4.2 Article

Comparative cytogenetics of bats (Chiroptera): The prevalence of Robertsonian translocations limits the power of chromosomal characters in resolving interfamily phylogenetic relationships

Journal

CHROMOSOME RESEARCH
Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages 155-170

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10577-007-1206-2

Keywords

Chiroptera; chromosomal rearrangement; convergence; Emballonuridae; evolution; karyology; Megadermatidae; Robertsonian

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although the monophyly of Chiroptera is well supported by many independent studies, higher-level systematics, e.g. the monophyly of microbats, remains disputed by morphological and molecular studies. Chromosomal rearrangements, as one type of rare genomic changes, have become increasingly popular in phylogenetic studies as alternatives to molecular and other morphological characters. Here, the representatives of families Megadermatidae and Emballonuridae are studied by comparative chromosome painting for the first time. The results have been integrated into published comparative maps, providing an opportunity to assess genome-wide chromosomal homologies between the representatives of eight bat families. Our results further substantiate the wide occurrence of Robertsonian translocations in bats, with the possible involvement of whole-arm reciprocal translocations (WARTs). In order to search for valid cytogenetic signature(s) for each family and superfamily, evolutionary chromosomal rearrangements identified by chromosomal painting and/or banding comparison are subjected to two independent analyses: (1) a cladistic analysis using parsimony and (2) the mapping of these chromosomal changes onto the molecularly defined phylogenetic tree available from the literature. Both analyses clearly indicate the prevalence of homoplasic events that reduce the reliability of chromosomal characters for resolving interfamily relationships in bats.

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