ArticlePloS one2024
Comparative molecular and conventional cytogenetic analyses of three species of Rhinella (Anura; Bufonidae).
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The genus Rhinella corresponds to a group of anurans characterized by numerous taxonomic and systemic challenges, leading to their organization into species complexes. Cytogenetic data for this genus thus far are limited to the diploid number and chromosome morphology, which remain highly conserved among the species. In this study, we analyse the karyotypes of three species of the genus Rhinella (Rhinella granulosa, Rhinella margaritifera, and Rhinella marina) using both classical (conventional staining and C-banding) and molecular (FISH-fluorescence in situ hybridization with 18S rDNA, telomeric sequences, and microsatellite probes) cytogenetic approaches. The aim of this study is to provide data that can reveal variations in the distribution of repetitive sequences that can contribute to understanding karyotypic diversification in these species. The results revealed a conserved karyotype across the species, with 2n = 22 and FN = 44, with metacentric and submetacentric chromosomes. C-banding revealed heterochromatic blocks in the pericentromeric region for all species, with a proximal block on the long arms of pairs 3 and 6 in R. marina and on the short arms of pairs 4 and 6 in R. margaritifera. Additionally, 18S rDNA probes hybridized to pair 5 in R. granulosa, to pair 7 in R. marina, and to pair 10 in R. margaritifera. Telomeric sequence probes displayed signals exclusively in the distal region of the chromosomes, while microsatellite DNA probes showed species-specific patterns. These findings indicate that despite a conserved karyotypical macrostructure, chromosomal differences exist among the species due to the accumulation of repetitive sequences. This variation may be attributed to chromosome rearrangements or differential accumulation of these sequences, highlighting the dynamic role of repetitive sequences in the chromosomal evolution of Rhinella species. Ultimately, this study emphasizes the importance of the role of repetitive DNAs in chromosomal rearrangements to elucidate the evolutionary mechanisms leading to independent diversification in the distinct phylogenetic groups of Rhinella.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.