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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |