8urn:lsid:arphahub.com:pub:A71ED5FC-60ED-5DA3-AC8E-F6D2BB5B3573urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:C8FA3ADA-5585-4F26-9215-A520EE683979Comparative CytogeneticsCCG1993-07711993-078XPensoft Publishers10.3897/CompCytogen.v8i4.76234205Research ArticleCyprinidaeKaryosystematicsMolecular systematicsSystematicsTurkeyKaryotype, C-banding and AgNORs of two endemic leuciscine fish, Pseudophoxinuscrassus (Ladiges, 1960) and P.hittitorum Freyhof & Özulug, 2010 (Teleostei, Cyprinidae)UnalSevgi1sevgiunal@ymail.comGaffaroğluMuhammet2AyataMuradiye Karasu2https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8890-8547YükselEşref1Gazi University, Science Faculty, Department of Biology, Ankara, Turkey
Ahi Evran University, Science and Art Faculty, Department of Biology, Kırşehir, Turkey
Corresponding author: Sevgi Ünal (sevgiunal@ymail.com)
Academic editor: Natalia Golub
201431102014842492575B07FFD5-5023-0D61-FFC7-5027954F8471761AB8E5-0659-487B-A715-C465E2C6D08F5754620104201408102014Sevgi Unal, Muhammet Gaffaroglu, Muradiye Karasu Ayata, Esref YükselThis 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.http://zoobank.org/761AB8E5-0659-487B-A715-C465E2C6D08F
The genus Pseudophoxinus Bleeker, 1860 is found in a wide range of habitats in central Anatolia, but it is not well known from a cytogenetic aspect. In this study the first karyotypic description of the spring minnows Pseudophoxinuscrassus (Ladiges, 1960) and P.hittitorum Freyhof & Özulug, 2010 by means of conventional methods (Giemsa staining, C-banding, silver nitrate impregnation (Ag-NORs)) was performed. Both species are endemic and have restricted distributions in Central Anatolia. P.crassus and P.hittitorum have the same diploid chromosome number, 2n = 50, patterns of distribution of constitutive heterochromatin (CH), and localization of nucleolus organizer regions (NORs), but differ in their karyotypic formulae (KFs). The C-banding technique revealed clear pericentromeric blocks of CH in many chromosomes; Ag-NORs treatment revealed consistent positive signals at the end of the short arms of a submetacentric chromosome pair, likely homologous in both species. The karyotypic differences found between these species can be used for their taxonomical study.
Unal S, Gaffaroğlu M, Ayata MK, Yüksel E (2014) Karyotype, C-banding and AgNORs of two endemic leuciscine fish, Pseudophoxinus crassus (Ladiges, 1960) and P. hittitorum Freyhof & Özulug, 2010 (Teleostei, Cyprinidae). Comparative Cytogenetics 8(4): 249–257. doi: 10.3897/CompCytogen.v8i4.7623
Introduction
Spring minnows of the cyprinid genus Pseudophoxinus Bleeker, 1860 are distributed from Central Anatolia east to Azerbaijan and South to Israel (Freyhof and Özuluğ 2010). The genus belongs to the subfamily Leuciscinae, the major element of the Anatolia cyprinid fauna. Leuciscinae fishes include 54 species belonging to 17 genera in Anatolia, of which 26 species and subspecies are endemic. With 19 species recognized in Turkey, Pseudophoxinus is one of the most species-rich genera with a great number of the endemic species (Bogutskaya 1997, Freyhof and Özuluğ 2006, Bogutskaya et al. 2007, Karasu et al. 2011, Küçük et al. 2012, Küçük and Güçlü 2014). Species of this genus are found in a wide range of habitats in central Anatolia (Hrbek et al. 2004). According to IUCN, a significant point about the herein studied species is the fact that P.crassus and P.hittitorum are endangered (EN) species and their population trends are decreasing (IUCN 2014a; IUCN 2014b).
Karyotypic data for the genus are available only for P.antalyae Bogutskaya, 1992 and P.firati Bogutskaya, Küçük & Atalay, 2007 (Table 1). In both species a karyotype with 2n = 50 was revealed, indicating a conserved karyotypic evolution in relation to the diploid number (Ergene et al. 2010, Karasu et al. 2011). Thus, cytogenetic data for Pseudophoxinus are insufficient, and further study is needed to evaluate karyological characteristics of the genus, to improve the taxonomic identification of these fish, and to understand the evolutionary trends in this taxon (Yüksel and Gülkaç 1992).
Cytogenetic data available for the genus Pseudophoxinus.
Species
Locality
2n
Karyotypic formula
FN
NOR
C-band
Reference
P.antalyae
Berdan River
50
16M+14SM+12ST+8A
92
1 pair st. p terminal
several
Ergene et al. 2010
P.firati
Tohma Creek
50
38M-SM+12ST
88
2 pairs sm-st. p terminal
6 pairs
Karasu et. al. 2011
P.crassus
İnsuyu Spring
50
12M+30SM+8ST-A
92
1 pair sm p terminal
several
Present study
P.hittitorum
Beyşehir Spring
50
14M+26SM+10ST-A
90
1 pair sm p terminal
several
Present study
2n: diploid number; FN: fundamental number; NOR: nucleolus organizer regions type; M: metacentric; SM: submetacentric; ST: subtelocentric; A: acrocentric; p short arm.
The aim of this study is to describe the karyotypes of P.crassus and P.hittitorum, including identification of CH blocks and NORs by conventional cytogenetic techniques (Giemsa staining, C-banding, and Ag impregnation).
Material and methods
Specimens were captured by electrofishing in two distinct localities during the summer-autumn, 2012 and spring-summer, 2013. Three males and two females of P.crassus were collected in Cihanbeyli-İnsuyu spring (38°42'N, 32°45'E) and four females and four males of P.hittitorum in Beyşehir-Eflatunpınarı spring (37°52'N, 31°34'E). Specimens were transported alive to the laboratory and kept in well-aerated aquaria until analysis was performed. Chromosome spreads were obtained using standard kidney protocol (Collares-Pereira 1992). Chromosomes were stained with 4% Giemsa solution (pH = 6.8). C-bands were obtained according to Sumner technique (Sumner 1972). Silver impregnation to detect NORs followed the method of Howell and Black (1980).
The chromosome slides were observed by 100× objective with immersion oil and photographed using a Leica DM 3000 research microscope. AKAS software was used to take pictures of the metaphase figs. Measurements of chromosomes were performed by digital caliper from each individual and karyotypes were prepared manually. Chromosomes were arranged in decreasing size order and classified according to their arm ratios (Levan et al. 1964) in three categories: metacentric (M), submetacentric (SM) and subtelocentric to acrocentric (ST-A). To determine the fundamental number (FN), M and SM chromosomes were considered as bi-armed whereas those of group ST/A as uni-armed.
Results
243 metaphase figs were examined for P.crassus and 266 metaphase figs – for P.hittitorum. For P.crassus the percentage of the finding of 50 chromosomes was 81.50%. Other percentages were: for 49 chromosomes – 14.45%, for 48 chromosomes – 2.70%, for 47 chromosomes – 1.35%. For P.hittitorum the percentage of the finding of 50 chromosomes was 80.00%. Other percentages were: for 49 chromosomes – 13.50%, for 48 chromosomes – 3.00%, for 47 chromosomes – 2.30% and for 46 chromosomes – 1.20%. Therefore it was considered that the analyzed individuals of P.crassus and P.hittitorum had the same diploid numbers 2n = 50, but differed in their karyotypic formulas (KFs), which were 12 M + 30 SM + 8 ST-A (FN = 92) for P.crassus and 14 M + 26 SM + 10 ST-A (FN = 90) for P.hittitorum, respectively (Fig. 1). No sex chromosomes were identified for either species.
A00EF07D-6768-56A5-989A-CBEBBBCB94FD
a Giemsa stained metaphase and b corresponding karyotype of P.crassus from Cihanbeyli stream c Giemsa stained metaphase and d karyotype of P.hittitorum from Beyşehir drainage. Scale bar = 3 µm.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/33493
C-banding revealed the presence of the blocks of constitutive heterochromatin at the pericentromeric regions of many chromosome pairs in both species (Fig. 2).
1EE2280D-545A-5964-BFCB-24DB6540C782
Metaphase spreads of (a) P.crassus and (b) P.hittitorum with C-banding. Arrows show CH regions. Scale bar = 3 µm.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/33494
The NORs were localized near to the secondary constriction on the short arm of a SM chromosome pair in both species (Fig. 3).
BD478CE1-D542-5F44-9ED8-6823D12E0D5A
Metaphase spreads of (a) P.crassus and (b) P.hittitorum with Ag-NOR treatmets. Arrows show NORs. Scale bar = 3 µm.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/33495Discussion
P.crassus and P.hittitorum karyotypes demonstrated the general pattern described for most Leuciscinae that have the chromosome number (2n = 50), but their KFs differed. This is consistent with most other species of the genus Pseudophoxinus, which share 2n = 50 and differ in their KFs (Ergene et al. 2010, Karasu et al. 2011). The chromosome sets of leuciscine cyprinids are characterized mainly by bi-armed (meta- and submetacentric) compared to the uni-armed (subtelo- and acrocentric) elements as observed in P.crassus and P.hittitorum. A large subtelocentric/acrocentric chromosome pair is considered as a cytotaxonomic marker for the subfamily Leuciscinae (Rab and Collares-Pereira 1995, Rab et al. 2008) and it is also present in both analysed species. However, cyprinid sex chromosomes appear to have remained morphologically undifferentiated (Sola and Gornung 2001). P.crassus and P.hittitorum also display the cyprinid characteristics mentioned above.
C-bands identify regions of constitutive heterochromatin, which contain transcriptionally inactive highly repetitive DNA sequences (Gold et al. 1990). The difference in heterochromatin localization can be used as cytogenetic marker for the differentiation of species and for the reconstruction of chromosome evolution in the taxa (Gaffaroğlu and Yüksel 2009). In P.crassus and P.hittitorum C-positive blocks were pericentromeric, as in the P.antalyae (Ergene et al. 2010) and P.firati (Karasu et al. 2011). It was shown, that other studied Leuciscinae species as Acanthobramamarmid Heckel, 1843 (Gaffaroğlu and Yüksel 2009), Squaliusanatolicus (Bogutskaya, 1997) (Ünal 2011) and S.lucumonis (Bianco, 1983) (Rossi et al. 2012) also have CH blocks on the pericentromeric regions. This pattern is conserved in Neotelostei as a whole, and also in all the Leuciscine genera examined to date (Collares-Pereira and Rab 1999, Boron et al. 2009, Rossi et al. 2012).
The number and location of NORs have been used as chromosome markers in fish cytotaxonomy (Pereira et al. 2012, Rossi et al. 2012, Nabais et al. 2013). The NORs located on a medium-sized SM chromosome pair corresponds to those observed in many of the leuciscines analyzed (Bianco et al. 2004). In spite of the many exceptions reported in Leuciscinae species from both Eurasia and North America (Pereira et al. 2009, Rossi et al. 2012), a single pair of NOR-carrying chromosome is considered as an ancestral character in this lineage (Rab and Collares-Pereira 1995, Rab et al. 2007). Within the genus Pseudophoxinus, a single NOR-bearing chromosome pair as in P.crassus and P.hittitorum, was observed in P.antalyae (Ergene et al. 2010) whereas multiple NOR-carrying chromosomes were detected in P.firati (Karasu et al. 2011). Although NORs are usually located on the short arms of chromosomes, sometimes they can be seen on the long arms of metacentric and acrocentric chromosomes (Rab and Collares-Pereira 1995, Rab et al. 1996). Furthermore, NORs can be seen between telomeres and centromeres (Amemiya and Gold 1988). Generally, the NOR-phenotype is observed at the terminal on short arms of mid-sized A-ST chromosomes (Takai and Ojima 1992), and rarely at the terminal on short arms of mid-sized SM chromosomes (Gold et al. 1988, Magtoon and Arai 1993) like in P.crassus and P.hittitorum. Conversely to what was reported for some others leuciscin cyprinids (Ünal 2011), no NOR polymorphism was observed in the specimens from our study. Further, there is no report of any variation in NORs’ phenotype in all analyzed individuals of the genus Pseudophoxinus (Ergene et al. 2010, Karasu et al. 2011). Thus the karyotypes of these species conserved plesiomorphic condition that is confirmed by present study.
In conclusion, the karyotypic differences and CH and NOR localizations found in the two Pseudophoxinus species studied herein can be used as a cytogenetic comparison data.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Jörg Freyhof and Müfit Özuluğ for literature support. This research was funded by TÜBİTAK (112T730).
ReferencesAmemiyaCTGoldJR (1988) Chromosomal NORs as taxonomic and systematic characters in North American cyprinid fishes.76(2): 81–90. doi: 10.1007/BF00058806BiancoPGApreaGBallettoECapriglioneTFulgioneDOdiernaDG (2004) The karyology of the cyprinid genera Scardinius and Rutilus in southern Europe.51(3): 274–278. doi: 10.1007/s10228-004-0221-yBogutskayaNG (1997) Contribution to the knowledge of leuciscine fishes of Asia Minor. Part 2. An annotated check-list of leuciscine fishes (Leuciscinae, Cyprinidae) of Turkey with descriptions of a new species and two new subspecies.94: 161–186. http://www.fishbase.org/references/FBRefSummary.php?id=33550&speccode=268BogutskayaNGKüçükFAtalayMA (2007) A description of three new species of the genus Pseudophoxinus from Turkey (Teleostei: Cyprinidae: Leuciscinae).15(2): 335–341. http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=11803973BoronAPoryckaKItoDAbeSKirtiklisL (2009) Comparative molecular cytogenetic analysis of three Leuciscus species (Pisces, Cyprinidae) using chromosome banding and FISH with rDNA.135(2): 199–207. doi: 10.1007/s10709-008-9269-3Collares-PereiraMJ (1992) in vivo Direct Chromosome Preparation (Air Drying Technique).1st International Workshop on Fish Cytogenetic Techniques. France, September 14–24, 1990, 15–9.Collares-PereiraMJRabP (1999) NOR polymorphism in the Iberian species Chondrostomalusitanicum (Pisces: Cyprinidae) reexamination by FISH.105(3): 301–303. doi: 10.1023/A:1003885922023ErgeneSKarahanAKuruM (2010) Cytogenetic Analysis of Pseudophoxinusantalyae Bogutskaya, 1992 (Pisces: Cyprinidae) from the Eastern Mediterranean River Basin, Turkey.34(1): 111–117. doi: 10.3906/zoo-0807-33FreyhofJÖzuluğM (2006) Pseudophoxinusninae, a new species from Central Anatolia, Turkey (Teleostei: Cyprinidae).17(3): 255–259. http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/04biol/pdf/ief17_3_07.pdfFreyhofJÖzuluğM (2010) Pseudophoxinushittitorum, a new species of spring minnow from Central Anatolia (Teleostei: Cyprinidae).21(3): 239–245. http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/04biol/pdf/ief21_3_06.pdfGaffaroğluMYükselE (2009) Constitutive heterochromatin in Acanthobramamarmid and Cyprinionmacrostomus (Osteichthyes, Cyprinidae).15(2): 169–172. http://vetdergi.kafkas.edu.tr/extdocs/2009_2/169_172.pdfGoldJRZochPKAmemiyaCT (1988) Cytogenetic studies in North American minnows (Cyprinidae). XIV. Chromosomal NOR phenotypes of eight species from the genus Notropis.54: 137–147. doi: 10.1139/z91-398GoldJRLiYCShipleyNSPowersPK (1990) Improved methods for working with fish chromosomes with a review of metaphase chromosome banding.37(4): 563–575. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1990.tb05889.xGromichoMOzouf-CostazCCollares-PereiraMJ (2005) Lack of correspondence between CMA3-, Ag-positive signals and 28S rDNA loci in two Iberian minnows (Teleostei, Cyprinidae) evidenced by sequential banding.109: 507–511. doi: 10.1159/000084211HowellWMBlackDA (1980) Controlled silver staining of nucleolus organizer regions with a protective colloidal developer: a 1-step method.36(8): 1014–1015. doi: 10.1007/BF01953855HrbekTStöltingKNBardakcıFKüçükFWildekampRHMeyeraA (2004) Plate tectonics and biogeographical patterns of the Pseudophoxinus (Pisces: Cypriniformes) species complex of central Anatolia, Turkey.32(1): 297–308. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2003.12.017IUCN (2014a) Pseudophoxinuscrassus.http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/60751/0 [accessed 10 April 2014]IUCN (2014b) Pseudophoxinushittitorum.http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/19449272/0 [accessed 10 April 2014]KarasuMYükselEGaffaroğluM (2011) Karyotype, NORs, and C-banding analysis of Pseudophoxinusfirati Bogutskaya, Küçük & Atalay, 2007 (Actinopterygii, Cyprinidae) in the Euphrates River, Turkey.35(6): 865–868. doi: 10.3906/zoo-0912-129KüçükFAtalayMAGüçlüSSGülleİ (2012) Türkiye’de Yayılış Gösteren Pseudophoxinus (Teleostei:Cyprinidae) Türlerinin Bazı Morfolojik Özellikleri ve Zoocoğrafik Dağılımları.8(2): 1–9. http://sdu.edu.tr/edergi/index.php/esufd/article/viewFile/3827/3473KüçükFGüçlüSS (2014) A new Pseudophoxinus (Teleostei, Cyprinidae) species from Asi River Drainage (Turkey).411: 57–66. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.411.6833LevanAFredgaKSandbergAA (1964) Nomenclature for centromeric position on chromosomes.52(2): 201–220. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-5223.1964.tb01953.xMagtoonWAraiR (1993) Karyotypes and distribution of nucleolus organizer regions in cyprinid fishes from Thailand.40(1): 77–85. http://www.wdc-jp.biz/pdf_store/isj/publication/pdf/40/401/40111.pdfNabaisCRampinMCollares-PereiraMJ (2013) Comparative cytogenetics of two endangered leuciscine fish, Squaliusaradensis and S.torgalensis (Teleostei, Cyprinidae), from the Iberian Peninsula.7(1): 33–42. doi: 10.3897/CompCytogen.v7i1.4672PereiraCNetoACollares-PereiraMJ (2009) Cytogenetic survey of species of two distinct genera of Iberian nases (Cyprinidae, Leuciscinae) that hybridize extensively in nature. I. Evidence of similar and conserved chromosome pattern with some few species-specific markers at macro-structural level.137(3): 285–291. doi: 10.1007/s10709-009-9379-6PereiraCSRabPCollares-PereiraMJ (2012) Chromosomes of European cyprinid fishes: comparative cytogenetics and chromosomal characteristics of ribosomal DNAs in nine Iberian chondrostomine species (Leuciscinae).140(10–12): 485–495. doi: 10.1007/s10709-013-9697-6RabPCollares-PereiraMJ (1995) Chromosomes of European Cyprinid fishes (Cyprinidae, Cypriniformes): A review.44(3): 193–214. http://serials.unibo.it/cgi-ser/start/en/spogli/dfs.tcl?prog_art=3256190&language=ENGLISH&view=articoliRabPKarakousisYRabovaM (1996) Karyotype, NOR phenotype and C-banding study of Barbuscyclolepis from Greece.45: 77–83. http://eurekamag.com/research/038/362/038362965.php#closeRabPBohlenJRabovaMFlajshansMKalousL (2007) Cytogenetic as a tool in fish conservation: the present situation in Europe. In: PisanoEOzouf-CostazCForestiFKapporBGEnfieldNH (Eds) . 2.1. Science Publisher Inc., USA, 215–240.RabPRabovaMPereiraCSCollares-PereiraMJPelikanovaS (2008) Chromosome studies of European cyprinid fishes: interspecific homology of leuciscine cytotaxonomic marker the largest subtelocentric chromosome pair as revealed by crossspecies painting.16(6): 863–873. doi: 10.1007/s10709-013-9697-6RossiARMilanaVHettAKTancioniL (2012) Molecular cytogenetic analysis of the Appenine endemic cyprinid fish Squaliuslucumonis and three other Italian leuciscines using chromosome banding and FISH with rDNA probes.140(10–12): 469–476. doi: 10.1007/s10709-012-9695-0SolaLGornungE (2001) Classical and molecular cytogenetics of the zebrafish, Daniorerio (Cyprinidae, Cypriniformes): an overview.111(1–3): 397–412. doi: 10.1023/A:1013776323077SouzaACPNagamachiCYMilhomemSSRFeldbergEPieczarkaJC (2009) Cytogenetics analysis in catfish species of the genus Peckoltia Miranda Ribeiro, 1912 (Teleostei: Siluriformes: Loricariidae).3(2): 103–109. doi: 10.3897/compcytogen.v3i2.17SumnerAT (1972) A simple technique for demonstrating centromeric heterochromatin.75(1): 304–6. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(72)90558-7TakaiAOjimaY (1992) Chromosomal distribution of nucleolus organizer regions in Japanese Cyprinid fish.71(284): 7–17. http://eurekamag.com/research/002/322/002322876.phpÜnalS (2011) . MSc Dissertation. Science Institute, Ahi Evran University, Kırşehir, Turkey, 61 pp. [in Turkish]YükselEGülkaçMD (1992) On the karyotypes in some populations of the subterranean mole rats in the lower Euphrates-basin, Turkey.45(2): 175–190. doi: 10.1080/00087114.1992.10797221