4.1 Article

Diversity and Karyotypic Evolution in the Genus Neacomys ( Rodentia, Sigmodontinae)

期刊

CYTOGENETIC AND GENOME RESEARCH
卷 146, 期 4, 页码 296-305

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000441173

关键词

Amazonia; Bristly mouse; Chromosomal evolution; FISH; Karyotype; Spiny mouse

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Fundacao Amazonia Paraense (FAPESPA) [TO 064/2008, 552032/2010-7, ICAAF 007/2011]
  3. Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Economico e Social - BNDES [Operacao 2.318.697.0001]
  4. CNPq [307071/2009-0, 306989/2009-3]
  5. BIONORTE-CNPq Scholarship in Genetics and Molecular Biology, UFPA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neacomys (Sigmodontinae) comprises 8 species mainly found in the Amazonian region. We describe 5 new karyotypes from Brazilian Amazonia: 2 cytotypes for N. paracou (2n = 56/FNa = 62-66), 1 for N. dubosti (2n = 64/FNa = 68), and 2 for Neacomys sp. (2n = 58/FNa = 64-70), with differences in the 18S rDNA. Telomeric probes did not show ITS. We provide a phylogeny using Cytb, and the analysis suggests that 2n = 56 with a high FNa is ancestral for the genus, as found in N. paracou, being retained by the ancestral forms of the other species, with an increase in 2n occurring independently in N. spinosus and N. dubosti. Alternatively, an increase in 2n may have occurred in the ancestral taxon of the other species, followed by independent 2n-reduction events in Neacomys sp. and in the ancestral species of N. tenuipes, N. guianae, N. musseri, and N. minutus. Finally, a drastic reduction event in the diploid number occurred in the ancestral species of N. musseri and N. minutus which exhibit the lowest 2n of the genus. The karyotypic variations found in both intra- and interspecific samples, associated with the molecular phylogeny, suggest a chromosomal evolution with amplification/deletion of constitutive heterochromatin and rearrangements including fusions, fissions, and pericentric inversions. (C) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据