Chromosomal analysis of Physalaemus kroyeri and Physalaemus cicada (Anura, Leptodactylidae)

Abstract

All the species of Physalaemus Fitzinger, 1826 karyotyped up until now have been classified as 2n = 22. The species of the Physalaemus cuvieri group analyzed by C-banding present a block of heterochromatin in the interstitial region of the short arm of pair 5. Physalaemus cicada Bokermann, 1966 has been considered to be a member of the Physalaemus cuvieri species group, although its interspecific phylogenetic relationships remain unknown. The PcP190 satellite DNA has been mapped on the chromosomes of most of the species of the Physalaemus cuvieri group. For two species, Physalaemus cicada and Physalaemus kroyeri (Reinhardt & Lütken, 1862), however, only the chromosome number and morphology are known. Given this, the objective of the present study was to analyze the chromosomes of Physalaemus cicada and Physalaemus kroyeri, primarily by C-banding and PcP190 mapping. The results indicate that Physalaemus kroyeri and Physalaemus cicada have similar karyotypes, which were typical of Physalaemus. In both species, the NORs are located on the long arm of pair 8, and the C-banding indicated that, among other features, Physalaemus kroyeri has the interstitial band on chromosome 5, which is however absent in Physalaemus cicada. Even so, a number of telomeric bands were observed in Physalaemus cicada. The mapping of the PcP190 satellite DNA highlighted areas of the centromeric region of the chromosomes of pair 1 in both species, although in Physalaemus kroyeri, heteromorphism was also observed in pair 3. The cytogenetic evidence does not support the inclusion of Physalaemus cicada in the Physalaemus cuvieri group. In the case of Physalaemus kroyeri, the interstitial band on pair 5 is consistent with the existence of a cytogenetic synapomorphy in the Physalaemus cuvieri species group.

Cytogenetic characterization and mapping of the repetitive DNAs in Cycloramphus bolitoglossus (Werner, 1897): More clues for the chromosome evolution in the genus Cycloramphus (Anura, Cycloramphidae)

“…bolitoglossus chromosomes with a probe for PcP190-Cbol-1. This repetitive DNA has also been mapped in the (peri)centromeric heterochromatin of several Physalaemus species [ 22 , 23 , 60 ] and a heterochromatic block of the W chromosome of Pseudis tocantins [ 24 ]. Thus, the occurrence of the PcP190 in heterochromatin regions is common and broadly expected.…”

Head in the clouds: a new dwarf frog species of the Physalaemus signifer clade (Leptodactylidae, Leiuperinae) from the top of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest

“…The diploid chromosomal number of Physalaemus araxa sp. nov. (2n = 22) corresponds to that of other species of Physalaemus already karyotyped (Brum-Zorrilla & Saez 1968;De Lucca et al 1974;Amaral et al 2000;Silva et al 2000;Quinderé et al 2009;Tomatis et al 2009;Milani et al 2011;Provete et al 2012;Vittorazzi et al 2014Vittorazzi et al , 2016Ferro et al unpublished data), including species of the P. signifer clade (i.e., P. atlanticus, P. crombiei, P. deimaticus, P. moreirae, P. nattereri, P. spiniger, and P. signifer (Beçak 1968;De Lucca et al 1974;Silva et al 2000;Lourenço et al 2006;Ananias et al 2007;Lourenço et al 2015)). Physalaemus araxa sp.…”

The Taxonomic Status of Physalaemus cuqui Lobo, 1993, with the Description of a New Species of Physalaemus (Anura: Leptodactylidae) from Argentina and Paraguay

“…Schalk and Saenz (2016: 19, 21, 25, their Fig. 2, their Tables 1 and 2); Segalla et al (2016: 42); Vittorazzi et al (2016: 312, 318–320). Ghirardi and López (2017: 69, 74, 154–155, 157, 159).…”

“…Nori et al (2016: their Fig. S1); Vittorazzi et al (2016: 312, 318); Pérez-Iglesias et al (2017: their Table 1, their Appendix 1); Brusquetti et al (2018: 133); Borges et al (2019: 901); Catalano et al (2019: 679); Motte et al (2019: their Table 1); Nascimento et al (2019: 3); Acosta et al (2020: 22, Tables 3 and 5, Box 1); Hepp and Pombal (2020a: 3, 56, 58, 92, their Figs. 24, 26, their Tables 1–2, their Appendix I); Hepp and Pombal (2020b: 599); Pereyra et al (2020: their Fig.…”

“…Santos and Vaz-Silva (2012: 113–115); Sugai et al (2012: 468); Simioni et al (2013: 55–57, their Fig. 1); Schalk et al (2014: their Table 1); Vittorazzi et al (2014: 104–105, 109–110, 114, 116, 118–119, their Tables 1–4, their Fig. 2, their Appendix).…”