A Detailed Karyological Investigation of three Endemic Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 Species (Teleostei, Cobitidae) in Anatolia, Türkiye.

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

FISH mapping in Xenopus pygmaeus refines understanding of genomic rearrangements and reveals jumping NORs in African clawed frogs.Heredity · 2025
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sevgi Unal KarakusDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Faculty of Science, Bartin University, Bartin, Turkey.

Muhammet GaffaroğluDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Faculty of Science and Arts, Kirsehir Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir, Turkey.

Muradiye Karasu AyataDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Kirsehir Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir, Turkey.

Martin KnytlDepartment of Cell Biology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionComparative cytogenetics is a vital approach for diagnosing chromosome abnormalities and identifying species-specific patterns. In this study, chromosomal analysis of three Anatolian endemic Cobitis species was performed: Cobitis bilseli, C. fahireae, and C. turcica.

methodsConventional cytogenetic techniques such as Giemsa staining, C-banding, and Ag-NOR staining were applied, followed by measurements of chromosome arm lengths including analysis of the measured data.

resultsThe diploid chromosome number, 2n = 50, was determined for all three species. The karyotype formulas were as follows: four pairs of metacentric, 5 pairs of submetacentric, and 16 pairs of subtelo-telocentric chromosomes in C. bilseli; 11 pairs of metacentric, 7 pairs of submetacentric, and 7 pairs of subtelo-telocentric chromosomes in C. fahireae; and 4 pairs of metacentric, 4 pairs of submetacentric, and 17 pairs of subtelo-telocentric chromosomes in C. turcica. Dark C-bands were observed on the pericentromeres of nearly all chromosomes in C. bilseli and C. turcica, whereas light C-bands appeared on the pericentromeres of some chromosomes in C. fahireae. Silver-stained metaphases revealed signals on the short arm of a submetacentric chromosome pair in C. fahireae (each homologous chromosome carries one signal), while in C. bilseli and C. turcica, Ag-NOR signals were detected on the long arm of a single metacentric chromosome (only one homologous chromosome carries the signal, and the signal-carrying chromosome is the largest chromosome in the karyotype).

conclusionThis study provides new cytogenetic data consistent with the phylogenetic distances between the studied species, indicating that pericentric inversions and/or translocations govern the formation of Cobitis karyotypes.

introductionComparative cytogenetics is a vital approach for diagnosing chromosome abnormalities and identifying species-specific patterns. In this study, chromosomal analysis of three Anatolian endemic Cobitis species was performed: Cobitis bilseli, C. fahireae, and C. turcica.

methodsConventional cytogenetic techniques such as Giemsa staining, C-banding, and Ag-NOR staining were applied, followed by measurements of chromosome arm lengths including analysis of the measured data.

resultsThe diploid chromosome number, 2n = 50, was determined for all three species. The karyotype formulas were as follows: four pairs of metacentric, 5 pairs of submetacentric, and 16 pairs of subtelo-telocentric chromosomes in C. bilseli; 11 pairs of metacentric, 7 pairs of submetacentric, and 7 pairs of subtelo-telocentric chromosomes in C. fahireae; and 4 pairs of metacentric, 4 pairs of submetacentric, and 17 pairs of subtelo-telocentric chromosomes in C. turcica. Dark C-bands were observed on the pericentromeres of nearly all chromosomes in C. bilseli and C. turcica, whereas light C-bands appeared on the pericentromeres of some chromosomes in C. fahireae. Silver-stained metaphases revealed signals on the short arm of a submetacentric chromosome pair in C. fahireae (each homologous chromosome carries one signal), while in C. bilseli and C. turcica, Ag-NOR signals were detected on the long arm of a single metacentric chromosome (only one homologous chromosome carries the signal, and the signal-carrying chromosome is the largest chromosome in the karyotype).

conclusionThis study provides new cytogenetic data consistent with the phylogenetic distances between the studied species, indicating that pericentric inversions and/or translocations govern the formation of Cobitis karyotypes.

Indexed as

KaryotypeAnimalsChromosome BandingChromosomesDiploidyKaryotypingMaleSpecies SpecificityTurkeyAg-NORsC-bandingCentromeric indexFishSpined loach