A genetic linkage map for the saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus)

  • Lee G Miles1Email author,

    Affiliated with

    • Sally R Isberg1, 2,

      Affiliated with

      • Travis C Glenn3, 4,

        Affiliated with

        • Stacey L Lance3,

          Affiliated with

          • Pauline Dalzell5,

            Affiliated with

            • Peter C Thomson1 and

              Affiliated with

              • Chris Moran1Email author

                Affiliated with

                BMC Genomics200910:339

                DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-10-339

                Received: 14 April 2009

                Accepted: 29 July 2009

                Published: 29 July 2009

                Abstract

                Background

                Genome elucidation is now in high gear for many organisms, and whilst genetic maps have been developed for a broad array of species, surprisingly, no such maps exist for a crocodilian, or indeed any other non-avian member of the Class Reptilia. Genetic linkage maps are essential tools for the mapping and dissection of complex quantitative trait loci (QTL), and in order to permit systematic genome scans for the identification of genes affecting economically important traits in farmed crocodilians, a comprehensive genetic linage map will be necessary.

                Results

                A first-generation genetic linkage map for the saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) was constructed using 203 microsatellite markers amplified across a two-generation pedigree comprising ten full-sib families from a commercial population at Darwin Crocodile Farm, Northern Territory, Australia. Linkage analyses identified fourteen linkage groups comprising a total of 180 loci, with 23 loci remaining unlinked. Markers were ordered within linkage groups employing a heuristic approach using CRIMAP v3.0 software. The estimated female and male recombination map lengths were 1824.1 and 319.0 centimorgans (cM) respectively, revealing an uncommonly large disparity in recombination map lengths between sexes (ratio of 5.7:1).

                Conclusion

                We have generated the first genetic linkage map for a crocodilian, or indeed any other non-avian reptile. The uncommonly large disparity in recombination map lengths confirms previous preliminary evidence of major differences in sex-specific recombination rates in a species that exhibits temperature-dependent sex determination (TSD). However, at this point the reason for this disparity in saltwater crocodiles remains unclear.

                This map will be a valuable resource for crocodilian researchers, facilitating the systematic genome scans necessary for identifying genes affecting complex traits of economic importance in the crocodile industry. In addition, since many of the markers placed on this genetic map have been evaluated in up to 18 other extant species of crocodilian, this map will be of intrinsic value to comparative mapping efforts aimed at understanding genome content and organization among crocodilians, as well as the molecular evolution of reptilian and other amniote genomes. As researchers continue to work towards elucidation of the crocodilian genome, this first generation map lays the groundwork for more detailed mapping investigations, as well as providing a valuable scaffold for future genome sequence assembly.

                Background

                Microsatellites are an excellent choice of genetic marker for genome mapping due to their hyper-variability and abundance throughout most vertebrate genomes [1]. Typing of microsatellite DNA loci by routine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was developed almost 20 years ago [24], and has since facilitated the construction of dense genetic maps in many species. Genetic maps are valuable tools in numerous areas of genetic research, particularly for the localization and dissection of quantitative trait loci (QTL), and for comparative mapping between species. Comprehensive linkage maps have been developed using microsatellite markers in humans, many biomedical models, livestock, fish, birds, invertebrates, plants and other organisms [513]. Although genetic linkage maps have been developed for a broad array of species, no such maps exist for any crocodilians, or indeed any other non-avian member of the Class Reptilia.

                Crocodilians are the sole surviving reptilian archosaur, a group of diapsids that include dinosaurs and other ancient reptiles that gave rise to birds [14]. Diverging from the evolutionary lineage that gave rise to mammals more than 300 million years ago [1517], Reptilia represent a valuable intermediate evolutionary group placed between mammals and more distantly related vertebrate species such as fish [7, 16]. Recent progress in the development of genomic resources for studies in reptiles has given impetus to comparative genomics aimed at understanding the evolution and structure of the reptilian genome [1719]. Genome sequences are now available for two avian species [chicken [20], and zebra finch http://​www.​songbirdgenome.​org/​index.​html], as well as for one non-avian reptile, the green anole (Order Squamata, http://​www.​broad.​mit.​edu/​models/​anole/​). Work is also currently underway to sequence the genome of the painted turtle (Order Chelonia, http://​www.​genome.​gov/​10002154). Although the Order Crocodylia remains unrepresented, the generation of a comprehensive genetic map for a crocodilian will provide a significant step towards the elucidation of the crocodilian genome, providing a valuable scaffold for genome sequence assembly, and will be of intrinsic value to comparative mapping efforts aimed at understanding the molecular evolution of reptilian, as well as other amniote genomes.

                From an economic perspective, crocodilians play an important role in modern agriculture, as well as forming a basis for tourism, with management programs in more than 40 nations worldwide [21]. The Australian crocodile industry produces farmed saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) for the international skin trade. Although still an emerging livestock industry, the Australian crocodile industry, following the lead of other livestock industries, has recently developed a comprehensive genetic improvement program [22]. Research efforts have thus far focused on genetic and phenotypic parameter estimation for selection objectives and selection criteria required for multi-trait index selection [2226]. However, this type of animal selection occurs with little or no knowledge of what is occurring at the DNA level. One of the major limitations to performance-based selection in crocodiles is the large generation interval, which is estimated to be 13 years [22]. To improve the rate of genetic gain currently achieved in the industry, particularly for traits that are difficult to measure such as disease resistance and sex limited traits, as well as other complex traits such as growth rate, animal survival and skin quality, trait-linked DNA markers will be necessary. Animal selection employing marker information will increase the rate of genetic gain by permitting early selection decisions to be made on large animal resources, thereby both increasing selection intensity and reducing the generation interval. The availability of a comprehensive linkage map, with markers evenly spaced across the genome, will facilitate the systematic searches necessary to identify genes affecting traits of economic importance, with the potential to incorporate marker information into the animal selection process using marker assisted selection (MAS) [27, 28]. Accordingly, a genetic linkage map for the saltwater crocodile will have both scientific and commercial benefits.

                Evidence of genetic linkage between ten microsatellites was previously reported for the saltwater crocodile by Isberg et al. [29] based on a limited number of genetic markers developed by Fitzsimmons et al. [30]. However, Miles et al. (2009a) [31] have since developed 253 novel polymorphic microsatellite markers for saltwater crocodiles, thus providing a sufficiently large marker resource for genome mapping. Besides the previous lack of suitable markers, another major reason why there are no genome maps for the Order Crocodylia is the difficulty in breeding informative predigrees from which DNA resources can be developed. Indeed, the lack of pedigreed animals has thus far thwarted efforts to generate a linkage map for other model reptiles, such as Anolis. Fortunately, the use of unitized breeding pens, coupled with detailed pedigree records in the Australian crocodile industry, has provided the pedigrees and complementary DNA resources necessary for the construction of the first crocodilian genetic map.

                Results

                Data integrity

                Pedigree analyses identified incorrect parentage assignment for one of the six full-sib families comprising the Linkage Reference Panel. Unfortunately, the correct parents could not be identified within the population, and consequently this family was removed from the Linkage Reference Panel and future linkage analyses. The final Linkage Reference Panel consisted of five full-sib families comprising 83 individuals. Average heterozygosities for the parental animals are described in Miles et al. (2009a) [31].

                Linkage map characteristics

                The average number of informative meioses for the 203 genotyped markers was 195, with a maximum of 848 and a minimum of 12. Two-point linkage analyses assigned 180 of the 203 typed microsatellites to 14 linkage groups at a LOD ≥ 3.0, with linkage group sizes ranging from two to 56 markers. Twenty-three microsatellites (CpDi16, CpF401, CpP1003, CpP1005, CpP1413, CpP1502, CpP1608, CpP1611, CpP201, CpP207, CpP2209, CpP2505, CpP2705, CpP2813, CpP2816, CpP3202, CpP3507, CpP4111, CpP607, CpP714, CpP715, CpP717, CpP1006) did not show significant linkage to any other markers. The total lengths for the female and male recombination maps were 1824.1 cM and 319.0 cM, respectively, indicating an uncommonly large disparity in sex-specific map lengths. Due to this large difference, no sex-averaged map is presented. In the female map, linkage group lengths varied from 9.2 to 476.6 cM, with inter-locus distances ranging from 0 to 88.1 cM, and an average distance of 14.9 cM. In the male map, linkage group lengths ranged from 0.0 to 94.3 cM, with inter-locus distances ranging from 0 to 42.4 cM, and an average distance of 4.0 cM. The current female and male maps contain 145 and 95 genetically separated positions, respectively. Further parameters for the saltwater crocodile linkage maps are summarized in Table 1. The spacing and ordering of markers along the 14 linkage groups for the female- and male-specific maps are presented in Figure 1, 2 and 3.
                http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2164-10-339/MediaObjects/12864_2009_Article_2223_Fig1_HTML.jpg
                Figure 1

                Linkage groups 1 to 4 of the female-specific linkage map forC. porosus. The female-specific genetic map comprises 180 markers assigned to 14 linkage groups (LG1-LG14), and spans a total map length of 1824.1 cM. Linkage groups 1 to 4 are presented here. The number of loci and total estimated genetic lengths (cM) are provided above each respective linkage group. Locus nomenclature, map order, and inter-locus distances (Koasambi distances) are provided next to each of the linkage groups. Markers assigned to the same map location are boxed. Markers indicted by an asterisk ** could not be ordered within the existing map.

                http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2164-10-339/MediaObjects/12864_2009_Article_2223_Fig2_HTML.jpg
                Figure 2

                Linkage groups 5 to 14 of the female-specific linkage map forC. porosus. The female-specific genetic map comprises 180 markers assigned to 14 linkage groups (LG1-LG14), and spans a total map length of 1824.1 cM. Linkage groups 5 to 14 are presented here. The number of loci and total estimated genetic lengths (cM) are provided above each respective linkage group. Locus nomenclature, map order, and inter-locus distances (Koasambi distances) are provided next to each of the linkage groups. Markers assigned to the same map location are boxed.

                http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2164-10-339/MediaObjects/12864_2009_Article_2223_Fig3_HTML.jpg
                Figure 3

                The male-specific genetic linkage map forC.porosus. This genetic map comprises 180 markers assigned to 14 linkage groups (LG1-LG14), and spans a total map length of 319.0 cM. The number of loci and total estimated genetic lengths (cM) are provided above each respective linkage group. Locus nomenclature, map order, and inter-locus distances (Koasambi distances) are provided next to each of the linkage groups. Markers assigned to the same map location are boxed. Markers indicted by an asterisk ** could not be ordered within the existing map.

                Table 1

                Parameters of the C. porosus linkage map

                         

                No. of intervals

                  

                Map Length (cM)

                No. of positions

                Average interval (cM)

                15 - 30 cM

                > 30 cM

                Linkage Group

                No. of markers

                Female

                Male

                F:M

                ratio

                F

                M

                F

                M

                F

                M

                F

                M

                1

                56*

                476.6

                34.7

                13.7

                42

                28

                11.3

                1.2

                4

                0

                5

                0

                2

                28

                301.6

                36.4

                8.3

                18

                13

                16.8

                2.8

                3

                0

                3

                0

                3

                28

                275.3

                25.6

                10.8

                22

                13

                12.5

                2.0

                6

                0

                2

                0

                4

                18

                150.3

                54.5

                2.8

                12

                12

                12.5

                4.5

                1

                1

                2

                0

                5

                12

                215.3

                27.4

                7.9

                11

                6

                19.6

                4.6

                1

                0

                3

                0

                6

                10

                171.8

                94.3

                1.8

                8

                9

                21.5

                10.5

                1

                0

                3

                2

                7

                7

                17.2

                2.1

                8.2

                4

                2

                4.3

                1.1

                0

                0

                0

                0

                8

                4

                9.2

                1.7

                5.4

                3

                2

                3.1

                0.9

                0

                0

                0

                0

                9

                3

                23.2

                0.0

                8

                3

                1

                7.7

                0.0

                1

                0

                0

                0

                10

                3

                25.5

                19.8

                1.3

                2

                2

                12.8

                9.9

                1

                1

                0

                0

                11

                3

                88.1

                0.0

                8

                2

                1

                44.1

                0.0

                0

                0

                1

                0

                12

                3

                18.5

                0.0

                8

                3

                1

                6.2

                0.0

                1

                0

                0

                0

                13

                3

                28.5

                8.8

                3.3

                3

                3

                9.5

                2.9

                1

                0

                0

                0

                14

                2

                22.9

                13.7

                1.7

                2

                2

                11.5

                6.9

                1

                0

                0

                0

                total

                180

                1824.0

                319.0

                5.7

                135

                95

                13.8

                3.4

                21

                2

                19

                2

                * Two markers could not be ordered within this linkage group

                Differences in sex-specific recombination maps

                The exclusive mapping of co-dominant markers in the saltwater crocodile has permitted the direct comparison of inter-locus distances between sexes along the entire length of the recombination map. The female map length exceeds that of the male for every linkage group (Table 1), and the overall female map length is 5.7-fold greater than that of the male map. However, this disparity varies quite significantly among linkage groups. With the exception of those LGs where zero recombination is apparent in the male, the ratio of female-to-male map lengths ranges between 1.8:1 and 13.7:1 (Table 1), suggesting that although the high level of observed heterochiasmy exists across the entire map, it is not necessarily evenly distributed across the entire genome.

                Discussion

                An uncommonly large difference in sex-specific recombination rates

                This study reports the first genetic map for a non-avian reptile. The most unusual feature of this map is the uncommonly large difference in female and male map lengths, with significantly lower recombination evident in the male. Evidence of heterochiasmy in Crocodylia was previously reported by Isberg et al [29], based on only three pair-wise linkages and a single linkage group comprising four loci exhibiting a female-to male recombination ratio of 2.8:1. The generation of a comprehensive linkage map incorporating 180 microsatellites presents far stronger support for this observation, with an estimated sex-specific recombination ratio exceeding 5.7:1 for females relative to males. The magnitude of this difference not only supports previous findings, but also establishes convincingly that it is a genome-wide phenomenon. Cytogenetic analysis of female and male meiosis will be required to further understand the basis of this uncommonly large difference.

                Recombination heterogeneity

                Differences in recombination rates between sexes are not uncommon, and have been well documented in numerous vertebrate species. In mammals, this ratio has typically ranged between 1.0 and 2.0, with the heterogametic sex typically exhibiting the lower recombination rate [5, 6, 8, 32, 33], with several notable exceptions [10, 34, 35]. It has been suggested that birds show no sex-specific differences in recombination [36], whilst in other non-mammalian and non-avian vertebrates species, the sex-specific recombination ratio has been shown to exceed 2:1. Fish species are reported to exhibit the most extreme levels of heterochiasmy among vertebrates, with average ratios of 7.4:1 reported for the Japanese flounder [37], 8.26:1 reported for Atlantic salmon [38], and a ratio in excess of 10:1 reported for the Western Australian seahorse when four microsatellites were compared [39]. Although the average disparity for saltwater crocodiles did not exceed these previous reports, the disparity between female and male recombination maps lengths reached an upper limit as high as 13.7:1 for LG1. This evidence suggests that crocodilians exhibit one of the greatest disparities in recombination frequencies between sexes among vertebrate species. This finding also adds to the empirical evidence that fish and non-avian reptiles exhibit higher levels of heterochiasmy compared with mammals and birds. Moreover, the current saltwater crocodile map provides a further exception to the Haldane-Huxley rule [40, 41], which purports that the reduced recombination frequency is characteristically observed in the heterogametic sex, since crocodilians exhibit temperature-dependent sex determination (TSD) and lack classical sex chromosomes. It would appear that heterochiasmy is in fact unrelated to the sex chromosomes as previous theories have implied, but presumably relates to other major differences in male and female meiosis.

                Although the reason for the disparity in map distances between male and female saltwater crocodiles is thus far unexplained, several theories have been proposed for other vertebrate species. In eutherian mammals, it has been proposed that differences in the rate of male and female recombination might be related to the sex-specific environment in which the germ cell finds itself, as opposed to the genotype [42]. Hassold and Hunt [43] proposed that temporal differences in the initiation and progression of meiosis in males and females could affect recombination distribution and frequency between sexes. Alternatively, Tease and Hulten [44] proposed that differences in the pairing and synapsis of homologs at meiosis cause spermatocytes and oocytes to have different exchange patterns. Several studies using sex-reversed animals or meiocytes have investigated the relationship between phenotypic and genotypic sex on synaponemal complex (SC) length, chiasma distribution and recombination frequency, and all have reported the consistent association of sex-specific differences with phenotypic sex. In particular, Lynn et al. [42, 45] showed that the rate and pattern of recombination in meiocytes from XY sex-reversed and XO female mice and humans were virtually identical to those in normal XX females. Similarly, sex-reversal studies in fish species have shown that phenotypic sex, rather than genotype, determines SC length, chiasma distribution, and recombination frequency, regardless of the sex determining system (i.e. XX/XY or WZ/WW [46, 47]). SC length has been shown to be correlated with recombination frequency in placental mammals [45], whilst no clear relationship appears to exist between the sexual dimorphism of SC length and recombination frequency in fish species [46]. Similar cytogenetic studies should be undertaken in crocodilians, and other species with TSD, to determine whether sex-specific differences in recombination are attributable to differences in the architecture of SC between males and females.

                Map construction and genome coverage

                The number of markers that showed significant linkage (LOD ≥ 3.0) with at least one other marker was high (88.7%). Of the 23 loci that remain unassigned, more than half had relatively low numbers of informative meioses and hence less power. Although fourteen linkage groups were identified, based on the karyotype available for the saltwater crocodile (2n = 34; [48]), at least three chromosomes still remain unrepresented. This information indicates that the true map length will be larger than that reported in the current map, therefore exceeding current estimates of 1824.1 and 319.0 cM for females and males, respectively. As additional markers are mapped to locations beyond the terminal markers of each linkage group, it will be of interest to note whether there is an inflation of the male recombination map length as a result of distal localization of chiasmata. Similar observations have been reported in the female fat-tailed dunnart, Sminthopsis crassicaudata, as a result of distal localization of chiasmata in all of the autosomes [49]. Certainly, clustering of chiasmata at the ends of chromosomes, coupled with interstitial chromosomal regions devoid of chiasmata in the male, would explain the significantly reduced size of the male recombination map compared with the female. However, with the data currently available, the cause of this disparity remains unclear.

                While this framework map is reasonably comprehensive, it will undoubtedly evolve with the addition of more markers, allowing the establishment of linkage on unrepresented chromosomes, and refining interval orders for those existing linkage groups. Ideally, the addition of further microsatellites would be desirable due to their high levels of heterozygosity. However, microsatellites are expensive and labor intensive to generate. Moreover, reported low levels of repetitive sequence in non-avian reptiles may limit the rapid development of a saturated crocodilian genetic map with microsatellites alone [19]. Fortunately, recent advances in next generation sequencing technologies, coupled with the production of high-density microarray systems for highly multiplexed genotyping, have made genome-wide genotyping with thousands of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers possible [50], thus providing an efficient and cost-effective means of saturating genome maps. The generation and mapping of a saltwater crocodile SNP resource to refine the framework map is anticipated in the near future.

                Physically anchoring the C. porosus linkage map

                The 14 linkage groups are not yet assigned to saltwater crocodile chromosomes. However, the recent generation of a Bacterial Artificial Chromosome (BAC) library for the saltwater crocodile (further information available at http://​www.​mgel.​msstate.​edu/​dna_​libs.​htm) will facilitate the anchoring of the linkage map in the near future. The localization of BAC clones containing markers terminally located within linkage groups to saltwater crocodile chromosomes via fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) will not only permit the anchoring and orientation of linkage groups, but will also provide an indication of the level of genome coverage. This work is already underway.

                Linkage mapping and QTL analysis in the crocodile

                In spite of future plans to refine the saltwater crocodile map, the current linkage map is sufficiently dense to facilitate preliminary systematic genome searches for QTL affecting economically important traits, as well as traits of evolutionary significance in farmed saltwater crocodiles. Marker information and phenotypic profiles obtained from QTL studies may, in the future, be incorporated into animal breeding programs through marker assisted selection (MAS). The ability to select replacement breeding stock based on marker genotypes at day of hatch would significantly improve the genetic improvement system by discounting the need to performance test animals prior to selection (particularly for sex-limited traits and those which are expressed late in life). This would also increase the intensity of selection and improve the overall rate of genetic gain by expediting selection information from day of hatch. This framework map is the first step towards the identification of QTL in farmed saltwater crocodiles. However, the accuracy of map interval order is of intrinsic importance to the dissection of complex quantitative traits [51]. Thus, continued map refinement will be vital to the future utility of the saltwater crocodile map for the development of MAS tools for the crocodile industry.

                Potential for comparative mapping of Crocodylia

                Of the 180 microsatellites incorporated in this map, more than 70 have also been cross-amplified in as many as 18 non-source species of Crocodylia [52]. The high success of cross-amplification (more than 90% success for Crocodylus species) opens up the possibility for comparative mapping among the 14 extant Crocodilidae species, as well as between different genera of Crocodylia. Comparative mapping studies would permit researchers to draw upon the map information now available for the saltwater crocodile, and apply it to other crocodilians. For example, the genotypic determinant of a valuable phenotype in one species could be directly tested for its involvement in a similar phenotype in another species [33]. Furthermore, investigation of map synteny between species could provide valuable insights into genome organization and chromosome evolution in Crocodylia and other taxa [53]. Accordingly, this first-generation linkage map not only represents a valuable resource for researchers working with saltwater crocodiles, but also for crocodilian researchers and evolutionary biologists collectively.

                Conclusion

                This linkage map for the saltwater crocodile genome represents the first genetic map for a crocodilian, or indeed any other non-avian reptile, and reveals major differences in genome-wide sex-specific recombination rates in a species that exhibits temperature-dependent sex determination (TSD). This framework map lays the groundwork for future detailed mapping studies of Crocodylia, in which additional microsatellites, SNPs and other markers will be added for rapid construction of next generation high-density maps. Given the high level of success of cross-species amplification reported for the mapped microsatellites [52], the existing map presents a valuable opportunity to conduct comparative mapping investigations aimed at understanding genome organization and patterns of genome evolution in Crocodylia. Furthermore, while it will be necessary to increase marker density before conducting detailed QTL mapping investigations, this first generation map is sufficiently dense to facilitate preliminary systematic genome searches to identify QTL and genomic regions affecting traits of economic importance in farmed crocodiles, as well as traits of ecological importance in wild populations. The Porosus Mapping Resource has been invaluable for the construction of the framework map, and it will hopefully continue to support map refinement in the future. DNA from this resource will be made available to research groups seeking to place additional public domain markers on the existing framework for map refinement.

                Methods

                Mapping population

                The long generation interval (13 years) for saltwater crocodiles [22], coupled with the relative infancy of the industry, means that no deep pedigrees are available for making DNA resources for mapping. The mapping panel developed for this study, the Porosus Mapping Panel, was therefore derived from a simple two-generation pedigree. Parents chosen for inclusion in this resource were long-term, known-breeding pairs housed in unitized pens at the Darwin Crocodile Farm, Northern Territory, Australia. The parents were wild-caught and assumed to be unrelated. Eggs from breeding pairs were collected and artificially incubated until hatch. Upon hatch, the offspring were uniquely marked using scute cuts [22]. Clutches arising from the 2005, 2006 and 2007 nesting seasons were included in this study. Capture, handling and blood sampling of crocodiles was approved by Australian Animal Ethic Committee, permit No. N00/8-2005/3/4177.

                As the purpose of constructing a genetic linkage map is to facilitate whole genome scans for QTL, data from animals subsequently typed for QTL studies were integrated into the final linkage analysis. Consequently, the Porosus Mapping Panel can be divided into two sub-panels: the Linkage Reference Panel and the QTL Resource Panel.

                Linkage Reference Panel

                The Linkage Reference Panel consisted of 96 individuals from six full-sib families. This panel size was chosen to correspond with the 96-well plate platform used for both PCR and genotype analyses in order to streamline data generation and collection. All family cohorts in this panel were selected from 2007 offspring, and family sizes ranged from 14 to 18 individuals. This resource was typed for all available polymorphic loci to construct the framework linkage map.

                QTL Resource Panel

                The QTL Resource Panel consisted of 482 individuals from ten full-sib families comprising offspring from the 2005, 2006 and 2007 cohorts. Individual families included in the QTL resource were selected based on the large variation in residuals for traits of interest, after accounting for fixed effects, using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) models described in Isberg et al. [2426]. Family sizes ranged from 13 to 89 individuals. Eighty-three of the individuals from this panel were also present in the Linkage Mapping Panel. The 399 individuals that did not appear in the Linkage Mapping Panel were typed for 71 microsatellite loci selected for their even distribution across the resulting framework linkage map based on the Linkage Reference Panel alone.

                DNA extraction

                All blood samples were collected with EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) syringes from the cervical sinus using the method described in Lloyd and Morris [54], and immediately frozen for later processing. DNA was isolated and purified from C. porosus blood using a phenol-chloroform extraction protocol adapted from Sambrook et al. [55].

                Microsatellite genotyping

                In total, 262 polymorphic microsatellites [30, 31] were genotyped on the Linkage Reference Panel. PCR reactions for each marker were performed in 12.5 μl-volumes using PTC-100 (MJ Research) and GeneAmp PCR System 9700 (Applied Biosystems) thermocyclers. Final concentrations for optimized reactions were 10 mM Tris pH 8.4, 50 mM KCl, 0.5 μM unlabeled primer, 0.05 μM tag labeled primer, 0.45 μM universal dye labeled primer, 2.0 mM MgCl2, 0.5 mM dNTPs, 0.5 U units JumpStart Taq DNA Polymerase (Sigma), and approximately 20 ng DNA. Universal CAG-primers were labeled with either VIC, 6-FAM or NED fluorescent dyes, as previously described in Miles et al. (2009a) [31]. Reactions were placed on one of two stratified touchdown profiles [56], with each profile encompassing a 10°C span of annealing temperatures (ranges: 65-55°C and 55-45°C), according to the optimal conditions identified for each respective primer [31]. PCR amplicons for each of the respective fluorochromes were pooled (VIC, 6-Fam and NED) and analyzed on an ABI 3130xl or 3730xl automated DNA sequencer. Raw data were imported into Genemapper version 4.0 (Applied Biosystems) for genotype analysis. Genotypes for each microsatellite locus were scored, and exported into a single data set via a custom BioPython script.

                Errors in genotype data are known to considerably inflate genetic map distances [57]. To circumvent genotype errors in the current dataset, all genotypes were verified by an independent third party. The PREPARE function in CRIMAP was also used to flag spurious genotypes that departed from the expected Mendelian segregation patterns. Any discordant genotypes were either retyped or removed from the dataset. Of the 262 markers genotyped, 203 performed satisfactorily enough to be included in subsequent linkage analyses.

                Dataset integrity

                Prior to linkage analyses, genotype data were analyzed using the software Cervus version 3.0 [58] to ensure pedigree integrity and correct parentage [59]. Assuming a typing error rate of 0.01, and strict confidence levels of 95%, probabilities of exclusion were estimated for all individuals in the mapping population.

                Linkage map construction

                CRI-MAP v3.0 [60] was used to construct the saltwater crocodile linkage map. Markers were assigned to linkage groups based on linkage supported by two-point LOD scores ≥ 3.0, and later ordered within these groups using multi-point linkage analyses employing a heuristic approach. LOD ≥ 3.0 was chosen as the minimum statistical support criterion for ascertaining locus order of framework loci within linkage groups using the BUILD option. This threshold was subsequently reduced to LOD ≥ 2.0 to place the remaining loci within the framework map. For markers not supported with a LOD ≥ 2.0, probable map locations were determined using the ALL function. Upon incorporation of all possible markers, the FLIPS option was used to ascertain the best possible locus order by looking at all possible permutations for up to six adjacent loci within the resulting map. Once the most likely map order had been derived, sex-specific map distances in centimorgans (cM) were estimated for each linkage group using the Kosambi [61] mapping function. Maps were drawn using the software MapDraw version 2.2 [62]. Linkage group nomenclature was assigned in order of descending number of markers per linkage group.

                Declarations

                Acknowledgements

                This research was supported by Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation grant US-139A to the University of Sydney, and Porosus Pty Ltd. All research took place at the University of Sydney, Australia, and the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), of the University of Georgia (UGA), USA. Tissue samples were provided by Darwin Crocodile Farm, NT, Australia.

                We would especially like to acknowledge the management and staff at Darwin Crocodile Farm (Porosus Pty Ltd) for allowing access to the animals, and for their assistance with sample and data collection. We would also like to acknowledge Dr Dan Peterson at Mississippi Genome Exploration Laboratory (MGEL), Mississippi State University, USA, for providing the BAC library resources, and to thank both him and Dr Xueyan Shan for their contribution to the project. We would also like to acknowledge and thank Dr Ken Jones and Mr Brad Temple at SREL for their contributions to the data generation, and Ms Camilla Whittington of the University of Sydney for copyediting the manuscript.

                Authors’ Affiliations

                (1)
                Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney
                (2)
                Porosus Pty Ltd
                (3)
                Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia, PO Drawer E
                (4)
                Department of Environmental Health Science, University of Georgia
                (5)
                South Eastern Area Laboratory Services,  

                References

                1. Toth G, Gaspari Z, Jurka J: Microsatellites in different eukaryotic genomes: survey and analysis. Genome Res 2000,10(7):967–981.View ArticlePubMed
                2. Litt M, Luty JA: A hypervariable microsatellite revealed by in vitro amplification of a dinucleotide repeat within the cardiac muscle actin gene. American Journal of Human Genetics 1989,44(3):397–401.PubMed
                3. Tautz D: Hypervariability of simple sequences as a general source for polymorphic DNA markers. Nucleic Acids Research 1989,17(16):6463–6471.View ArticlePubMed
                4. Weber JL, May PE: Abundant class of human DNA polymorphisms which can be typed using the polymerase chain reaction. American Journal of Human Genetics 1989,44(3):388–396.PubMed
                5. Dib C, Faure S, Fizames C, Samson D, Drouot N, Vignal A, Millasseau P, Marc S, Hazan J, Seboun E, et al.: A comprehensive genetic map of the human genome based on 5,264 microsatellites. Nature 1996,380(6570):152–154.View ArticlePubMed
                6. Dietrich WF, Miller J, Steen R, Merchant MA, Damron-Boles D, Husain Z, Dredge R, Daly MJ, Ingalls KA, O'Connor TJ: A comprehensive genetic map of the mouse genome. Nature 1996,380(6570):149–152.View ArticlePubMed
                7. Groenen MA, Cheng HH, Bumstead N, Benkel BF, Briles WE, Burke T, Burt DW, Crittenden LB, Dodgson J, Hillel J, et al.: A consensus linkage map of the chicken genome. Genome Res 2000,10(1):137–147.PubMed
                8. Ihara N, Takasuga A, Mizoshita K, Takeda H, Sugimoto M, Mizoguchi Y, Hirano T, Itoh T, Watanabe T, Reed KM, et al.: A comprehensive genetic map of the cattle genome based on 3802 microsatellites. Genome Res 2004,14(10A):1987–1998.View ArticlePubMed
                9. Knapik EW, Goodman A, Ekker M, Chevrette M, Delgado J, Neuhauss S, Shimoda N, Driever W, Fishman MC, Jacob HJ: A microsatellite genetic linkage map for zebrafish ( Danio rerio ). Nature Genetics 1998,18(4):338–343.View ArticlePubMed
                10. Maddox JF, Davies KP, Crawford AM, Hulme DJ, Vaiman D, Cribiu EP, Freking BA, Beh KJ, Cockett NE, Kang N, et al.: An enhanced linkage map of the sheep genome comprising more than 1000 loci. Genome Res 2001,11(7):1275–1289.View ArticlePubMed
                11. Rohrer GA, Alexander LJ, Hu Z, Smith TP, Keele JW, Beattie CW: A comprehensive map of the porcine genome. Genome Res 1996,6(5):371–391.View ArticlePubMed
                12. Solignac M, Mougel F, Vautrin D, Monnerot M, Cornuet JM: A third-generation microsatellite-based linkage map of the honey bee, Apis mellifera , and its comparison with the sequence-based physical map. Genome Biol 2007,8(4):R66.View ArticlePubMed
                13. Somers DJ, Isaac P, Edwards K: A high-density microsatellite consensus map for bread wheat ( Triticum aestivum L .). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 2004,109(6):1105–1114.View ArticlePubMed
                14. Hedges SB, Poling LL: A molecular phylogeny of reptiles. Science 1999,283(5404):998–1001.View ArticlePubMed
                15. Ellegren H: Molecular evolutionary genomics of birds. Cytogenet Genome Res 2007,117(1–4):120–130.View ArticlePubMed
                16. Kumar S, Hedges SB: A molecular timescale for vertebrate evolution. Nature 1998,392(6679):917–920.View ArticlePubMed
                17. Organ C, Moreno R, Edwards S: Three tiers of genome evolution in reptiles. Integr Comp Biol 2008,48(4):494–504.View Article
                18. Janes D, Organ C, Valenzuela N: New resources inform study of genome size, content, and organization in nonavian reptiles. Integr Comp Biol 2008,48(4):447–453.View Article
                19. Shedlock AM, Botka CW, Zhao S, Shetty J, Zhang T, Liu JS, Deschavanne PJ, Edwards SV: Phylogenomics of nonavian reptiles and the structure of the ancestral amniote genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007,104(8):2767–2772.View ArticlePubMed
                20. ICGSC: Sequence and comparative analysis of the chicken genome provide unique perspectives on vertebrate evolution. Nature 2004,432(7018):695–716.View Article
                21. Thorbjarnarson J: Crocodile tears and skins: International trade, economic constraints, and limits to the sustainable use of crocodilians. Conserv Biol 1999,13(3):465–470.View Article
                22. Isberg SR, Thomson PC, Nicholas FW, Barker SG, Moran C: A genetic improvement program for farmed saltwater crocodiles. RIRDC Publication Canberra: RIRDC Publication 2004.
                23. Isberg SR, Thomson PC, Nicholas FW, Barker SG, Moran C: Quantitative analysis of production traits in saltwater crocodiles ( Crocodylus porosus ): I. reproduction traits. J Anim Breed Genet 2005, 122:361–369.View ArticlePubMed
                24. Isberg SR, Thomson PC, Nicholas FW, Barker SG, Moran C: Quantitative analysis of production traits in saltwater crocodiles ( Crocodylus porosus ): II. age at slaughter. J Anim Breed Genet 2005, 122:370–377.View ArticlePubMed
                25. Isberg SR, Thomson PC, Nicholas FW, Barker SG, Moran C: Quantitative analysis of production traits in saltwater crocodiles ( Crocodylus porosus ): III. juvenile survival. J Anim Breed Genet 2006,123(1):44–47.View ArticlePubMed
                26. Isberg SR, Thomson PC, Nicholas FW, Webb GJ, Manolis SC, Barker SG, Moran C: Quantitative analysis of production traits in saltwater crocodiles ( Crocodylus porosus ): IV. number of scale rows. J Anim Breed Genet 2006,123(1):48–55.View ArticlePubMed
                27. Hayes B, Goddard ME: Evaluation of marker assisted selection in pig enterprises. Livest Prod Sci 2003, 81:197–211.View Article
                28. Allan MF, Smith TPL: Present and future applications of DNA technologies to improve beef production. Meat Science 2008, 80:79–85.View Article
                29. Isberg SR, Johnston SM, Chen Y, Moran C: First evidence of higher female recombination in a species with temperature-dependent sex determination: the saltwater crocodile. J Hered 2006,97(6):599–602.View ArticlePubMed
                30. FitzSimmons N, Tanksley S, Forstner M, Louis E, Daglish R, Gratten J, Davis S: Microsatellite markers for Crocodylus: new genetic tools for population genetics, mating system studies and forensics. Crocodilian biology and evolution (Edited by: Grigg GFS, Franklin CE). Chipping Norton (Australia): Surrey Beatty and Sons 2001, 51–57.
                31. Miles LG, Lance SL, Isberg SR, Moran C, Glenn TC: 253 Novel polymorphic microsatellites for the saltwater crocodile ( Crocodylus porosus ). Conserv Genet 2009,10(4):963–980.View Article
                32. Archibald AL, Haley CS, Brown JF, Couperwhite S, McQueen HA, Nicholson D, Coppieters W, Weghe A, Stratil A, Wintero AK, et al.: The PiGMaP consortium linkage map of the pig ( Sus scrofa ). Mamm Genome 1995,6(3):157–175.View ArticlePubMed
                33. Neff MW, Broman KW, Mellersh CS, Ray K, Acland GM, Aguirre GD, Ziegle JS, Ostrander EA, Rine J: A second-generation genetic linkage map of the domestic dog, Canis familiaris . Genetics 1999,151(2):803–820.PubMed
                34. Samollow PB, Gouin N, Miethke P, Mahaney SM, Kenney M, VandeBerg JL, Graves JA, Kammerer CM: A microsatellite-based, physically anchored linkage map for the gray, short-tailed opossum ( Monodelphis domestica ). Chromosome Res 2007,15(3):269–281.PubMed
                35. Zenger KR, McKenzie LM, Cooper DW: The first comprehensive genetic linkage map of a marsupial: the tammar wallaby ( Macropus eugenii ). Genetics 2002,162(1):321–330.PubMed
                36. Calderon PL, Pigozzi MI: MLH1-focus mapping in birds shows equal recombination between sexes and diversity of crossover patterns. Chromosome Res 2006,14(6):605–612.View ArticlePubMed
                37. Coimbra M, Kobayashi K, Koretsugu S, Hasegawa O, Ohara E, Ozaki E, Sakamoto T, Naruse K, Okamoto N: A genetic linkage map of the Japanese flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus . Aquaculture 2003, 220:203–218.View Article
                38. Moen T, Hoyheim B, Munck H, Gomez-Raya L: A linkage map of Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar ) reveals an uncommonly large difference in recombination rate between the sexes. Anim Genet 2004,35(2):81–92.View ArticlePubMed
                39. Jones AG, Kvarnemo C, Moore GI, Simmons LW, Avise JC: Microsatellite evidence for monogamy and sex-biased recombination in the Western Australian seahorse Hippocampus angustus . Mol Ecol 1998,7(11):1497–1505.View ArticlePubMed
                40. Haldane JBS: Sex ratio and unisexual sterility in hybrid animals. J Genet 1922, 12:101–109.View Article
                41. Huxley JS: Sexual difference of linkage in Gammarus chevreuxi . J Genet 1928, 20:145–156.View Article
                42. Lynn A, Schrump S, Cherry J, Hassold T, Hunt P: Sex, not genotype, determines recombination levels in mice. Am J Hum Genet 2005,77(4):670–675.View ArticlePubMed
                43. Hassold T, Hunt P: To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet 2001,2(4):280–291.View ArticlePubMed
                44. Tease C, Hulten MA: Inter-sex variation in synaptonemal complex lengths largely determine the different recombination rates in male and female germ cells. Cytogenet Genome Res 2004,107(3–4):208–215.View ArticlePubMed
                45. Lynn A, Koehler KE, Judis L, Chan ER, Cherry JP, Schwartz S, Seftel A, Hunt PA, Hassold TJ: Covariation of synaptonemal complex length and mammalian meiotic exchange rates. Science 2002,296(5576):2222–2225.View ArticlePubMed
                46. Campos-Ramos R, Harvey SC, Penman DJ: Sex-specific differences in the synaptonemal complex in the genus Oreochromis (Cichlidae). Genetica 2009,135(3):325–332.View ArticlePubMed
                47. Kondo M, Nagao E, Mitani H, Shima A: Differences in recombination frequencies during female and male meioses of the sex chromosomes of the medaka, Oryzias latipes. Genet Res 2001,78(1):23–30.View ArticlePubMed
                48. Cohen MM, Gans C: The chromosomes of the order Crocodilia. Cytogenetics 1970,9(2):81–105.View ArticlePubMed
                49. Bennett JH, Hayman DL, Hope RM: Novel sex differences in linkage values and meiotic chromosome behaviour in a marsupial. Nature 1986,323(6083):59–60.View ArticlePubMed
                50. Syvanen AC: Toward genome-wide SNP genotyping. Nat Genet 2005,37(Suppl):S5–10.View ArticlePubMed
                51. Bishop MD, Hawkins GA, Keefer CL: Use of DNA markers in animal selection. Theriogenology 1995, 43:61–70.View Article
                52. Miles LG, Lance SL, Isberg SR, Moran C, Glenn TC: Cross-species amplification of microsatellites in crocodilians: assessment and applications for the future. Conserv Genet 2009,10(4):935–954.View Article
                53. Matsuda Y, Nishida-Umehara C, Tarui H, Kuroiwa A, Yamada K, Isobe T, Ando J, Fujiwara A, Hirao Y, Nishimura O, et al.: Highly conserved linkage homology between birds and turtles: Bird and turtle chromosomes are precise counterparts of each other. Chromosome Res 2005,13(6):601–615.View ArticlePubMed
                54. Lloyd M, Morris PJ: Phlebotomy techniques in Crocodilians. Bull Assoc Rep Amphib Vet 1999, 9:12–14.
                55. Sambrook J, Fritsch E, Maniatis T: Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press 1989.
                56. Don RH, Cox PT, Wainwright BJ, Baker K, Mattick JS: 'Touchdown' PCR to circumvent spurious priming during gene amplification. Nucleic Acids Res 1991,19(14):4008.View ArticlePubMed
                57. Lincoln SE, Lander ES: Systematic detection of errors in genetic linkage data. Genomics 1992,14(3):604–610.View ArticlePubMed
                58. Marshall TC, Slate J, Kruuk LE, Pemberton JM: Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol Ecol 1998,7(5):639–655.View ArticlePubMed
                59. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC: Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 2007,16(5):1099–1106.View ArticlePubMed
                60. Green P, Falls K, Crooks S: Documentation for CRIMAP, version 2.4. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri USA 1990.
                61. Kosambi DD: The estimation of map distances from recombination values. Ann Eugen 1944, 12:172–175.
                62. Liu M: MapDraw: a microsoft excel macro for drawing genetic linkage maps based on given genetic linkage data. Heraditas 2003,25(3):317–321.

                Copyright

                © Miles et al. 2009

                This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Advertisement