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.v15.i1.6195761957Research ArticleAnostomidaeCharaciformesMolecular CytogeneticsBrazilCytogenetic analysis of Hypomasticuscopelandii and H.steindachneri: relevance of cytotaxonomic markers in the Anostomidae family (Characiformes)SalgadoFilipe Schitinifilipesalgado126@hotmail.com1CunhaMarina Souzamarina.souza.cunha@gmail.comhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3512-791X1MeloSilvanahttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7292-897321DergamJorge Abdala1Departamento de Biologia Animal, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Av. P. H. Rolfs, s/n, Centro, Viçosa, 36570-900, Minas Gerais, BrazilDepartamento de Biologia Geral, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Av. P. H. Rolfs, s/n, Centro, Viçosa, 36570-900, Minas Gerais, BrazilDepartamento de Morfologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Estadual Paulista, R. Prof. Dr. Antônio Celso Wagner Zanin, s/n, Distrito de Rubião Junior, Botucatu, 18618-689, São Paulo, Brazil
Corresponding author: Filipe S. Salgado (filipesalgado126@hotmail.com); Marina S. Cunha (marina.souza.cunha@gmail.com)
Academic editor: A. Lisachov
2021100320211516576E8C83B8D-248E-5E4B-AA9B-C377782476FC87B69C62-2600-43D6-AB48-75CE33F7C2F746159641112202024012021Filipe Schitini Salgado, Marina Souza Cunha, Silvana Melo, Jorge Abdala DergamThis 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/87B69C62-2600-43D6-AB48-75CE33F7C2F7
Recent phylogenetic hypotheses within Anostomidae, based on morphological and molecular data, resulted in the description of new genera (Megaleporinus Ramirez, Birindelli et Galetti, 2017) and the synonymization of others, such as the reallocation of Leporinuscopelandii Steindachner, 1875 and Leporinussteindachneri Eigenmann, 1907 to Hypomasticus Borodin, 1929. Despite high levels of conservatism of the chromosomal macrostructure in this family, species groups have been corroborated using banding patterns and the presence of different sex chromosome systems. Due to the absence of cytogenetic studies in H.copelandii (Steindachner, 1875) and H.steindachneri (Eigenmann, 1907), the goal of this study was to characterize their karyotypes and investigate the presence/absence of sex chromosome systems using different repetitive DNA probes. Cytogenetic techniques included: Giemsa staining, Ag-NOR banding and FISH using 18S and 5S rDNA probes, as well as microsatellite probes (CA)15 and (GA)15. Both species had 2n = 54, absence of heteromorphic sex chromosomes, one chromosome pair bearing Ag-NOR, 18S and 5S rDNA regions. The (CA)15 and (GA)15 probes marked mainly the subtelomeric regions of all chromosomes and were useful as species-specific chromosomal markers. Our results underline that chromosomal macrostructure is congruent with higher systematic arrangements in Anostomidae, while microsatellite probes are informative about autapomorphic differences between species.
Anastomidcoastal basinscytogeneticsendemic speciesfluorescence in situ hybridizationfreshwater fishesrepetitive sequencesCitation
Salgado FS, Cunha MS, Melo S, Dergam JA (2021) Cytogenetic analysis of Hypomasticus copelandii and H. steindachneri: relevance of cytotaxonomic markers in the Anostomidae family (Characiformes). CompCytogen 15(1): 65–76. https://doi.org/10.3897/compcytogen.v15.i1.61957
Introduction
Within the order Characiformes, the family Anostomidae encompasses around 150 valid species distributed throughout South America (Froese and Pauly 2019; Fricke et al. 2020). Fish of this family carry out annual reproductive migrations and constitute a large part of the fish biomass in several aquatic habitats, representing an important resource for human activities (Garavello and Britski 2003). Up to now, seven anostomid species are considered endangered and many others need urgent assessment of their conservational status (reviewed in Birindelli et al. 2020). In many cases, original type series are composed of more than one species, such as the case of Leporinuscopelandii Steindachner, 1875 (Birindelli et al. 2020).
Recently, phylogenetic hypotheses based on morphological and molecular data have suggested the creation of the new genus Megaleporinus Ramirez, Birindelli et Galetti, 2017 (Ramirez et al. 2016, 2017), and the synonymization of others, such as the reallocation of L.copelandii and Leporinussteindachneri Eigenmann, 1907 to Hypomasticus Borodin, 1929 (Birindelli et al. 2020). Even with these proposed changes, both Leporinus Agassiz, 1829 and Hypomasticus are still not monophyletic, requiring further taxonomic investigations.
Cytogenetic studies in this group have revealed a conserved karyotype macrostructure of 2n = 54 and fundamental number (NF) = 108 (Table 1). Regardless of this conservatism, the cytogenetic banding patterns, the differential accumulation of repetitive DNA, and the presence/absence of sex chromosome systems have been useful to help species identification in this family (reviewed in Barros et al. 2017). Both Hypomasticuscopelandii (Steindachner, 1875) and Hypomasticussteindachneri (Eigenmann, 1907) had an early divergence in the phylogeny of the family (Ramirez et al. 2016, 2017; Birindelli et al. 2020), and were never analyzed cytogenetically. Therefore, the goal of this paper was to characterize their karyotypes and to investigate the presence/absence of sex chromosome systems using different repetitive DNA probes in these two species from Brazilian southeastern coastal basins in order to identify potential cytotaxonomic markers. We also provided a review of the cytogenetic data available for the family Anostomidae.
Cytogenetic data available on the Anostomidae species regarding their chromosome number (2n), karyotype description, presence or absence of sex-chromosome systems, number of chromosomes marked by the Ag-NOR banding technique, and also 18S and 5S rDNA probes.
Species
2n
Karyotype
Sex-System
Ag-NOR
18S
5S
References
Abramiteshypselonotus
54
–
no
–
2
–
Silva et al. 2013
A.solaria
54
–
no
2
–
–
Martins et al. 2000
Anostomusternetzi
54
–
no
2
–
–
Martins et al. 2000
Hypomasticuscopelandii
54
28m+26sm
no
2
2
2
Present Study
H.steindachneri
54
30m+24sm
no
2
2
2
Present Study
Laemolytataeniata
54
28m+26sm
no
2
2
2 †
Barros et al. 2017
Leporellusvittatus
54
28m+26sm
no
2
2
2–4 †
Galetti Jr et al. 1984; Dulz et al. 2019
Leporinusagassizi
54
28m+26sm
no
2
2
2
Barros et al. 2017
L.amblyrhyncus
54
–
no
2
–
–
Galetti Jr et al. 1991
L.fasciatus
54
28m+26sm
no
2
2
2
Barros et al. 2017
L.friderici
54
28m+26sm/32m+22sm
no
2
2
2–4
Martins and Galetti Jr., 1999; Silva et al. 2012; Borba et al. 2013; Barros et al. 2017; Ponzio et al. 2018; Dulz et al. 2019; Crepaldi and Parise-Maltempi 2020
L.lacustris
54
30m+24sm
no
2
2
–
Galetti Jr et al. 1981; Galetti Jr et al. 1984; Mestriner et al. 1995; Silva et al. 2012, 2013; Borba et al. 2013
L.multimaculatus
54
26m+28sm
ZZ/ZW
2
–
–
Barros et al. 2018; Venere et al. 2004
L.octofasciatus
54
–
no
2
–
–
Galetti Jr et al. 1984
L.piau
54
–
no
2
–
–
Galetti Jr et al. 1991
L.striatus
54
–
no
2
2
–
Galetti Jr et al. 1991; Silva et al. 2012, 2013; Borba et al. 2013; Ponzio et al. 2018
L.taeniatus
54
–
no
2
–
–
Galetti Jr et al. 1991
Megaleporinusconirostris ‡
54
–
ZZ/ZW
2
–
–
Galetti Jr et al. 1995
M.elongatus ‡
54
Z1Z1Z2Z2/Z1W1Z2W2
2
2
4
Martins and Galetti Jr. 2000; Parise-Maltempi et al. 2007, 2013; Marreta et al. 2012; Silva et al. 2012, 2013; Borba et al. 2013; Ponzio et al. 2018; Crepaldi and Parise-Maltempi 2020
M.macrocephalus ‡
54
–
ZZ/ZW
–
2
–
Galetti Jr and Foresti 1986; Galetti Jr et al. 1995; Silva et al. 2012, 2013; Borba et al. 2013; Ponzio et al. 2018; Utsunomia et al. 2019; Crepaldi and Parise-Maltempi 2020
M.obtusidens ‡
54
26m+28sm/ 28m+26sm
ZZ/ZW
2
2
2–4
Galetti Jr et al. 1981; Galetti Jr et al. 1995; Martins and Galetti Jr. 2000; Silva et al. 2012, 2013; Borba et al. 2013; Utsunomia et al. 2019; Dulz et al. 2020
M.reinhardti ‡
54
28m+26sm
ZZ/ZW
–
2
2
Galetti Jr and Foresti 1986; Galetti Jr et al. 1995; Dulz et al. 2020
M.trifasciatus ‡
54
26m+28sm
ZZ/ZW
2–3
6 §
2 †
Galetti Jr et al. 1995; Barros et al. 2017
Pseudanostrimaculatus
54
–
no
2
–
–
Martins et al. 2000
Rhytiodusmicrolepis
54
28m+26sm
no
2
4 §
2
Barros et al. 2017
Schizodonaltoparanae
54
–
no
2
–
4
Martins and Galetti Jr. 2000
S.borellii
54
–
no
2
2
4
Martins and Galetti Jr. 2000; Silva et al. 2012, 2013; Ponzio et al. 2018
S.fasciatus
54
28m+26sm
no
2
22 §
2 †
Barros et al. 2017
S.intermedius
54
–
no
2
–
–
Martins and Galetti Jr. 1997
S.isognathus
54
–
no
2
2
4
Martins and Galetti Jr. 2000; Silva et al. 2012, 2013; Ponzio et al. 2018
S.knerii
54
–
no
2
–
4
Martins and Galetti Jr. 2000
S.nasutus
54
–
no
2
–
4
Martins and Galetti Jr. 2000
S.vittatus
54
–
no
2
–
4
Martins and Galetti Jr. 2000
† indicates synteny between 18S and 5S rDNA clusters. ‡ Species were assigned to the new genus Megaleporinus according to Ramirez et al. (2017). § Barros et al. (2017) did not exclude the possibility of technical artifacts and suggested that the expansion of the rDNA sites should be confirmed with supplementary analysis.
Material and methodsSample collection
Hypomasticuscopelandii was collected from Glória (Paraíba do Sul River Basin), Itabapoana (Itabapoana River Basin), Matipó (Doce River Basin) and Mucuri (Mucuri River Basin) rivers, covering its full range of distribution in southeastern Brazil. Hypomasticussteindachneri was collected from Tiririca Lake (Doce River Basin) (Table 2). Collection permit of the Instituto Chico Mendes de Biodiversidade (ICMBio) (SISBIO14975-1) was issued to Jorge Abdala Dergam. Species identification followed Garavello (1979) and the sex identification was made through histological analysis. Voucher specimens were deposited in the scientific collection of the Museu de Zoologia João Moojen in Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil (Table 2).
Locales and sample size of Hypomasticuscopelandii and Hypomasticussteindachneri from southeastern Brazil.
Species
Voucher
Locality
GPS coordinates
Sample size
Male/Female
Hypomasticuscopelandii
MZUFV4500 MZUFV 4504
Glória River, Paraíba do Sul River Basin
21°05'21"S, 42°20'30"W
01/02
MZUFV4503 MZUFV 4504
Itabapoana River, Itabapoana River Basin
20°59'26"S, 41°42'56"W
02/02
MZUFV4502
Matipó River, Doce River Basin
20°06'59"S, 42°24'14"W
04/04
MZUFV4354
Mucuri River, Mucuri River Basin
17°42'21"S, 40°45'42"W
0/1
Hypomasticussteindachneri
MZUFV3596 MZUFV3607 MZUFV3635 MZUFV4658
Tiririca Lake, Doce River Basin
19°18'51"S, 42°24'13"W
4/4
Cytogenetic analyses
The specimens were anesthetized with clove oil 300 mg.L-1 (Lucena et al. 2013) as approved by the Universidade Federal de Viçosa Animal Welfare Committee (CEUA authorization 08/2016). Mitotic chromosomes were obtained from a direct method using kidney (Bertollo et al. 1978) and the following cytogenetic techniques were used: conventional staining with Giemsa 5% diluted in Sorensen buffer (0.06M, pH 6.8) for basic karyotypic analysis, identification of the argyrophilic nucleolar organizer regions through Ag-NOR banding technique (Howell and Black 1980), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) following the protocol outlined in Pinkel et al. (1986) using 18S and 5S rDNA probes, as well as (CA)15 and (GA)15 microsatellite probes. The ribosomal probes were obtained through polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using the following primers: 18Sf (5'-CCG CTT TGG TGA CTC TTG AT-3') and 18Sr (5'-CCG AGG ACC TCA CTA AAC CA-3') (Gross et al. 2010); 5Sa (5'-TAC GCC CGA TCT CGT CCG ATC-3') and 5Sb (5'-CAG GCT GGT ATG GCC GTA AGC-3') (Martins et al. 2006). The ribosomal genes were labeled with digoxigenin-11-dUTP (Roche Applied Science) and the signal was detected with anti-digoxigenin-rhodamine (Roche Applied Science), whereas the microsatellite probes were synthesized and labeled with Cy3 fluorochrome at the 5' end (Sigma).
Digital images were captured in a BX53F Olympus microscope equipped with DP73 and MX10 Olympus camera for classical and molecular techniques respectively, both using the CellSens imaging software. Chromosomes were measured with the Image-Pro Plus software and classified according to their size and arm ratios as metacentric (m) or submetacentric (sm) (Levan et al. 1964). At least five metaphases from each individual were analyzed in order to determine the chromosomal patterns.
Results
Our results showed 2n = 54 in all H.copelandii populations, karyotype of 28m + 26sm and NF = 108, no heteromorphic sex chromosomes were detected, and Ag-NOR was located at the terminal region of chromosome pair 4 (Fig. 1). H.steindachneri showed 2n = 54, karyotype of 30m + 24sm and NF = 108, also without heteromorphic sex chromosomes, and Ag-NOR was located at the terminal region of chromosome pair 8 (boxes in Fig. 1). The 18S rDNA signals were detected at the terminal region of chromosome pair 4 in H.copelandii and pair 8 in H.steindachneri, whereas the 5S rDNA signals were detected at the interstitial region of chromosome pair 8 in H.copelandii and pair 7 in H.steindachneri (boxes in Fig. 2).
02062C1A-9095-514D-8B66-134E1C0D7DE1
Giemsa-stained karyotypes of Hypomasticuscopelandii and Hypomasticussteindachneri. Ag-NORs are shown in the boxes. Scale bar: 10 μm.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/518597
The microsatellite (CA)15 was detected in both arms of all chromosomes in H.copelandii, whereas microsatellite (GA)15 showed the same pattern with the exception of submetacentric pair 18 that showed signals in the interstitial region of the short arm (Fig. 2). Probes (CA)15 and (GA)15 exhibited the same general pattern in H.steindachneri, terminal markings in both arms of all chromosomes, except for metacentric pair 11, which showed interstitial signals in the short arm with both probes (Fig. 2). These distinctive markings obtained with the microsatellites were consistently observed in both sexes.
380B17D5-F347-52A0-A6DA-8DF2F912BF72
Cytogenetic FISH patterns on Hypomasticuscopelandii (A, B) and Hypomasticussteindachneri (C, D). Left column (CA)15 probe (A–C). Right column (GA)15 probe (B–D). 18S and 5S rDNA probes are shown in the boxes. Scale bar: 5 μm.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/518598Discussion
The conserved Anostomidae karyotype macrostructure is observed in both H.copelandii and H.steindachneri, i.e. 2n = 54 and NF = 108, with some differences in the karyotypic formula regarding the number of metacentric and submetacentric chromosomes (Table 1). The absence of heteromorphic sex chromosomes reflects their early divergence in the phylogeny of the family (Ramirez et al. 2016, 2017; Birindelli et al. 2020). This is the first cytogenetic report for the genus Hypomasticus indicating that the absence of a sex chromosome system constitutes a plesiomorphic trait within Anostomidae (Fig. 3).
B29CBE1D-2927-5AC6-802E-4E754BA24ED9
Phylogenetic tree of the Anostomidae family adapted from Ramirez et al. (2017) and Birindelli et al. (2020) including all cytogenetic information available regarding presence or absence of sex chromosome systems. AB: Absent; UN: Unknown.
https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/518599
Ramirez et al. (2017) proposed the creation of Megaleporinus based on morphological, molecular and cytogenetic data, synonymizing some Leporinus and Hypomasticus species, and considering the ZZ/ZW sex system as a synapomorphic trait of this new genus. This hypothesis has been corroborated by other studies, which also included Megaleporinuselongatus (Valenciennes, 1850) with a Z1Z2/W1W2 multiple sex chromosome system (Parise-Maltempi et al. 2007, 2013; Marreta et al. 2012; Barros et al. 2018; Crepaldi and Parise-Maltempi 2020). However, not all current Megaleporinus species have been karyotyped (Fig. 3), and a ZZ/ZW system has also been observed in Leporinusmultimaculatus Birindelli, Teixeira et Britski, 2016, which may have arisen independently (Venere et al. 2004; Barros et al. 2018). The inclusion of this species in the phylogenetic analyzes will help to elucidate this question, as well as the cytogenetic characterization of the remaining Megaleporinus spp.
Although Ag-NOR number is conserved for most anastomid species with only two markings (Table 1), the chromosome locus characterizes each species, comprising a species-specific character useful as an efficient cytotaxonomic marker (Galetti Jr et al. 1984, 1991; Barros et al. 2017). High correlation between Ag-NOR banding and 18S rDNA FISH technique is also a conserved pattern in the family, with only three exceptions (Table 1). Barros et al. (2017) acknowledged that this discrepancy observed on these three species could be due to technical artifacts and suggested that the expansion of the 18S rDNA sites in Anostomidae should be verified with supplementary analysis. The 18S and 5S rDNA probes were not co-located in neither H.copelandii nor H.steindachneri, as observed in most species of the family (Table 1), although it remains to be confirmed with double-FISH analysis, as syntenic sites have been observed in other species of the family, such as in Megaleporinustrifasciatus (Steindachner, 1876), Laemolytataeniata (Kner, 1858), Schizodonfasciatus Spix et Agassiz, 1829 (Barros et al. 2017), and Leporellusvittatus (Valenciennes, 1850) (Dulz et al. 2019).
In Anostomidae, 5S rDNA variation is restricted to two or four markings and, interestingly, with intraspecific variation among populations in a few species (Table 1). These intraspecific variations call attention to the importance of populational studies to highlight species genetic diversity, important to delineate conservational strategies (Paiva et al. 2006; Abdul-Muneer 2014). Specially in the cases of migratory species, where the highly fragmented habitats could cause isolation of gene flow (Santos et al. 2013). The identical cytogenetic patterns observed in all H.copelandii populations, covering its full distribution range, indicate absence of genetic structure.
Microsatellite (CA)15 and (GA)15 probes marked the terminal region of both arms in most of the chromosomes in both species, a pattern that is observed in the autosomes of species with sex chromosome systems, whereas the heteromorphic sex chromosomes have specific accumulation patterns of distinct repetitive DNA classes (Parise-Maltempi et al. 2007; Cioffi et al. 2012; Marreta et al. 2012; Poltronieri et al. 2014; Utsunomia et al. 2019; Dulz et al. 2020). The differential interstitial markings, observed in both male and female chromosome complements, can be used as an additional cytotaxonomic marker to distinguish H.copelandii from H.steindachneri (Fig. 2), and also from species with heteromorphic sex chromosomes (Cioffi et al. 2012; Poltronieri et al. 2014).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank “Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)”, “Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES),” and “Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)” for the financial support. The authors would also like to thank Raul Silveira from VERT Ambiental for field support in the Paraíba do Sul and Itabapoana rivers.
ReferencesAbdul-MuneerPM (2014) Application of microsatellite markers in conservation genetics and fisheries management: recent advances in population structure analysis and conservation strategies. Genetics Research International 2014: e691759. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/691759BarrosLCJuniorPMGFeldbergE (2017) Mapping 45S and 5S ribosomal genes in chromosomes of Anostomidae fish species (Ostariophysi, Characiformes) from different Amazonian water types.789(1): 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2583-8BarrosLCPiscorDParise-MaltempiPPFeldbergE (2018) Differentiation and evolution of the W chromosome in the fish species of Megaleporinus (Characiformes, Anostomidae).12(4): 204–209. https://doi.org/10.1159/000489693BertolloLACTakahashiCSMoreira-FilhoO (1978) Cytotaxonomic considerations on Hopliaslacerdae (Pisces, Erythrinidae).1: 103–120.BirindelliJLMeloBFRibeiro-SilvaLRDinizDOliveiraC (2020) A new species of Hypomasticus from eastern Brazil based on morphological and molecular data (Characiformes, Anostomidae).108(2): 416–425. https://doi.org/10.1643/CI-19-335BorbaRSSilvaELParise-MaltempiPP (2013) Chromosome mapping of retrotransposable elements Rex1 and Rex3 in Leporinus Spix, 1829 species (Characiformes: Anostomidae) and its relationships among heterochromatic segments and W sex chromosome. Mobile Genetic Elements 3(6): e27460. https://doi.org/10.4161/mge.27460CioffiMKejnovskýEMarquioniVPoltronieriJMolinaWFDinizDBertolloLAC (2012) The key role of repeated DNAs in sex chromosome evolution in two fish species with ZW sex chromosome system. Molecular Cytogenetics 5(1): e28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1755-8166-5-28CrepaldiCParise-MaltempiPP (2020) Heteromorphic sex chromosomes and their DNA content in fish: an insight through Satellite DNA accumulation in Megaleporinuselongatus.160(1): 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1159/000506265DulzTALorscheiderCANascimentoVDNoletoRBMoreira-FilhoONogarotoVVicariMR (2019) Comparative cytogenetics among Leporinusfriderici and Leporellusvittatus populations (Characiformes, Anostomidae): focus on repetitive DNA elements.13(2): 105–120. https://doi.org/10.3897/CompCytogen.v13i2.33764DulzTAAzambujaMNascimentoVDLorscheiderCANoletoRBMoreira-FilhoONogarotoVDinizDMello-AffonsoPRAVicariMR (2020) Karyotypic diversification in two Megaleporinus species (Characiformes, Anostomidae) inferred from in situ localization of repetitive DNA sequences.17(5): 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1089/zeb.2020.1918FrickeREschmeyerWNVan der LaanR (2020) Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes: Genera, Species, References. http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp [Electronic version accessed 19 oct 2020]FroeseRPaulyD (2019) FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org [version (12/2019). Electronic version accessed 19 oct 2020]GalettiJr PMForestiFBertolloLACMoreira-FilhoO (1981) Heteromorphic sex chromosomes in three species of the genus Leporinus (Pisces, Anostomidae).29(3): 138–142. https://doi.org/10.1159/000131562GalettiJr PMForestiFBertolloLACMoreira-FilhoO (1984) Characterization of eight species of Anostomidae (Cypriniformes) fish on the basis of the nucleolar organizing region.37(4): 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/00087114.1984.10797718GalettiJr PMForestiF (1986) Evolution of the ZZ/ZW system in Leporinus (Pisces, Anostomidae).43(1–2): 43–46. https://doi.org/10.1159/000132296GalettiJr PMCesarACGVenerePC (1991) Heterochromatin and NORs variability in Leporinus fish (Anostomidae, Characiformes).44(3–4): 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/00087114.1991.10797193GalettiJr PMLimaNRWVenerePC (1995) A monophyletic ZW sex chromosome system in Leporinus (Anostomidae, Characiformes).60(4): 375–382. https://doi.org/10.1508/cytologia.60.375GaravelloJC (1979) Revisão taxonômica do gênero Leporinus Spix, 1829 (Ostariophysi, Anostomidae). Doctoral thesis, São Paulo, Brazil: Universidade de São Paulo. [In Portuguese]GaravelloJCBritskiHA (2003) Family Anostomidae (Headstanders). In: ReisREKullanderSOFerrarisCJ (Eds) Checklist of the freshwater fishes of South and Central America., 75–84.GrossMCSchneiderCHValenteGTMartinsCFeldbergE (2010) Variability of 18S rDNA locus among Symphysodon fishes: Chromosomal rearrangements.76(5): 1117–1127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02550.xHowellWTBlackDA (1980) Controlled silver-staining of nucleolus organizer regions with a protective colloidal developer: A 1-step method.36(8): 1014–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01953855LevanAFredgaKSandbergAA (1964) Nomenclature for centromeric position on chromosomes.52: 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1964.tb01953.xLucenaCASCalegariBBPereiraEHLDallegraveE (2013) O uso de óleo de cravo na eutanásia de peixes.105: 20–24.MarretaMEFaldoniFLCParise‐MaltempiPP (2012) Cytogenetic mapping of the W chromosome in the genus Leporinus (Teleostei, Anostomidae) using a highly repetitive DNA sequence.80(3): 630–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2011.03199.xMartinsCGalettiJr PM (1997) Narrow chromosome diversity in fish of the genus Schizodon (Characiformes, Anostomidae).92: 139–148.MartinsCGalettiJr PM (1999) Chromosomal localization of 5S rDNA genes in Leporinus fish (Anostomidae, Characiformes).7(5): 363–367. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009216030316MartinsCGalettiJr PM (2000) Conservative distribution of 5S rDNA loci in Schizodon (Pisces, Anostomidae) chromosomes.8(4): 353–355. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009243815280MartinsCVenerePCMestrinerCACestariMMFerreiraRGalettiJr PM (2000) Chromosome relationships between Anostomidae and Chilodontidae fish (Characiformes).65(2): 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1508/cytologia.65.153MartinsCFerreiraIAOliveiraCForestiFGalettiJr PM (2006) A tandemly repetitive centromeric DNA sequence of the fish Hopliasmalabaricus (Characiformes: Erythrinidae) is derived from 5S rDNA.127(1–3): 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10709-005-2674-yMestrinerCABertolloLACGalettiJr PM (1995) Chromosome banding and synaptonemal complexes in Leporinuslacustris (Pisces, Anostomidae): analysis of a sex system.3(7): 440–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00713895PaivaSRDergamJAMachadoF (2006) Determining management units in southeastern Brazil: The case of Astyanaxbimaculatus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Teleostei: Ostariophysi: Characidae).560(1): 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-9415-1Parise-MaltempiPPMartinsCOliveiraCForestiF (2007) Identification of a new repetitive element in the sex chromosomes of Leporinuselongatus (Teleostei: Characiformes: Anostomidae): New insights into the sex chromosomes of Leporinus.116(3): 218–223. https://doi.org/10.1159/000098190Parise-MaltempiPPSilvaELRensWDeardenFO’BrienPCTrifonovVFerguson-SmithMA (2013) Comparative analysis of sex chromosomes in Leporinus species (Teleostei, Characiformes) using chromosome painting. BMC Genetics 14(1): e60. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-14-60PinkelDStraumeTGrayJW (1986) Cytogenetic analysis using quantitative, high-sensitivity, fluorescence hybridization.83(9): 2934–2938. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.83.9.2934PoltronieriJMarquioniVBertolloLACKejnovskyEMolinaWFLiehrTCioffiMB (2014) Comparative chromosomal mapping of microsatellites in Leporinus species (Characiformes, Anostomidae): unequal accumulation on the W chromosomes.142(1): 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1159/000355908PonzioJCPiscorDParise-MaltempiPP (2018) Chromosomal locations of U2 snDNA clusters in Megaleporinus, Leporinus and Schizodon (Characiformes: Anostomidae).73(3): 295–298. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-018-0031-8RamirezJLCarvalho‐CostaLFVenerePCCarvalhoDCTroyWPGalettiJr PM (2016) Testing monophyly of the freshwater fish Leporinus (Characiformes, Anostomidae) through molecular analysis.88(3): 1204–1214. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12906RamirezJLBirindelliJLGalettiJr PM (2017) A new genus of Anostomidae (Ostariophysi: Characiformes): diversity, phylogeny and biogeography based on cytogenetic, molecular and morphological data.107: 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2016.11.012SantosABIAlbieriRJAraujoFG (2013) Influences of dams with different levels of river connectivity on the fish community structure along a tropical river in Southeastern Brazil.29(1): 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12027SilvaELBorbaRSParise-MaltempiPP (2012) Chromosome mapping of repetitive sequences in Anostomidae species: implications for genomic and sex chromosome evolution. Molecular Cytogenetics 5(1): e45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1755-8166-5-45SilvaELBussoAFParise-MaltempiPP (2013) Characterization and genome organization of a repetitive element associated with the nucleolus organizer region in Leporinuselongatus (Anostomidae: Characiformes).139(1): 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000342957UtsunomiaRAndrade-SilvaDMZRuiz-RuanoFJGoesCAGMeloSRamosLPOliveiraCPorto-ForestiFForestiFHashimotoDT (2019) Satellitome landscape analysis of Megaleporinusmacrocephalus (Teleostei, Anostomidae) reveals intense accumulation of satellite sequences on the heteromorphic sex chromosome. Scientific Reports 9(1): e5856. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42383-8VenerePCFerreiraIAMartinsCGalettiJr PM (2004) A novel ZZ/ZW sex chromosome system for the genus Leporinus (Pisces, Anostomidae, Characiformes).121(1): 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GENE.0000019936.40970.7a