brook Trout linkage groups could be aligned to the Rainbow Trout genome (BC16 and BC27 did not align). One-to-one orthology could be confirmed for 11 chromosomes, including five retained metacentric chromosomes between Brook Trout and Rainbow Trout (BC02, BC03, BC06, BC07, and BC08, which match both arms of Omy21, Omy17, Omy06, Omy14, and Omy12, respectively) and six acrocentric chromosomes (BC26, BC38, BC35, BC28, BC25, and BC11, which match Omy22, Omy24, Omy25, Omy26, Omy27, and Omy28, respectively). Four Rainbow Trout chromosome arms matched two Brook Trout linkage groups (Omy01p, Omy02q, Omy13q, and Omy14p). One O. mykiss chromosome (Omy04) matched three Brook Trout linkage groups (LG19, LG21, and LG31: See Table 2). Six rainbow Trout chromosome arms (Omy02p, Omy09p, Omy11p, Omy13p, Omy18p, and Omy20q) could not be matched to the Brook Trout linkage map. See Oxford plots showing synteny in File S4.
Discussion
The development of RADseq methodology has increased the amount of genetic information available for nonmodel organisms, including Salvelinus. Linkage maps that were once limited to several hundred microsatellite markers (Timusk et al. 2011; Sauvage et al. 2012) can now be constructed using many thousands of SNP loci (Sutherland et al. 2016; Nugent et al. 2017; study herein). Despite this increase in data, making comparisons between different linkage maps is complicated by a lack of shared markers between maps. This limitation has led to the development of software, such as MapComp (Sutherland et al. 2016), which allows comparisons to be made between different linkage maps by mapping loci to a related genome. Here, we use MapComp to compare homology between the map presented herein and linkage maps from Brook Trout (Sutherland et al. 2016), Arctic Char (Nugent et al. 2017), Rainbow Trout (Palti et al. 2015; Miller et al. 2012), and Atlantic Salmon (Lien et al. 2011, 2016) using the Atlantic Salmon genome as a reference. These results contribute to our understanding of genome organization within Salvelinus, between Salvelinus and Salmo, and between Salvelinus and Oncorhynchus.
Comparisons within Salvelinus
The linkage map consists of 42 linkage groups, which corresponds with the diploid number of chromosomes in this species (2n = 84; Phillips and Rab 2001). Comparisons with Sutherland et al. (2016) confirm the presence of eight metacentric chromosomes (BC01–BC08; Table 2). However, there were some differences in the structure of the metacentric chromosomes between the Brook Trout maps. For example, BC04 matched two linkage groups (21 and 38) in the present map instead of just one linkage group as reported in Sutherland et al. (2016). This most likely represents oversplitting of one linkage group rather than karyotype variation between populations of Brook Trout in the structure of BC04. Additional evidence for variation in metacentric chromosomal arrangements includes a linkage group in the current study that matched both BC02 and BC37 in Sutherland et al. (2016). This linkage group also matched both AC03q and AC24 in Arctic Char (Nugent et al. 2017), suggesting merging of two separately inherited chromosome arms in the study herein. However, comparisons with the Atlantic Salmon genome found homology between the two Atlantic Salmon arms (Ssa17qb and Ssa07q) that matched this linkage group in the study herein. These two arms are known to form tetrasomic pairing in Atlantic Salmon during meiosis. The conservation of this tetrasomic pairing between Salvelinus and Salmo suggests possible residual tetrasomy between BC02 and BC37, rather than differences in chromosome arrangement.
Homology could be confirmed for 31 out of 34 acrocentric chromosomes when compared to Sutherland et al. (2016), with BC27, BC42, and BC37 failing to produce alignments with linkage groups in the study herein. This is almost certainly due to the low number of mapped markers rather than differences in the organization of the genome between the two mapping populations. There were three incidences of two linkage groups in the study herein matching one linkage group in Sutherland et al. (2016) (BC28, BC31, and BC33). Again, these most likely resulted from oversplitting of linkage groups, rather than differences in the karyotype between different populations of Brook Trout.
Comparisons were also made between Brook Trout and Arctic Char to determine variation in karyotype between two species of Salvelinus. The Arctic Char genome contains nine metacentric chromosomes (AC01, AC03, AC06, AC08, AC13, AC14, AC15, AC18, and AC27), of which five (AC01, AC06, AC13, AC18, and AC27) are homologous with metacentric chromosomes in Brook Trout (BC03, BC07, BC04, BC01, and BC05, respectively), suggesting conservation of these metacentric chromosomes among Salvelinus (Table 2). Two of the remaining four metacentric chromosomes in Arctic Char show homology with one arm of a metacentric chromosome in Brook Trout (AC03p and AC15p, which match BC02a and BC06a, respectively). The missing arms from both these Arctic Char metacentric chromosomes did not match any Brook Trout linkage groups, suggesting either fusion events that are specific to Arctic Char or inaccuracies in our comparative mapping approach. Nugent et al. (2017) report that AC03q and AC15q are homologous with Atlantic Salmon Ssa07q and Ssa26, respectively. As Ssa07q and Ssa26 are homologous to BC02b and BC06b, respectively, we believe that AC03 and AC15 are homologous with BC02 and BC06 and that the lack of homology between the q arms of these Arctic Char chromosomes and Brook Trout are due either to inaccuracies or (more likely) a low number of mapped markers in these regions. The remaining two Arctic Char metacentric chromosomes (AC08 and AC14) each match multiple Brook Trout linkage groups (BC27 and BC33, and BC31 and BC16, respectively) suggesting that these fusions are not shared by Brook Trout. Further linkage maps constructed from other species of Salvelinus will determine if the metacentric organization of these chromosomes is specific to Arctic Char, of if four acrocentric chromosomes represent fissions that are unique to Brook Trout.
The Arctic Char karyotype contains two split metacentric chromosomes, AC04 and AC20. Arctic Char vary in their structure of ACO4, where individuals can have either one metacentric chromosome (type 1) or one metacentric and one acrocentric chromosome (type 2). The population used by Nugent et al. (2017) is type 2 and comparisons with Brook Trout confirm homology of AC04p to BC38 and AC04q to BC35 and BC15, suggesting either a fusion event that is unique to Arctic Char or a fission event that is unique to Brook Trout. Comparisons to the Atlantic Salmon genome for BC15, BC35, and BC38 matched Ssa10qb, Ssa09qa, and Ssa09qc, respectively. As none of these chromosome arms represent known homeologies, and this split metacentric chromosome comprises three acrocentric chromosomes in Brook Trout, it is likely that this fusion is unique to Arctic Char. Similarly, comparisons to Brook Trout suggest that AC20 matches both BC08 and BC14. Comparisons to the Atlantic Salmon genome also found that both arms of AC20 matched with chromosome arms that are not homeologous (Ssa06p and Ssa03q), confirming that this metacentric chromosome is unique to Arctic Char.
Evidence of homeologous relationships in Brook Trout
The genome duplication event that occurred in the ancestors of the modern-day salmonids resulted in a tetrasomic genome that is in the process of returning to a diploid state. However, several regions of the genome are still undifferentiated and form tetrasomic pairings in meiosis (Allendorf and Thorgaard 1984; Berthelot et al. 2014; Lien et al. 2016). Chromosomal arm homologies were inferred between Brook Trout and Atlantic Salmon, Rainbow Trout, and Arctic Char by comparative mapping approaches (see Materials and Methods). These homologies were used to identify potential tetrasomic inheritance patterns in Brook Trout (Table 3). Homeologous relationships seem to be conserved within Oncorhynchus (Kodama et al. 2014), between Oncorhynchus and Salmo (Lien et al. 2016), and between Salvelinus, Oncorhynchus, and Salmo (Nugent et al. 2017). Seven of the eight metacentric Brook Trout chromosomes contain one arm exhibiting residual tetrasomy in Atlantic Salmon (Ssa05q matched BC07, Ssa12qa matched BC03, Ssa03q matched BC08, Ssa04p matched BC04, Ssa07q matched BC02, Ssa26 matched BC06, and Ssa16qb matched BC05, respectively), suggesting that metacentric chromosomes in Brook Trout resulted from a tetrasomically-inherited arm fusing with an acrocentric chromosome that has diplodized; similar results were found in Arctic Char (Nugent et al. 2017). The chromosome organization of Atlantic Salmon is unusual in that Atlantic Salmon have seven rather than eight tetrasomic homeologous pairs, as found in Oncorhynchus (Kodama et al. 2014; Lien et al. 2016). Our comparative mapping approach with Rainbow Trout suggests an additional tetrasomic pairing involving BC01b and BC36. BC01b and BC36 match Omy23 and Omy01q, respectively, and additional evidence for tetrasomy was found for the two linkage groups that matched these chromosome arms in Arctic Char (AC18q and AC25, respectively). Evidence for this tetrasomic pairing in Salvelinus is especially compelling, as it has been proposed that one of the two chromosome arms that makes up a tetrasomic pairing needs to be from a metacentric chromosome (Kodama et al. 2014). However, evidence from Lien et al. (2016) suggests that fused acrocentric chromosomes can also provide the structure necessary for homeologous recombination.
Comparisons with Atlantic Salmon
Comparison with Atlantic Salmon supported previous observations of genome evolution in salmonids. Chromosomes Ssa01 and Ssa09 in Atlantic Salmon were each formed through a fusion of three ancestral chromosome arms (Lien et al. 2016). Each of these chromosomes aligns to three linkage groups in our Brook Trout linkage map, and similar results have been found in other Salvelinus and Oncorhynchus linkage maps (Sutherland et al. 2016; Nugent et al. 2017; Kodama et al. 2014). These fusions in Atlantic Salmon arose after the lineages that gave rise to Salvelinus and Oncorhynchus split from Salmo during salmonid evolution. An additional five Atlantic Salmon chromosomes [Ssa06 (metacentric), Ssa10 (fused acrocentric), Ssa13 (fused acrocentric), Ssa14 (fused acrocentric), and Ssa20 (fused acrocentric)] each matched two Brook Trout linkage groups in the study herein. The same chromosomes also matched two linkage groups in Sutherland et al. (2016), further supporting multiple fusion events after Salmo split from the ancestor of Oncorhynchus and Salvelinus. Two metacentric Brook Trout linkage groups (BC01 and BC08) each matched two Atlantic Salmon chromosome arms (Ssa13qb and Ssa03q, and Ssa19qb and Ssa01qa, respectively). The alignment of linkage group BC01 to multiple Atlantic Salmon chromosomes appears to represent true karyotype differences between Salvelinus and Atlantic Salmon, as the same result was seen with AC18 in Arctic Char (Nugent et al. 2017). These consistent results suggest a fission event of the ancestral chromosome after Salmo split from the other salmonids. However, no such relationship was found with the Arctic Char chromosome arms that match BC08. Two other Salvelinus-specific fusions, BC04 (AC13) and BC05 (AC27), were not seen in other salmonids. Interestingly, both of these chromosomes are metacentric, suggesting that the fusion of these chromosomes happened after Salvelinus diverged from the other salmonids.
Position of the sex marker in the Salvelinus genome
Our mapping results determined that the sex marker (sdY) mapped to BC35, in an area of reduced recombination in both males and females. This linkage group matched Ssa09qa in the Atlantic Salmon genome and AC04q in Arctic Char (Nugent et al. 2017). The location of sdY in salmonids has received a lot of interest, as sdY is part of a cassette that has moved to different chromosomes between species (Yano et al. 2012, 2013) and between different populations of Atlantic Salmon (Eisbrenner et al. 2014). The determination of sex via a cassette that jumps to different chromosomes is, so far, unique to the salmonids (Lubieniecki et al. 2015). Recently, Sutherland et al. (2017) also mapped sex to BC35, confirming its location in two populations of Brook Trout, suggesting that the sex causative locus has not moved to different chromosomes, at least in the Brook Trout populations studied. However, the same does not hold for other species of Salvelinus, as chromosome painting has determined that the sex marker has moved to different linkage groups in different populations of Arctic Char (AC04 in North American and AC01/21 in European Arctic Char; Phillips et al. 2006; Timusk et al. 2011). However, it must be stressed that the function of sdY in Salvelinus has not been determined. Follow-up studies that document patterns of gene expression in Brook Trout are necessary to determine if sdY is the master sex-determining gene in this species.
Conclusions
Here, we present a linkage map for Brook Trout comprised of 42 linkage groups. Comparisons with other salmonid linkage maps confirmed some of the many fusion and fission events that have occurred both after Salvelinus and Salmo split from a common ancestor, and between Arctic Char and Brook Trout. Using comparative genomic approaches with software such as MapComp increased our understanding of salmonid genome evolution, particularly in chromosome arms that are undifferentiated and can exhibit tetrasomic inheritance.
Acknowledgments
We thank Dale Bast at the Iron River National Fish Hatchery for constructing the crosses and providing the samples, the Aquaculture facility at Purdue University, Phillip San Miguel, Rick Westerman, and Allison Sorg at the Genomics Facility at Purdue University for generating the Illumina sequence data. Ben Hecht was helpful with organizing input files for LepMap. Lastly, we would like to thank two anonymous referees for providing helpful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this manuscript. The Great Lakes Fisheries Commission provided funding for this research (project number 23121 awarded to K.M.N. and M.C.H).
Footnotes
Supplemental material is available online at www.g3journal.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1534/g3.117.300317/-/DC1.
Communicating editor: R. Houston
- Received September 6, 2017.
- Accepted September 27, 2017.
- Copyright © 2017 Hale et al.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.