Cytogenetic studies on populations of Camponotus rufipes (Fabricius, 1775) and Camponotus renggeri Emery, 1894 (Formicidae: Formicinae)
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV |
Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177702 http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/18666 |
Resumo: | O artigo não contém resumo em prtuguês. |
id |
UFV_24373bc558827b881043f23bfa0480e6 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:locus.ufv.br:123456789/18666 |
network_acronym_str |
UFV |
network_name_str |
LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV |
repository_id_str |
2145 |
spelling |
Aguiar, Hilton Jeferson Alves Cardoso deBarros, Luísa Antônia CamposAlves, Danúbia RodriguesMariano, Cléa dos Santos FerreiraDelabie, Jacques Hubert CharlesPompolo, Silvia das Graças2018-04-06T10:03:04Z2018-04-06T10:03:04Z2017-05-1619326203https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177702http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/18666O artigo não contém resumo em prtuguês.Two valid ant species, Camponotus rufipes and Camponotus renggeri, have recently been the subject of a broad discussion with reference to taxa synonymization. Both species are quite common among the Neotropical myrmecofauna and share some unique traits, such as the shape of the scape and the pilosity patterns of the tibiae and scapes. A single morphological trait can help distinguish these species; however, only a combination of different approaches can enlighten our view of the complex phylogenetic relationships prevailing in the different populations of these two taxa. Therefore, focusing on the taxonomic issues concerning these two species, a cytogenetic survey including 10 populations of C. rufipes and two populations of C. renggeri was performed. In order to better understand the extent of the relationship between C. rufipes and C. renggeri, two common Neotropical Camponotus species, C. atriceps and C. cingulatus were taken as outgroups. All four species of Camponotus that were studied had 2n = 40 chromosomes (4sm+34st+2t); however, the abundance of chromosome rearrangements observed, combined with several chromosome markers, suggest that C. rufipes and C. renggeri are two good distinct species although closely related. The already reported chromosome translocation 2n = 39 (1m+4sm+32st +2t) for C. rufipes has been found in different populations as in the unprecedented chromosome inversions found both in C. rufipes and in C. renggeri populations. Within the C. renggeri chromosome inversions, both the heterozygous state 2n = 40 (1m+3sm+34st+2t) and the homozygous state, 2n = 40 (2m+2sm+34st+2t) were identified. However, only het- erozygous specimens for chromosome inversions were found among C. rufipes, with karyotype configurations distinct from those found in C. renggeri, with 2n = 40 (1m+4sm+34st +2t). None of the populations studied showed signs of mosaic individuals. With respect to rDNA clusters, the 18S rDNA seemed to be more restricted inside the genome, as C. renggeri showed four 18S rDNA clusters, whereas, C. rufipes, C. atriceps, and C. cingulatus showed only two clusters. The chromosome locations of the 5S rDNA clusters were pointed for the first time in Formicidae, and showed itself to be more widely spread over the genome. By combining different chromosome banding approaches it was possible to demonstrate the crucial importance that chromosome inversions played on the karyotype evolution within these ants. The results also showed that chromosome translocations might be a consequence of the chromatin dynamic condition observed among Camponotus species. The homozygosis condition found in a C. renggeri from a Brazilian savanna population for chromosome inversions and the contrasting heterozygous condition for a different kind of chromosome inversion in C. rufipes from the Brazilian coastal rainforest, opens the window for a chromosome race hypothesis within the group C. renggeri and C. rufipes. The wide distribution, rich ecological interactions, genetic diversity, and morphological variability among C. renggeri and C. rufipes justify questioning of the actual taxonomic status of these species. The answer of this puzzle is clear when observing the number of 18S rDNA clusters of these ants, as C. rufipes has only two clusters whereas C. renggeri has four.engPLoS Onev. 12, n. 5, p. 01-18, May 2017Populations of Camponotus rufipesCamponotus renggeri EmeryCytogenetic studies on populations of Camponotus rufipes (Fabricius, 1775) and Camponotus renggeri Emery, 1894 (Formicidae: Formicinae)info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFVinstname:Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)instacron:UFVORIGINALartigo.pdfartigo.pdftexto completoapplication/pdf29435301https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/18666/1/artigo.pdffd200dd3d61e19a42b27d959f535305bMD51LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-81748https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/18666/2/license.txt8a4605be74aa9ea9d79846c1fba20a33MD52THUMBNAILartigo.pdf.jpgartigo.pdf.jpgIM Thumbnailimage/jpeg2987https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/18666/3/artigo.pdf.jpg67be52393882cc06954c9329ca653815MD53123456789/186662018-04-06 23:00:37.633oai:locus.ufv.br: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Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://www.locus.ufv.br/oai/requestfabiojreis@ufv.bropendoar:21452018-04-07T02:00:37LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV - Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)false |
dc.title.en.fl_str_mv |
Cytogenetic studies on populations of Camponotus rufipes (Fabricius, 1775) and Camponotus renggeri Emery, 1894 (Formicidae: Formicinae) |
title |
Cytogenetic studies on populations of Camponotus rufipes (Fabricius, 1775) and Camponotus renggeri Emery, 1894 (Formicidae: Formicinae) |
spellingShingle |
Cytogenetic studies on populations of Camponotus rufipes (Fabricius, 1775) and Camponotus renggeri Emery, 1894 (Formicidae: Formicinae) Aguiar, Hilton Jeferson Alves Cardoso de Populations of Camponotus rufipes Camponotus renggeri Emery |
title_short |
Cytogenetic studies on populations of Camponotus rufipes (Fabricius, 1775) and Camponotus renggeri Emery, 1894 (Formicidae: Formicinae) |
title_full |
Cytogenetic studies on populations of Camponotus rufipes (Fabricius, 1775) and Camponotus renggeri Emery, 1894 (Formicidae: Formicinae) |
title_fullStr |
Cytogenetic studies on populations of Camponotus rufipes (Fabricius, 1775) and Camponotus renggeri Emery, 1894 (Formicidae: Formicinae) |
title_full_unstemmed |
Cytogenetic studies on populations of Camponotus rufipes (Fabricius, 1775) and Camponotus renggeri Emery, 1894 (Formicidae: Formicinae) |
title_sort |
Cytogenetic studies on populations of Camponotus rufipes (Fabricius, 1775) and Camponotus renggeri Emery, 1894 (Formicidae: Formicinae) |
author |
Aguiar, Hilton Jeferson Alves Cardoso de |
author_facet |
Aguiar, Hilton Jeferson Alves Cardoso de Barros, Luísa Antônia Campos Alves, Danúbia Rodrigues Mariano, Cléa dos Santos Ferreira Delabie, Jacques Hubert Charles Pompolo, Silvia das Graças |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Barros, Luísa Antônia Campos Alves, Danúbia Rodrigues Mariano, Cléa dos Santos Ferreira Delabie, Jacques Hubert Charles Pompolo, Silvia das Graças |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Aguiar, Hilton Jeferson Alves Cardoso de Barros, Luísa Antônia Campos Alves, Danúbia Rodrigues Mariano, Cléa dos Santos Ferreira Delabie, Jacques Hubert Charles Pompolo, Silvia das Graças |
dc.subject.pt-BR.fl_str_mv |
Populations of Camponotus rufipes Camponotus renggeri Emery |
topic |
Populations of Camponotus rufipes Camponotus renggeri Emery |
description |
O artigo não contém resumo em prtuguês. |
publishDate |
2017 |
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv |
2017-05-16 |
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv |
2018-04-06T10:03:04Z |
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv |
2018-04-06T10:03:04Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177702 http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/18666 |
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv |
19326203 |
identifier_str_mv |
19326203 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177702 http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/18666 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.ispartofseries.pt-BR.fl_str_mv |
v. 12, n. 5, p. 01-18, May 2017 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
PLoS One |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
PLoS One |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV instname:Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV) instacron:UFV |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV) |
instacron_str |
UFV |
institution |
UFV |
reponame_str |
LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV |
collection |
LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV |
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/18666/1/artigo.pdf https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/18666/2/license.txt https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/18666/3/artigo.pdf.jpg |
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
fd200dd3d61e19a42b27d959f535305b 8a4605be74aa9ea9d79846c1fba20a33 67be52393882cc06954c9329ca653815 |
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 MD5 |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV - Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
fabiojreis@ufv.br |
_version_ |
1801213099044241408 |