Open Access
Translator Disclaimer
31 May 2021 First Report of B Chromosomes in Caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona)
Govindappa Venu, Albert Rajendran, Narayanappa Govinda Raju, Robert Kenneth Browne, Sompalem Ramakrishna, Govindaiah Venkatachalaiah
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Gymnophion amphibians (caecilians) are less well studied than the other two orders of extant amphibians: Anura and Caudata. We describe the first recorded presence of supernumerary (B) chromosomes in the order Gymnophiona, where a lone intensely stained B chromosome was observed in the somatic metaphase and meiotic complements of the Indian ichthyophiid, Uraeotyphlus gansi. Given the rarity of B chromosomes in caecilians and their sporadic presence within U. gansi, it is likely that these represent aneuploidy and are a recent acquisition derived from centromeric drive.

B chromosomes are one of the most widespread numerical polymorphisms, or a type of aneuploidy, in the karyotypes of many eukaryotic organisms (Green, 1988; Camacho, 2005; Jones, 2017). B chromosomes occur in approximately 15% of all extant eukaryotes, fungi, animals, and plants that are karyologically known (Melo et al., 2020). B chromosomes do not pair meiotically with A chromosomes but are instead inherited in a non-Mendelian mode and typically composed of constitutive heterochromatin, consisting of highly repetitive DNA sequences characteristic of satellite DNA, ribosomal DNA, and transposable elements (Douglas and Birchler, 2017). B chromosomes are inferred to originate either from intragenomic fragmentations as segmental duplications that acquire the characteristics of a B chromosome or through interspecific hybridization processes with the acquisition of foreign DNA from a closely related species that eventually evolves into a supernumerary chromosome (Camacho et al., 2000; Dhar et al., 2002; Camacho, 2005; Houben et al., 2013).

Over time, B chromosomes diverge quantitatively through sequential evolution and qualitatively through rearrangements. In the absence of selective pressure and reduced recombinational progression, B chromosomes tend to acquire and accommodate mutations. Thus, for the most part, B chromosomes are composed of amplified DNA from either single or several genomic regions. It is now apparent that B chromosomes are transmitted at a higher than expected frequency, increasing in number from one generation to the next, due to acquisition capacity or ‘drive’ mechanisms (Jones, 1995; Houben et al., 2014).

The advent of next generation sequencing (NGS) technology and associated bioinformatics will potentially improve our knowledge of B chromosome architecture (Ahmad and Martins, 2019); for example, the analysis of flow-sorted or micro-dissected B chromosomes has shown they contain substantial amounts of A chromosome-derived DNA sequences including organelle DNA sequences (Leach et al., 2005; Banaei-Moghaddam et al., 2015; Ruban et al., 2017). These sequential acquisitions of particular DNA sequences by B chromosomes eventually create a multi-chromosomal mosaicism (Palestis et al., 2004a; Borisov, 2014; Houben, 2017; Valente et al., 2017).

Caecilians are elongate, limbless, superficially worm-like organisms mostly inhabiting moist soils in tropical and subtropical regions. The biology of caecilians is less well studied than frogs and salamanders because of their fossorial nature, restricted faunal distribution, difficulty in collection, and difficulty in captive breeding (Taylor, 1968; Gower and Wilkinson, 2005; Wilkinson, 2012). As for other aspects of caecilian biology, there is a paucity of information concerning their cytogenetics (Wen and Pang, 1990; Matsui et al., 2006; Venkatachalaiah et al., 2006; Venu et al., 2011, 2012; Venu and Venkatachalaiah, 2012, 2013; Venu, 2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d, 2014e, 2014f; Patawang et al., 2016). Cytogenetic investigation of caecilians based on conventional and differential staining protocols revealed their diploid (2n) numbers range between 20–44 (Barrio and Rinaldi De Chieri, 1970; Barrio et al., 1971; Wake and Case, 1975; Wake et al., 1980; Nussbaum and Ducey, 1988; Venu, 2008).

The genus Uraeotyphlus with seven nominate species is endemic to southern Western Ghats, India (Wilkinson and Nussbaum, 1996; Gower et al., 2008). It is partitioned into two species groups, viz., the oxyurus group (U. interruptus, U. menoni, U. narayani, and U. oxyurus) and the malabaricus group (U. gansi, U. malabaricus, and U. oommeni; Gower and Wilkinson, 2007). The chromosome numbers for the genus Uraeotyphlus range from 36–42 with all the oxyurus group species sharing the same diploid number of 36 chromosomes (Seshachar, 1939; Elayidom et al., 1963; Venu and Venkatachalaiah, 2013) and U. gansi, the lone cytogenetic representative for the malabaricus group with 2n = 42 chromosomes (Venu et al., 2011). The present paper describes the novel finding of B chromosomes in the Gymnophiona based on conventional and differential staining techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Source of material.—Eight adult individuals (3 females and 5 males) of Uraeotyphlus gansi were collected from the type locality at Nalamukku tea estate, Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu, India, from July to December, 2007 to 2010. The specimens were intraperitoneally injected with 2 mg/ml colchicine solution (0.1 ml/g body mass), euthanized using MS-222 24 hrs after injection, and then dissected. The specimens were deposited in the museum of Department of Zoology, Bangalore University, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, bearing the vouchers BUB1202, 1206, 1208, 1209, 1211, 1212, 1226, and 1227. All experiments were carried out according to the guidelines of the ethical committee of the Department of Zoology, Bangalore University, Karnataka, India.

Chromosome preparation.—Somatic metaphase chromosomes from the intestinal epithelia and liver, and male meiotic stage chromosomes from the testes of euthanized specimens prior to fixation in formalin were obtained using modified methods from Venkatachalaiah and Venu (2002), Venu (2008), and Venu et al. (2011). Conventional staining with the help of a diluted Giemsa solution (5%) was used for chromosomal preparations (Venu and Venkatachalaiah, 2005, 2006; Venu et al., 2011). C-banding was accomplished using a slightly modified version of Sumner's (1972) BSG technique, in which air-dried chromosome preparations were hydrolyzed in 0.2 N HCl for a few seconds at room temperature, treated with 10% Ba(OH)2 for 10 min, renatured in 2X SSC for 1 h at 60°C, and stained with 10% Giemsa solution for 25 min (Venu, 2013, 2014d).

Microphotography and karyotype construction.—Chromosome preparations were observed using a Zeiss Axioskop 2 plus microscope, and well-spread complements were photographed. Karyotypes were prepared in accordance with Levan et al. (1964), Venkatachalaiah and Venu (2002), and Venu et al. (2011, 2012).

RESULTS

Karyotypic details.—The karyotypes of U. gansi constructed from approximately 60 well-spread complements obtained from the females (BUB1206, 1211) and males (BUB1208, 1209, 1212, 1226) had a diploid (2n) number of 42 and a fundamental number (FN) of 58. The 21 pairs of homologous chromosomes in the somatic metaphase sets were arranged into groups (A–D) in a karyotype (Venu et al., 2011). No morphologically identifiable sex chromosomes were observed in either sex in the metaphase karyotypes.

Meiotic chromosomes prepared from testes revealed pachytene, diplotene, diakinesis, and second meiotic metaphase stages. The diplotene complements comprised 21 individually identifiable bivalents, with the number of chiasmata per bivalent ranging from 5–6 in the largest, and 2–3 in the medium-small bivalents, and a single chiasma in the smallest acrocentrics. These observations of mitotic and meiotic chromosome karyotypes are in agreement with previously published data for U. gansi (Venu et al., 2011).

Mitotic and meiotic chromosomes prepared from specimens bearing voucher number BUB1202 (Figs. 1, 2, 3), and mitotic chromosomes from BUB1227 (Figs. 4, 5), also had karyotypic details matching those described above. In addition, 4–5 complements obtained from mitotic and meiotic tissues had the karyotype formula 2n = 42+1B and FN = 62. Even in the conventionally prepared chromosomes, the additional B chromosomes were darkly stained when compared with A chromosomes. The acrocentric B chromosome was intermediate in size between that of chromosome pairs 11 and 12.

Fig. 1

Mitotic male (BUB1202) metaphase complement obtained from intestinal epithelial cells depicting a diploid number (2n) of 42 chromosomes along with a B (arrow) chromosome. Scale bar: 10 µm.

img-z2-1_443.jpg

Fig. 2

Somatic male (BUB1202) metaphase karyotype with the karyotypic formula 2n = 42+1B and FN = 62. The lone B chromosome is the darkest in the karyotype and is placed at the end of the karyotype. Scale bar: 10 µm.

img-z2-6_443.jpg

Fig. 3

Male (BUB1202) meiotic diplotene karyotype with 21 bivalents and a B chromosome. Scale bar: 10 µm.

img-z2-8_443.jpg

Fig. 4

Female (BUB1227) somatic metaphase chromosomal complement prepared from liver cells with 2n = 42 and a B chromosome (indicated by arrow). Scale bar: 10 µm.

img-z3-2_443.jpg

Fig. 5

Female (BUB1227) mitotic karyotype constructed by pairing the homologous chromosomes together and arranged in their decreasing order. The lone supernumerary chromosome (designated as B) is placed at the end of the karyotype. Scale bar: 10 µm.

img-z3-6_443.jpg

C-staining profile.—The large and medium sized chromosomes in groups A and B failed to exhibit heterochromatin in any region along their lengths. Chromosome pairs 7–9 (group C) and 10–21 (group D) possessed large blocks of heterochromatin localized in their centromeric positions (Venu et al., 2011). The lone B chromosome was the darkest body in the complement, and the whole chromosome was heteropycnotic in nature (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6

C-banded somatic metaphase complement. The darkest chromosome (arrowhead) in the complement corresponds to the B chromosome. Scale bar: 10 µm.

img-z3-8_443.jpg

DISCUSSION

Amphibian chromosomes are unique among animals because they possess inflated amounts of repetitive DNA, and they are composed of an accumulation of noncoding DNA along with tandem duplications of their short mobile genetic elements (Schmid et al., 2012). At this level of structure, the karyotypes of the anurans Leiopelma hochstetteri (Sharbel et al., 1998) and Gastrotheca espeletia (Schmid et al., 2002) and the salamander Dicamptodon tenebrosus (Brinkman et al., 2000) strongly suggest the acquisition of variable repetitive DNA sequences in respect to their size, shape, and number of B chromosomes. Legless amphibians commonly known as caecilians have moderately large genome sizes that fall between frogs and salamanders (Gregory, 2015).

Most amphibian B chromosomes are represented as minor elements in the karyotype, but there are instances of anuran (Rosa et al., 2003; Green, 2004; Medeiros et al., 2006; Milani et al., 2010; Ferro et al., 2012, 2016; Mezzasalma et al., 2015) and salamander (Sessions and Kezer, 1991; Brinkman et al., 2000; Green, 2004; Jones, 2017) B chromosomes differing in their number, morphology, and structural characteristics. Previous studies (Palestis et al., 2004b; Houben et al., 2013; Tosta et al., 2014; Douglas and Birchler, 2017) have inferred from B chromosome origins and evolutionary trajectories that B chromosomes are found primarily in taxa with elevated levels of chromosome reshuffling and in phylogenetic groups with unstable chromosome numbers. Several authors have suggested that species with mainly acrocentrics in karyotypes would be more prone to possess B chromosomes than those comprised mainly of biarmed chromosomes because female meiosis seems to favor centromeric tendencies over fewer acrocentrics (Palestis et al., 2004a, 2004b; Houben et al., 2014). Our finding based on limited cytogenetic data does not enable inferences of the dynamics or relationships of caecilian B chromosomes within the nucleus and/or among populations.

Our current report of the occurrence and prevalence of B chromosomes in U. gansi is the first of its kind for Gymnophiona. Most caecilian karyotypes have been documented on the basis of relatively small sample sizes, and fewer caecilian karyotypes have been documented than for anurans and salamanders. Nonetheless, B chromosomes seem to be less common in caecilians, as we have not previously observed them in chromosomal preparations from hundreds of specimens of Indian caecilians (Venkatachalaiah and Venu, 2002; Venu and Venkatachalaiah, 2005, 2006, 2013; Venkatachalaiah et al., 2006; Venu et al., 2011, 2012; Venu, 2013, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d, 2014e, 2014f), and in U. gansi they were only sporadically present. Thus, B chromosomes in U. gansi might be taxonomically highly restricted and intraspecifically variable, and thus possibly represent a recent acquisition based on centromeric drive and hence, in an aneuploidy condition. This can be tested with additional karyological data for additional individuals, including from other species, and including observations of heterochromatinization accrued in the B chromosomes.

DATA ACCESSIBILITY

Unless an alternative copyright or statement noting that a figure is reprinted from a previous source is noted in a figure caption, the published images and illustrations in this article are licensed by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists for use if the use includes a citation to the original source (American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, the DOI of the Ichthyology & Herpetology article, and any individual image credits listed in the figure caption) in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY License.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Albert Rajendran thanks Mr. Athimoolam and Mr. Babu of BBTC for accommodation and logistical help, and N. Rajendran and locals of Nalumukku for field assistance. A.R. gratefully acknowledges permission given to him for the study of uropeltid snakes by the Chief Wildlife Warden and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tamil Nadu Forest Department. We thank Kulkarni Varadh for his assistance in microphotography. Our thanks to David Gower for critical comments on the draft version of the manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

1.

Ahmad, S. F., and C. Martins. 2019. The modern view of B chromosomes under the impact of high scale omics analyses. Cells 8:156–181. Google Scholar

2.

Banaei-Moghaddam, A. M., M. M. Martis, J. Macas, H. Gundlach, A. Himmelbach, L. Altschmied, K. F. X. Mayer, and A. Houben. 2015. Genes on B chromosomes: old questions revisited with new tools. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1849:64–70. Google Scholar

3.

Barrio, A., and P. Rinaldi De Chieri. 1970. Estudio chromosomico de Caecilia occidentalis (Gymnophiona: Caeciliidae). Physis (Buenos Aires) 30:305–307. Google Scholar

4.

Barrio, A., F. A. Saez, and P. Rinaldi De Chieri. 1971. The cytogenetics of Chthonerpeton indistinctum (Amphibia: Gymnophiona). Caryologia 24:435–445. Google Scholar

5.

Borisov, Y. M. 2014. B-chromosomes and the plasticity of the species. Russian Journal of Genetics: Applied Research 4: 341–350. Google Scholar

6.

Brinkman, J. N., S. K. Sessions, A. Houben, and D. M. Green. 2000. Structure and evolution of supernumerary chromosomes in the Pacific giant salamander, Dicamptodon tenebrosus. Chromosome Research 8:477–485. Google Scholar

7.

Camacho, J. P. M. 2005. B chromosomes, p. 223–286. In : The Evolution of the Genome. T. R. Gregory (eds.). Elsevier, San Diego. Google Scholar

8.

Camacho, J. P. M., T. F. Sharbel, and L. W. Beukeboom. 2000. B-chromosome evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 355:163–178. Google Scholar

9.

Dhar, M. K., B. Friebe, A. K. Koul, and B. S. Gill. 2002. Origin of an apparent B chromosome by mutation, chromosome fragmentation and specific DNA sequence amplification. Chromosoma 111:332–340. Google Scholar

10.

Douglas, R. N., and J. A. Birchler. 2017. B chromosomes, p. 13–39. In : Chromosome Structure and Aberrations. T. Bhat and A. Wani (eds.). Springer, New Delhi. Google Scholar

11.

Elayidom, N. B., S. Royan-Subramaniam, and M. K. Subramaniam. 1963. The chromosome number of Uraeotyphlus menoni Annandale. Current Science 32:274–276. Google Scholar

12.

Ferro, J. M., D. A. Marti, C. J. Bidau, P. Suarez, C. Y. Nagamachi, J. C. Pieczarka, and D. Baldo. 2012. B chromosomes in the tree frog Hypsiboas albopunctatus (Anura: Hylidae). Herpetologica 68:482–490. Google Scholar

13.

Ferro, J. M., A. Taffarel, D. Cardozo, J. Grosso, M. P. Puig, P. Suárez, M. S. Akmentins, and D. Baldo. 2016. Cytogenetic characterization and B chromosome diversity in direct-developing frogs of the genus Oreobates (Brachycephaloidea, Craugastoridae). Comparative Cytogenetics 10: 141–156. Google Scholar

14.

Gower, D. J., A. Rajendran, R. A. Nussbaum, and M. Wilkinson. 2008. A new species of Uraeotyphlus (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Uraeotyphlidae) of the malabaricus group. Herpetologica 64:235–245. Google Scholar

15.

Gower, D. J., and M. Wilkinson. 2005. Conservation biology of caecilian amphibians. Conservation Biology 19:45–55. Google Scholar

16.

Gower, D. J., and M. Wilkinson. 2007. Species groups in the Indian caecilian genus Uraeotyphlus Peters (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Uraeotyphlidae), with the description of a new species. Herpetologica 63:401–410. Google Scholar

17.

Green, D. M. 1988. Cytogenetics of the endemic New Zealand frog, Leiopelma hochstetteri: extraordinary supernumerary chromosome variation and a unique sex-chromosome system. Chromosoma 97:55–70. Google Scholar

18.

Green, D. M. 2004. Structure and evolution of B chromosomes in amphibians. Cytogenetic and Genome Research 106:235–242. Google Scholar

19.

Gregory, T. R. 2015. Animal genome size database.  http://www.genomesize.comGoogle Scholar

20.

Houben, A. 2017. B chromosomes—a matter of chromosome drive. Frontiers in Plant Science 8:210–216. Google Scholar

21.

Houben, A., A. M. Banaei-Moghaddam, and S. Klemme. 2013. Biology and evolution of B chromosomes, p. 149–165. In : Plant Genome Diversity. I. J. Leitch (eds.). Springer, Berlin. Google Scholar

22.

Houben, A., A. M. Banaei-Moghaddam, S. Klemme, and J. N. Timmis. 2014. Evolution and biology of supernumerary B chromosomes. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 71: 467–478. Google Scholar

23.

Jones, N. 2017. New species with B chromosomes discovered since 1980. Nucleus 60:263–281. Google Scholar

24.

Jones, R. N. 1995. B chromosomes in plants. New Phytologist 131:411–434. Google Scholar

25.

Leach, C. R., A. Houben, B. Field, K. Pistrick, D. Demidov, and J. N. Timmis. 2005. Molecular evidence for transcription of genes on a B chromosome in Crepis capillaris. Genetics 171:269–278. Google Scholar

26.

Levan, A., K. Fredga, and A. A. Sandberg. 1964. Nomenclature for centromeric position on chromosomes. Hereditas 52:201–220. Google Scholar

27.

Matsui, M., K. Nishikawa, A. Sudin, and M. Mohamed. 2006. The first karyotypic report of the genus Caudacaecilia with comments on its generic validity (Amphibia, Gymnophiona, Ichthyophiidae). Copeia 2006:256–260. Google Scholar

28.

Medeiros, L. R., D. C. Rossa-Feres, J. Jim, and S. M. Recco-Pimentel. 2006. B-chromosomes in two Brazilian populations of Dendropsophus nanus (Anura, Hylidae). Genetics and Molecular Biology 29:257–262. Google Scholar

29.

Melo, A. S., G. A. S. Cruz, A. P. Felix, M. F. Rocha, V. Loreto, and R. C. Moura. 2020. Wide dispersion of B chromosomes in Rhammatocerus brasiliensis (Orthoptera, Acrididae). Genetics and Molecular Biology 43:e20190077. Google Scholar

30.

Mezzasalma, M., F. Glaw, G. Odierna, A. Petraccioli, and F. M. Guarino. 2015. Karyological analyses of Pseudhymenochirus merlini and Hymenochirus boettgeri provide new insights into the chromosome evolution in the anuran family Pipidae. Zoologischer Anzeiger—A Journal of Comparative Zoology 258:47–53. Google Scholar

31.

Milani, M., C. S. Cassini, S. M. Recco-Pimentel, and L. B. Lourenço. 2010. Karyotypic data detect interpopulational variation in Physalaemus olfersii and the first case of a supernumerary chromosome in the genus. Animal Biology Journal 2:21–28. Google Scholar

32.

Nussbaum, R. A., and P. K. Ducey. 1988. Cytological evidence for monophyly of the caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona) of the Seychelles Archipelago. Herpetologica 44:290–296. Google Scholar

33.

Palestis, B. G., A. Burt, R. N. Jones, and R. Trivers. 2004b. B chromosomes are more frequent in mammals with acrocentric karyotypes: support for the theory of centromeric drive. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 271:S22–S24. Google Scholar

34.

Palestis, B. G., R. Trivers, A. Burt, and R. N. Jones. 2004a. The distribution of B chromosomes across species. Cytogenetic and Genome Research 106:151–158. Google Scholar

35.

Patawang, I., K. Pinthong, S. Phimphan, Y. Chuaynkern, P. Duengkae, and A. Tanomtong. 2016. Karyological characteristics of the Koh Tao caecilian, Ichthyophis kohtaoensis (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Ichthyophiidae) by conventional staining and Ag-NOR banding techniques. Rendiconti Lincei: Scienze Fisiche e Naturali 27: 597–602. Google Scholar

36.

Rosa, C., O. Aguiar-Jr., A. A. Giaretta, and S. M. Recco-Pimentel. 2003. Karyotypic variation in the genus Megaelosia (Anura, Hylodinae) with the first description of a B-chromosome in a leptodactylid frog. Copeia 2003:166–174. Google Scholar

37.

Ruban, A., T. Schmutzer, U. Scholz, and A. Houben. 2017. How next-generation sequencing has aided our understanding of the sequence composition and origin of B chromosomes. Genes 8:294–307. Google Scholar

38.

Schmid, M., C. Steinlein, J. P. Bogart, W. Feichtinger, T. Haaf, I. Nanda, E. M. del Pino, W. E. Duellman, and S. B. Hedges. 2012. The hemiphractid frogs. Phylogeny, embryology, life history, and cytogenetics. Cytogenetic and Genome Research 138:69–384. Google Scholar

39.

Schmid, M., C. G. Ziegler, C. Steinlein, I. Nanda, and T. Haaf. 2002. Chromosome banding in amphibia. XXIV. The B chromosomes of Gastrotheca espeletia (Anura, Hylidae). Cytogenetic and Genome Research 97:205–218. Google Scholar

40.

Seshachar, B. R. 1939. The spermatogenesis of Uraeotyphlus narayani Seshachar. La Cellulae 48:63–76. Google Scholar

41.

Sessions, S. K., and J. Kezer. 1991. Bolitoglossine salamanders, p. 89–130. In : Amphibian Cytogenetics and Evolution. D. M. Green and S. K. Sessions (eds.). Academic Press, San Diego. Google Scholar

42.

Sharbel, T. F., D. M. Green, and A. Houben. 1998. B-chromosome origin in the endemic New Zealand frog Leiopelma hochstetteri through sex chromosome devolution. Genome 41:14–22. Google Scholar

43.

Sumner, A. T. 1972. A simple technique for demonstrating centromeric heterochromatin. Experimental Cell Research 75:304–306. Google Scholar

44.

Taylor, E. H. 1968. The Caecilians of the World: A Taxonomic Review. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Google Scholar

45.

Tosta, V. C., J. B. Marthe, M. G. Tavares, T. M. Fernandes-Salomão, S. G. Pompolo, S. M. Recco-Pimentel, F. Perfectti, L. A. O. Campos, and J. P. M. Camacho. 2014. Possible introgression of B chromosomes between bee species (genus Partamona). Cytogenetic and Genome Research 144:220–226. Google Scholar

46.

Valente, G., R. Nakajima, B. E. A. Fantinatti, D. F. Marques, R. O. Almeida, R. P. Simões, and C. Martins. 2017. B chromosomes: from cytogenetics to systems biology. Chromosoma 126:73–81. Google Scholar

47.

Venkatachalaiah, G., and G. Venu. 2002. Karyology of three species of Indian caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona). Cytologia 67:191–198. Google Scholar

48.

Venkatachalaiah, G., G. Venu, V. Giri, and M. Wilkinson. 2006. Studies on the karyotype of Indotyphlus battersbyi Taylor (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Caeciliidae). Journal of Cytology and Genetics 7:47–56. Google Scholar

49.

Venu, G. 2008. Cytogenetic studies of Indian caecilians with regard to their evolutionary implications. Unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Bangalore University, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. Google Scholar

50.

Venu, G. 2013. The karyotype of Ichthyophis kodaguensis—a striped ichthyophiid caecilian from Western Ghats of peninsular India (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Ichthyophiidae). Current Herpetology 32:197–202. Google Scholar

51.

Venu, G. 2014a. Karyology of the East African caecilian Schistometopum gregorii (Amphibia: Gymnophiona) from the Tana River Delta, Kenya. International Journal of Advanced Research 2:802–809. Google Scholar

52.

Venu, G. 2014b. Occurrence of chromosomal polymorphism in a striped ichthyophiid caecilian (Amphibia: Gymnophiona) from Western Ghats of India. International Journal of Advanced Research 2:206–212. Google Scholar

53.

Venu, G. 2014c. Karyological characteristics of two species of unstriped ichthyophiid caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Ichthyophiidae) of Western Ghats of India. International Journal of Advanced Research 2:256–262. Google Scholar

54.

Venu, G. 2014d. C-band variation in Indian caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona). International Journal of Scientific Research 3:550–553. Google Scholar

55.

Venu, G. 2014e. Studies on silver staining of chromosomes of caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona) of Western Ghats of India. International Journal of Advanced Research 2:63–72. Google Scholar

56.

Venu, G. 2014f. Chromosome evolution in Indian caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona) and their phylogeny: a review. International Journal of Advanced Research 2:78–84. Google Scholar

57.

Venu, G., G. Bhatta, and G. Venkatachalaiah. 2012. Chromosomal studies of two species of the genus Gegeneophis (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Indotyphlidae). Current Herpetology 31:14–20. Google Scholar

58.

Venu, G., A. Rajendran, G. Venkatachalaiah, and D. J. Gower. 2011. The karyology of Uraeotyphlus gansi, and its implications for the systematics and evolution of Uraeotyphlidae (Amphibia: Gymnophiona). Cytogenetic and Genome Research 132:182–187. Google Scholar

59.

Venu, G., and G. Venkatachalaiah. 2005. Karyology of two species of caecilians (Caeciliidae: Gymnophiona); evolution through tandem fusion and sex chromosome dimorphism. Caryologia 58:140–151. Google Scholar

60.

Venu, G., and G. Venkatachalaiah. 2006. Karyological characteristics of two species of Indian Gegeneophis (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Caeciliidae). Amphibia-Reptilia 27: 130–134. Google Scholar

61.

Venu, G., and G. Venkatachalaiah. 2012. Caecilians of Western Ghats in India—A Cytogenetic Perspective. Lap Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken, Germany. Google Scholar

62.

Venu, G., and G. Venkatachalaiah. 2013. Chromosomal homology of Uraeotyphlus oxyurus group of species (Amphibia, Gymnophiona, Ichthyophiidae). Comparative Cytogenetics 7:11–23. Google Scholar

63.

Wake, M. H., and S. M. Case. 1975. The chromosomes of caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona). Copeia 1975:510–516. Google Scholar

64.

Wake, M. H., J. C. Hafner, M. S. Hafner, L. L. Klosterman, and J. L. Paton. 1980. The karyotype of Typhlonectes compressicauda (Amphibia: Gymnophiona) with comments on chromosome evolution in caecilians. Experientia 36:171–172. Google Scholar

65.

Wen, Y., and Q. Pang. 1990. The karyotype of Ichthyophis bannanica and comparison with Ichthyophis glutinosus. Zoological Research 11:121–125. Google Scholar

66.

Wilkinson, M. 2012. Caecilians. Current Biology 22:R668–R669. Google Scholar

67.

Wilkinson, M., and R. A. Nussbaum. 1996. On the phylogenetic position of the Uraeotyphlidae (Amphibia: Gymnophiona). Copeia 1996:550–562. Google Scholar
© 2021 by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
Govindappa Venu, Albert Rajendran, Narayanappa Govinda Raju, Robert Kenneth Browne, Sompalem Ramakrishna, and Govindaiah Venkatachalaiah "First Report of B Chromosomes in Caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona)," Ichthyology & Herpetology 109(2), 443-448, (31 May 2021). https://doi.org/10.1643/h2020119
Received: 22 August 2020; Accepted: 2 December 2020; Published: 31 May 2021
JOURNAL ARTICLE
6 PAGES


Share
SHARE
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top