Evidence for a natural hybrid of peacock bass (Cichlamonoculus vs Cichla temensis) based on esterase electrophoretic patterns
Abstract
Esterase (Est) and esterase-D (Est-D) electrophoretic patterns identified by starch gel electrophoresis of skeletal muscle protein extracts of 184 specimens of three species of peacock bass, locally known as tucunarés (Cichla monoculus, C. temensis and Cichla sp), plus four specimens of a supposed hybrid (C. monoculus vs C. temensis), collected from the Central Amazon, were examined to determine if they could aid in identifying a supposed hybrid between C. monoculus and C. temensis. Six zones of electrophoretic activity were found with these enzyme systems. The Est enzyme showed one zone of activity, formed by bands 1, 2 and 3, plus three zones of activity, presumably controlled by Est-1, 2 and 3 loci. The Est-D enzyme had two zones of activity, presumably controlled by Est-D1 and Est-D2 loci. Cichla monoculus and C. temensis shared band 2 and alleles Est-11, Est-21, Est-32, and Est-D11, and therefore these were useless for identifying hybrids between the two species. However, a probable hybrid pattern of bands 1, 2, and 3, presumably generated by a combination of pattern 12 from C. monoculus with pattern 23 from C. temensis, resulting from a possible cross between these two species, was detected. Although the Est-D2 locus cannot be considered an ideal diagnostic marker for identifying the supposed hybrid (C. monoculus vs C. temensis), as it is polymorphic, it proved to be useful for determining the origin of the hybrid, i.e., which parental species were involved in the hybridization process.
Esterase (Est) and esterase-D (Est-D) electrophoretic patterns identified by starch gel electrophoresis of skeletal muscle protein extracts of 184 specimens of three species of peacock bass, locally known as tucunarés (Cichla monoculus, C. temensis and Cichla sp), plus four specimens of a supposed hybrid (C. monoculus vs C. temensis), collected from the Central Amazon, were examined to determine if they could aid in identifying a supposed hybrid between C. monoculus and C. temensis. Six zones of electrophoretic activity were found with these enzyme systems. The Est enzyme showed one zone of activity, formed by bands 1, 2 and 3, plus three zones of activity, presumably controlled by Est-1, 2 and 3 loci. The Est-D enzyme had two zones of activity, presumably controlled by Est-D1 and Est-D2 loci. Cichla monoculus and C. temensis shared band 2 and alleles Est-11, Est-21, Est-32, and Est-D11, and therefore these were useless for identifying hybrids between the two species. However, a probable hybrid pattern of bands 1, 2, and 3, presumably generated by a combination of pattern 12 from C. monoculus with pattern 23 from C. temensis, resulting from a possible cross between these two species, was detected. Although the Est-D2 locus cannot be considered an ideal diagnostic marker for identifying the supposed hybrid (C. monoculus vs C. temensis), as it is polymorphic, it proved to be useful for determining the origin of the hybrid, i.e., which parental species were involved in the hybridization process.