4.1 Article

Chromosomal Homologies among Vampire Bats Revealed by Chromosome Painting (Phyllostomidae, Chiroptera)

Journal

CYTOGENETIC AND GENOME RESEARCH
Volume 132, Issue 3, Pages 156-164

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000321574

Keywords

Chromosome painting; Desmodus; Diaemus; Diphylla; Phyllostomidae; Vampire bats

Funding

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Pernambuco (FACEPE)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Substantial effort has been made to elucidate karyotypic evolution of phyllostomid bats, mostly through comparisons of G-banding patterns. However, due to the limited number of G-bands in respective karyotypes and to the similarity of non-homologous bands, an accurate evolutionary history of chromosome segments remains questionable. This is the case for vampire bats (Desmodontinae). Despite several proposed homologies, banding data have not yet provided a detailed understanding of the chromosomal changes within vampire genera. We examined karyotype differentiation of the 3 species within this subfamily using whole chromosomal probes from Phyllostomus hastatus (Phyllostominae) and Carollia brevicauda (Carolliinae). Painting probes of P. hastatus respectively detected 22, 21 and 23 conserved segments in Diphylla ecaudata, Diaemus youngi, and Desmodus rotundus karyotypes, whereas 27, 27 and 28 were respectively detected with C. brevicauda paints. Based on the evolutionary relationships proposed by morphological and molecular data, we present probable chromosomal synapomorphies for vampire bats and propose chromosomes that were present in the common ancestor of the 5 genera analyzed. Karyotype comparisons allowed us to relate a number of conserved chromosomal segments among the 5 species, providing a broader database for understanding karyotype evolution in the family. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available