Comparative cytogenetics of the ground frogs Eupsophus emiliopugini Formas, 1989 and E. vertebralis Grandison, 1961 (Alsodidae) with comments on their inter- and intraspecific chromosome differentiation

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributor.authorQuercia, Camila A.
dc.contributor.authorSuarez-Villota, Elkin Y.
dc.contributor.authorForesti, Fausto [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorNunez, Jose J.
dc.contributor.institutionUniv Austral Chile
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-10T19:51:53Z
dc.date.available2020-12-10T19:51:53Z
dc.date.issued2020-01-27
dc.description.abstractSouth American frogs of the genus Eupsophus Fitzinger, 1843 comprise 10 species. Two of them, Eupsophus vertebralis Grandison, 1961 and E. emiliopugini Formas, 1989 belong to the Eupsophus vertebralis group, exhibiting 2n = 28. Fundamental number differences between these species have been described using conventional chromosome staining of few specimens from only two localities. Here, classical techniques (Giemsa, C-handing, CMA(3)/DAPI handing, and Ag-NOR staining), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH, with telomeric and 28S ribosomal probes), were applied on individuals of both species collected from 15 localities. We corroborate differences in fundamental numbers (FN) between E. vertebralis and E. emiliopugini through Giemsa staining and C-banding (FN = 54 and 56, respectively). No interstitial fluorescent signals, but clearly stained telomeric regions were detected by FISH using telomeric probe over spreads from both species. FISH with 28S rDNA probes and Ag-NOR staining confirmed the active nucleolus organizer regions signal on pair 5 for both species. Nevertheless, one E. emiliopugini individual from the Puyehue locality exhibited 28S ribosomal signals on pairs 4 and 5. Interestingly, only one chromosome of each pair showed Ag-NOR positive signals, showing a nucleolar dominance pattern. Chromosomal rearrangements, rRNA gene dosage control, mobile NORs elements, and/or species hybridization process could he involved in this interpopulation chromosomal variation.en
dc.description.affiliationUniv Austral Chile, Inst Ciencias Marinas & Limnol, Edificio Emilio Pugin,Campus Isla Teja S-N, Valdivia, Chile
dc.description.affiliationUniv Estadual Paulista, Inst Biociencias, Dept Morfol, Dist Rubiao Jr S-N, BR-18618970 Botucatu, SP, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnespUniv Estadual Paulista, Inst Biociencias, Dept Morfol, Dist Rubiao Jr S-N, BR-18618970 Botucatu, SP, Brazil
dc.description.sponsorshipFondecyt
dc.description.sponsorshipCONICYT
dc.description.sponsorshipIdFondecyt: 3160328
dc.description.sponsorshipIdCONICYT: 22180766
dc.format.extent61-74
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3897/CompCytogen.v14i1.46852
dc.identifier.citationComparative Cytogenetics. Sofia: Pensoft Publishers, v. 14, n. 1, p. 61-74, 2020.
dc.identifier.doi10.3897/CompCytogen.v14i1.46852
dc.identifier.issn1993-0771
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/196653
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000518398400001
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherPensoft Publishers
dc.relation.ispartofComparative Cytogenetics
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectKaryotype variations
dc.subjectFISH
dc.subjectPatagonian frogs
dc.subjectribosomal probe
dc.subjectNOR polymorphism
dc.titleComparative cytogenetics of the ground frogs Eupsophus emiliopugini Formas, 1989 and E. vertebralis Grandison, 1961 (Alsodidae) with comments on their inter- and intraspecific chromosome differentiationen
dc.typeArtigo
dcterms.rightsHolderPensoft Publishers

Arquivos

Coleções

Artigos - Morfologia - IBB