Cargando…

A karyotype comparison between two species of bordered plant bugs (Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Largidae) by conventional chromosome staining, C-banding and rDNA-FISH

Abstract. A cytogenetic characterization, including heterochromatin content, and the analysis of the location of rDNA genes, was performed in Largus fasciatus Blanchard, 1843 and L. rufipennis Laporte, 1832. Mitotic and meiotic analyses revealed the same diploid chromosome number 2n = 12 + X0/XX (ma...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salanitro, Lucila Belén, Massaccesi, Anabella Cecilia, Urbisaglia, Santiago, Bressa, María José, Chirino, Mónica Gabriela
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Pensoft Publishers 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5596986/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28919962
http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/CompCytogen.v11i2.11683
_version_ 1783263631702491136
author Salanitro, Lucila Belén
Massaccesi, Anabella Cecilia
Urbisaglia, Santiago
Bressa, María José
Chirino, Mónica Gabriela
author_facet Salanitro, Lucila Belén
Massaccesi, Anabella Cecilia
Urbisaglia, Santiago
Bressa, María José
Chirino, Mónica Gabriela
author_sort Salanitro, Lucila Belén
collection PubMed
description Abstract. A cytogenetic characterization, including heterochromatin content, and the analysis of the location of rDNA genes, was performed in Largus fasciatus Blanchard, 1843 and L. rufipennis Laporte, 1832. Mitotic and meiotic analyses revealed the same diploid chromosome number 2n = 12 + X0/XX (male/female). Heterochromatin content, very scarce in both species, revealed C-blocks at both ends of autosomes and X chromosome. The most remarkable cytological feature observed between both species was the different chromosome position of the NORs. This analysis allowed us to use the NORs as a cytological marker because two clusters of rDNA genes are located at one end of one pair of autosomes in L. fasciatus, whereas a single rDNA cluster is located at one terminal region of the X chromosome in L. rufipennis. Taking into account our results and previous data obtained in other heteropteran species, the conventional staining, chromosome bandings, and rDNA-FISH provide important chromosome markers for cytotaxonomy, karyotype evolution, and chromosome structure and organization studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5596986
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Pensoft Publishers
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55969862017-09-15 A karyotype comparison between two species of bordered plant bugs (Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Largidae) by conventional chromosome staining, C-banding and rDNA-FISH Salanitro, Lucila Belén Massaccesi, Anabella Cecilia Urbisaglia, Santiago Bressa, María José Chirino, Mónica Gabriela Comp Cytogenet Research Article Abstract. A cytogenetic characterization, including heterochromatin content, and the analysis of the location of rDNA genes, was performed in Largus fasciatus Blanchard, 1843 and L. rufipennis Laporte, 1832. Mitotic and meiotic analyses revealed the same diploid chromosome number 2n = 12 + X0/XX (male/female). Heterochromatin content, very scarce in both species, revealed C-blocks at both ends of autosomes and X chromosome. The most remarkable cytological feature observed between both species was the different chromosome position of the NORs. This analysis allowed us to use the NORs as a cytological marker because two clusters of rDNA genes are located at one end of one pair of autosomes in L. fasciatus, whereas a single rDNA cluster is located at one terminal region of the X chromosome in L. rufipennis. Taking into account our results and previous data obtained in other heteropteran species, the conventional staining, chromosome bandings, and rDNA-FISH provide important chromosome markers for cytotaxonomy, karyotype evolution, and chromosome structure and organization studies. Pensoft Publishers 2017-04-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5596986/ /pubmed/28919962 http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/CompCytogen.v11i2.11683 Text en Lucila Belén Salanitro, Anabella Cecilia Massaccesi, Santiago Urbisaglia, María José Bressa, Mónica Gabriela Chirino http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Salanitro, Lucila Belén
Massaccesi, Anabella Cecilia
Urbisaglia, Santiago
Bressa, María José
Chirino, Mónica Gabriela
A karyotype comparison between two species of bordered plant bugs (Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Largidae) by conventional chromosome staining, C-banding and rDNA-FISH
title A karyotype comparison between two species of bordered plant bugs (Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Largidae) by conventional chromosome staining, C-banding and rDNA-FISH
title_full A karyotype comparison between two species of bordered plant bugs (Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Largidae) by conventional chromosome staining, C-banding and rDNA-FISH
title_fullStr A karyotype comparison between two species of bordered plant bugs (Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Largidae) by conventional chromosome staining, C-banding and rDNA-FISH
title_full_unstemmed A karyotype comparison between two species of bordered plant bugs (Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Largidae) by conventional chromosome staining, C-banding and rDNA-FISH
title_short A karyotype comparison between two species of bordered plant bugs (Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Largidae) by conventional chromosome staining, C-banding and rDNA-FISH
title_sort karyotype comparison between two species of bordered plant bugs (hemiptera, heteroptera, largidae) by conventional chromosome staining, c-banding and rdna-fish
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5596986/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28919962
http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/CompCytogen.v11i2.11683
work_keys_str_mv AT salanitrolucilabelen akaryotypecomparisonbetweentwospeciesofborderedplantbugshemipteraheteropteralargidaebyconventionalchromosomestainingcbandingandrdnafish
AT massaccesianabellacecilia akaryotypecomparisonbetweentwospeciesofborderedplantbugshemipteraheteropteralargidaebyconventionalchromosomestainingcbandingandrdnafish
AT urbisagliasantiago akaryotypecomparisonbetweentwospeciesofborderedplantbugshemipteraheteropteralargidaebyconventionalchromosomestainingcbandingandrdnafish
AT bressamariajose akaryotypecomparisonbetweentwospeciesofborderedplantbugshemipteraheteropteralargidaebyconventionalchromosomestainingcbandingandrdnafish
AT chirinomonicagabriela akaryotypecomparisonbetweentwospeciesofborderedplantbugshemipteraheteropteralargidaebyconventionalchromosomestainingcbandingandrdnafish
AT salanitrolucilabelen karyotypecomparisonbetweentwospeciesofborderedplantbugshemipteraheteropteralargidaebyconventionalchromosomestainingcbandingandrdnafish
AT massaccesianabellacecilia karyotypecomparisonbetweentwospeciesofborderedplantbugshemipteraheteropteralargidaebyconventionalchromosomestainingcbandingandrdnafish
AT urbisagliasantiago karyotypecomparisonbetweentwospeciesofborderedplantbugshemipteraheteropteralargidaebyconventionalchromosomestainingcbandingandrdnafish
AT bressamariajose karyotypecomparisonbetweentwospeciesofborderedplantbugshemipteraheteropteralargidaebyconventionalchromosomestainingcbandingandrdnafish
AT chirinomonicagabriela karyotypecomparisonbetweentwospeciesofborderedplantbugshemipteraheteropteralargidaebyconventionalchromosomestainingcbandingandrdnafish