Comparison of single- and multi-trait approaches to identify best wild candidates for aquaculture shows that the simple way fails.

Lola Toomey, Thomas Lecocq, Zoltán Bokor, Laurent Espinat, Árpád Ferincz, Chloé Goulon, Sami Vesala, Margot Baratçabal, Mamadou-Diouhe Barry, Mélanie Gouret, Camille Gouron, Ádám Staszny, Emilie Mauduit, Vicheka Mean, Iris Muller, Nicolas Schlick, Kévin Speder, Romain Thumerel, Clémentine Piatti, Alain Pasquet, Pascal Fontaine
Author Information
  1. Lola Toomey: University of Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, 54000, Nancy, France. lola.toomey@univ-lorraine.fr.
  2. Thomas Lecocq: University of Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, 54000, Nancy, France.
  3. Zoltán Bokor: Department of Aquaculture, Szent István University, Gödöllő, Hungary.
  4. Laurent Espinat: Université Savoie Mont Blanc, INRAE, UMR CARRTEL, 75 bis Avenue de Corzent, CS 50511, 74200, Thonon-les-Bains cedex, France.
  5. Árpád Ferincz: Department of Aquaculture, Szent István University, Gödöllő, Hungary.
  6. Chloé Goulon: Université Savoie Mont Blanc, INRAE, UMR CARRTEL, 75 bis Avenue de Corzent, CS 50511, 74200, Thonon-les-Bains cedex, France.
  7. Sami Vesala: Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki, Finland.
  8. Margot Baratçabal: University of Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, 54000, Nancy, France.
  9. Mamadou-Diouhe Barry: University of Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, 54000, Nancy, France.
  10. Mélanie Gouret: University of Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, 54000, Nancy, France.
  11. Camille Gouron: University of Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, 54000, Nancy, France.
  12. Ádám Staszny: Department of Aquaculture, Szent István University, Gödöllő, Hungary.
  13. Emilie Mauduit: University of Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, 54000, Nancy, France.
  14. Vicheka Mean: University of Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, 54000, Nancy, France.
  15. Iris Muller: University of Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, 54000, Nancy, France.
  16. Nicolas Schlick: University of Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, 54000, Nancy, France.
  17. Kévin Speder: University of Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, 54000, Nancy, France.
  18. Romain Thumerel: University of Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, 54000, Nancy, France.
  19. Clémentine Piatti: University of Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, 54000, Nancy, France.
  20. Alain Pasquet: University of Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, 54000, Nancy, France.
  21. Pascal Fontaine: University of Lorraine, INRAE, URAFPA, 54000, Nancy, France. p.fontaine@univ-lorraine.fr.

Abstract

In agriculture, diversifying production implies picking up, in the wild biodiversity, species or populations that can be domesticated and fruitfully produced. Two alternative approaches are available to highlight wild candidate(s) with high suitability for aquaculture: the single-trait (i.e. considering a single phenotypic trait and, thus, a single biological function) and multi-trait (i.e. considering multiple phenotypic traits involved in several biological functions) approaches. Although the former is the traditional and the simplest method, the latter could be theoretically more efficient. However, an explicit comparison of advantages and pitfalls between these approaches is lacking to date in aquaculture. Here, we compared the two approaches to identify best candidate(s) between four wild allopatric populations of Perca fluviatilis in standardised aquaculture conditions. Our results showed that the single-trait approach can (1) miss key divergences between populations and (2) highlight different best candidate(s) depending on the trait considered. In contrast, the multi-trait approach allowed identifying the population with the highest domestication potential thanks to several congruent lines of evidence. Nevertheless, such an integrative assessment is achieved with a far more time-consuming and expensive study. Therefore, improvements and rationalisations will be needed to make the multi-trait approach a promising way in the aquaculture development.

References

  1. BMC Vet Res. 2008 Aug 04;4:28 [PMID: 18680586]
  2. J Exp Biol. 2006 Jun;209(Pt 12):2362-7 [PMID: 16731812]
  3. Nature. 2002 Aug 8;418(6898):700-7 [PMID: 12167878]
  4. J Dairy Sci. 2005 Mar;88(3):1255-63 [PMID: 15738259]
  5. Mol Ecol. 1999 Sep;8(9):1387-404 [PMID: 10564445]
  6. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2008;9:233-57 [PMID: 18767965]
  7. Ambio. 2009 Feb;38(1):24-8 [PMID: 19260343]
  8. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 16;106 Suppl 1:9971-8 [PMID: 19528637]
  9. J Anim Sci. 2006 Apr;84(4):807-17 [PMID: 16543557]
  10. Evolution. 1988 Sep;42(5):958-968 [PMID: 28581166]
  11. Evolution. 1996 Aug;50(4):1392-1403 [PMID: 28565723]
  12. Heredity (Edinb). 2011 Mar;106(3):421-37 [PMID: 21224878]
  13. Heredity (Edinb). 2019 May;122(5):672-683 [PMID: 30262841]
  14. Curr Zool. 2017 Apr;63(2):175-183 [PMID: 29491975]
  15. ScientificWorldJournal. 2012;2012:389623 [PMID: 22649291]
  16. Nat Methods. 2012 Jul;9(7):671-5 [PMID: 22930834]
  17. Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jan 22;273(1583):217-23 [PMID: 16555790]

MeSH Term

Animals
Aquaculture
Breeding
Domestication
Humans
Perches
Phenotype
Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide
Quantitative Trait Loci

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0approacheswildmulti-traitaquaculturepopulationscandidatesbestapproachcanhighlightsingle-traitieconsideringsinglephenotypictraitbiologicalseveralidentifywayagriculturediversifyingproductionimpliespickingbiodiversityspeciesdomesticatedfruitfullyproducedTwoalternativeavailablehighsuitabilityaquaculture:thusfunctionmultipletraitsinvolvedfunctionsAlthoughformertraditionalsimplestmethodlattertheoreticallyefficientHoweverexplicitcomparisonadvantagespitfallslackingdatecomparedtwofourallopatricPercafluviatilisstandardisedconditionsresultsshowed1misskeydivergences2differentdependingconsideredcontrastallowedidentifyingpopulationhighestdomesticationpotentialthankscongruentlinesevidenceNeverthelessintegrativeassessmentachievedfartime-consumingexpensivestudyThereforeimprovementsrationalisationswillneededmakepromisingdevelopmentComparisonsingle-candidatesshowssimplefails

Similar Articles

Cited By