4.2 Article

Evolutionary dynamics of rDNA clusters on chromosomes of buthid scorpions (Chelicerata: Arachnida)

Journal

BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
Volume 131, Issue 3, Pages 547-565

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/biolinnean/blaa118

Keywords

18S rDNA; FISH; holokinetic chromosome; karyotype evolution; reciprocal translocation

Funding

  1. Grant Agency of the Charles University [GA UK 1324217]
  2. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [SVV 260571/2020]
  3. European Regional Development Fund
  4. state budget of the Czech Republic [CZ.1.05/4.1.00/16.0347, CZ.2.16/3.1.00/21515]
  5. National Research Foundation of South Africa [95569, 112127]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examined the distribution of genes for major ribosomal RNAs (rDNA) on holokinetic chromosomes of 74 species belonging to 19 genera of scorpions from the family Buthidae using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Our analysis revealed differences between the two main evolutionary lineages within the family. The genera belonging to the `Buthus group', with a proposed Laurasian origin, possess one pair of rDNA mainly in an interstitial position, with the only exceptions being the terminal location found in some Hottentotta and Buthacus species, possibly as a result of chromosome fissions. All the remaining buthid 'groups' possess rDNA found strictly in a terminal position. However, the number of signals may increase from an ancestral state of one pair of rDNA loci to up to seven signals in Reddyanus ceylonensis Kovarik et al., 2016. Despite the differences in evolutionary dynamics of the rDNA clusters between the 'Buthus group' and other lineages investigated, we found a high incidence of reciprocal translocations and presence of multivalent associations during meiosis in the majority of the genera studied. These phenomena seem to be typical for the whole family Buthidae.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available