A database of amphibian karyotypes

Perkins, R; Gamboa, Julio Rincones; Jonika, Michelle M.; Lo, Johnathan; Shum, Amy; Adams, Richard H.; Blackmon, Heath

doi:10.1007/s10577-019-09613-1

Cited by 23 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 ), ranging from 2n = 40 in Falco columbarius (Falconiformes) to 142 in Corythaixoides concolor (Musophagiformes). Similar variation has been observed in other groups, such as in amphibians, where diploid numbers range from 2n = 14 to 2n = 108 [Perkins et al, 2019], or in ants (Formicidae), in which haploid numbers (n) range from n = 1 to n = 60 [Cardoso et al, 2018]. Despite the ample variation found here, most birds (50.7% of the BCD records) have diploid numbers between 78 and 82, and 21.7% have 2n = 80 ( Fig.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Introducing the Bird Chromosome Database: An Overview of Cytogenetic Studies in Birds

Degrandi

Barcellos

Costa

et al. 2020

Cytogenet Genome Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

birdchromosomedatabase) we have compiled data on the chromosome numbers of 1,067 bird species and chromosome painting data on 96 species. We found considerable variation in the diploid numbers, which ranged from 40 to 142, although most (around 50%) of the species studied up to now have between 78 and 82 chromosomes. Despite its importance for cytogenetic research, chromosome painting has been applied to less than 1% of all bird species. The BCD will enable researchers to identify the main knowledge gaps in bird cytogenetics, including the most under-sampled groups, and make inferences on chromosomal homologies in phylogenetic studies. © 2020 S. Karger AG, BaselDatabases present a valuable source of information for research on a wide range of topics, including species inventories, cytogenetics of some key groups, chromosomal mapping of rDNA, and even complete genomic sequences [Peruzzi and Bedini, 2014;Jarvis et al., 2015;Cardoso et al., 2018;Gill and Donsker, 2018; Paresque et al., AbstractBird chromosomes, which have been investigated scientifically for more than a century, present a number of unique features. In general, bird karyotypes have a high diploid number (2n) of typically around 80 chromosomes that are divided into macro-and microchromosomes. In recent decades, FISH studies using whole chromosome painting probes have shown that the macrochromosomes evolved through both inter-and intrachromosomal rearrangements. However, chromosome painting data are available for only a few bird species, which hinders a more systematic approach to the understanding of the evolutionary history of the enigmatic bird karyotype. Thus, we decided to create an innovative database through compilation of the cytogenetic data available for birds, including chromosome numbers and the results of chromosome painting with chicken ( Gallus gallus ) probes. The data were obtained through an extensive literature review, which focused on cytogenetic studies published

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 85%

“…2018; Sochorová et al, 2018;Perkins et al, 2019]. They also provide researchers with an overview of these studies, helping to identify gaps and the need for the application of new and complementary approaches.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing the Bird Chromosome Database: An Overview of Cytogenetic Studies in Birds

Degrandi

Barcellos

Costa

et al. 2020

Cytogenet Genome Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We compiled animal chromosome counts from primary sources, books, and published datasets (e.g. Makino 1951;Benazzi and Benazzi 1976, along with other volumes of Animal Cytogenetics;O'Brien et al 2006;Gokhman 2009;Arai 2011;Graphodatsky et al 2012;Olmo et al 2012;Ashman 2014;Blackmon et al 2019;Perkins et al 2019;Sylvester and Blackmon 2020). Sources for each chromosome count in the ACC are included in the database.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One obstacle to improving comparative analyses and hypothesis testing is a lack of easily available chromosome counts from across the tree of life. Although many chromosome counts are available in the published literature (Peruzzi and Bedini 2014), these have only been made easily available for specific clades including plants (Rice et al 2015), coleoptera (Blackmon and Demuth 2015), polyneoptera (Sylvester and Blackmon 2020), amphibians (Perkins et al 2019), mammals (Martinez et al 2017;Blackmon et al 2019), and fish (Arai 2011;Martinez et al 2015) along with other groups scattered across the Tree of Life (The Tree of Sex Consortium 2014). Analyses of these publicly available data have driven new understandings of chromosome and genome evolution (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal chromosome counts reveal similar range of chromosome numbers but with less polyploidy in animals compared to flowering plants

Román‐Palacios

Medina

Zhan

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the mechanisms that underlie chromosome evolution may provide insights into the processes underpinning the origin, persistence, and evolutionary tempo of lineages. Here we present the first database of chromosome counts for animals (the Animal Chromosome Count database, ACC) summarizing chromosome numbers for ~18,000 species. We found remarkable similarity in the distribution of chromosome counts between animals and flowering plants. At larger timescales, selection towards a specific range might explain the similar distribution of chromosome counts between these two groups. Nevertheless, changes in chromosome number are still potential drivers of divergence among species at shorter timescales. We also found that while animals and plants exhibit similar frequencies of speciation-related changes in chromosome number, plant speciation is more often related to changes in ploidy. Based on the ACC, our analyses suggest that changes in chromosome number alone could help explain patterns of diversity within animal clades.

show abstract

“…To begin with, the presence of 26 chromosomes in Pithecopus represents the plesiomorphic condition in the subfamily Phyllomedusinae (Schmid et al 1995, Morand and Hernando 1997, Gruber et al 2013, Bruschi et al 2014b, Barth et al 2014, Schmid et al 2018. Currently, this subfamily assemble 65 species distributed in eight genus (Agalychnis Cope, 1864, Callimedusa Duellman, Marion & Hedges, 2016, Cruziohyla Faivovich, Haddad, Garcia, Frost, Campbell & Wheeler, 2005, Hylomantis Peters, 1873"1872", Phasmahyla Cruz, 1991, Phrynomedusa Miranda-Ribeiro, 1923, Phyllomedusa Wagler, 1830, Pithecopus Cope, 1866 and only 22 species have been karyotyped (Perkins et al 2019). The karyotype of the phyllomedusines is highly conserved (Barth et al 2013;Gruber et al 2013;Bruschi et al 2014;Schmid et al 2018).…”

Section: Karyotype Conservation In the Subfamily Phyllomedusinaementioning

confidence: 99%

Recurrent variation in the active NOR sites in the monkey frogs of the genus Pithecopus Cope, 1866 (Phyllomedusidae, Anura)

Gama¹,

Gazolla²,

Souza³

et al. 2019

CCG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treefrogs of the genus Pithecopus Cope, 1866 exhibit expressive chromosomal homogeneity which contrasts with a high variation frequency of the nucleolus organizer region (NOR) related to the group. Currently, the genus contains eleven species and no chromosomal data are available on P. palliatus Peters, 1873, P. ayeaye Lutz, 1966 and P. megacephalus Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926. Here, we describe the karyotypes of these three species based on Giemsa staining, C-banding, silver impregnation and in situ hybridization (FISH). We were also analyze the evolutionary dynamic of the NOR-bearing chromosome in species of genus under a phylogenetic view. The results indicate that P. palliatus, P. ayeaye, and P. megacephalus have similar karyotypes, which are typical of the genus Pithecopus. In P. palliatus the NOR was detected in the pericentromeric region of pair 9p whereas in P. ayeaye and P. megacephalus we report cases of the multiple NOR sites in karyotypes. In P. ayeaye the NOR was detected in the pericentromeric region of pair 9p in both homologues and additional sites was detected in pairs 3q, 4p, and 8q, all confirmed by FISH experiments. Already in P. megacephalus the NOR sites were detected in pericentromeric region homologues of pair 8q and additionally in one chromosome of pair 13q. A comparative overview of all the Pithecopus karyotypes analyzed up to now indicates the recurrence of the NOR-bearing chromosome pairs and the position of the NORs sites on these chromosomes. We hypothesized that this feature is a result of a polymorphic condition present in the common ancestor of Pithecopus. In such case, the lineages derived from polymorphic ancestor have reached fixation independently after divergence of lineages, resulting in a high level of homoplasy observed in this marker. Our findings help to fill the gaps in the understanding of the karyotype of the genus Pithecopus and reinforce the role of the evolutionary dynamics of the rDNA genes in karyotype diversification in this group.

show abstract

A database of amphibian karyotypes

Cited by 23 publications

References 26 publications

Introducing the Bird Chromosome Database: An Overview of Cytogenetic Studies in Birds

Introducing the Bird Chromosome Database: An Overview of Cytogenetic Studies in Birds

Animal chromosome counts reveal similar range of chromosome numbers but with less polyploidy in animals compared to flowering plants

Recurrent variation in the active NOR sites in the monkey frogs of the genus Pithecopus Cope, 1866 (Phyllomedusidae, Anura)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About