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 detectedwith 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.

Keywords:
Chromosome painting, Desmodus, Diaemus, Diphylla, Phyllostomidae, Vampire bats
1.
Ao L, GU X, Feng Q, et al: Karyotype relationships of six bat species (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) from China revealed by chromosome painting and banding comparison. Cytogenet Genome Res 115:145–153 (2006).
2.
Ao L, Mao X, Nie W, et al: Karyotypic evolution and phylogenetic relationships in the order Chiroptera as revealed by G-banding comparison and chromosome painting. Chromosome Res 15:257–268 (2007).
3.
Baker RJ: Karyology, in Baker RJ, Jones K, Carter D (eds): Biology of Bats of the New World Family Phyllostomatidae, Part III. Special Publications of the Museum of Texas Tech University, pp 107–155 (1979).
4.
Baker RJ, Bickham JW: Karyotypic evolution in bats: evidence of extensive and conservative chromosomal evolution in closely related taxa. Syst Zool 29:239–253 (1980).
5.
Baker RJ, Bleier WJ: Karyotypes of bats of the subfamily Carolliinae (Mammalia: Phyllostomatidae) and their evolutionary implications. Experientia 27:220–222 (1971).
6.
Baker RJ, Haiduk M, Robbins LW, Cadena A, Koop B: Chromosomal studies of South American bats and their systematic implications, in Mares MA, Genoways HH (eds): Mammalian Biology in South America. Special Publications Series Pymatuning Laboratory, Ecology VI, pp 303–327 (1982).
7.
Baker RJ, Honeycutt RL, Bass RK: Genetics, in Schmidt U, Greenhall A (eds): Natural History of Vampire Bats, pp 31–40 (CRC Press, Boca Raton 1988).
8.
Baker RJ, Hood CS, Honeycutt RL: Phylogenetic relationships and classification of the higher categories of the New World bat family Phyllostomidae. Syst Zool 38:228–238 (1989).
9.
Baker RJ, Porter CA, Patton JC, Van Den Bussche RA: Systematics of bats of the family Phyllostomidae based on RAG2 DNA sequences. Occas Papers Mus, Texas Tech Univ 202:i+1–16 (2000).
10.
Baker RJ, Hoofer SR, Porter CA, Van Den Bussche RA: Diversification among New World leaf-nosed bats: An evolutionary hypothesis and classification inferred from digenomic congruence of DNA sequence. Occas Papers Mus, Texas Tech Univ 230:i+1–32 (2003).
11.
Baker RJ, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Mantilla-Meluk H, Porter CA, Van Den Bussche RA: Molecular timescale of diversification of feeding strategy and morphology in New World leaf-nosed bats (Phyllostomidae): a phylogenetic perspective, in Gunnell GF, Simmons NB (eds): Evolutionary History of Bats: Fossils, Molecules and Morphology, In the CUP series: Cambridge Studies in Molecules and Morphology – New Evolutionary Paradigms (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, in press 2010).
12.
Cadena A, Baker RJ: Cariótipos de los murciélagos vampiros (Chiroptera: Desmodinae). Caldasia 11:159–163 (1976).
13.
Forman GL, Baker RJ, Gerber JD: Comments on the systematic status of vampire bats (family Desmondontidae). Syst Zool 17:417–425 (1968).
14.
Honeycutt RL, Greenbaum IF, Baker RJ, Sarich VM: Molecular evolution of vampire bats. J Mammal 64:805–811 (1981).
15.
Li T, O’Brien PCM, Biltueva L, et al: Evolution of genome organizations of squirrels (Sciuridae) revealed by cross-species chromosome painting. Chromosome Res 12:317–335 (2004).
16.
Mao X, Nie W, Wang J, et al: Karyotype evolution in Rhinolophus bats (Rhinolophidae, Chiroptera) illuminated by cross-species chromosome painting and G-banding comparison. Chromosome Res 15:835–848 (2007).
17.
Mao X, Nie W, Wang J, et al: Comparative cytogenetics of bats (Chiroptera): The prevalence of Robertsonian translocations limits the power of chromosomal characters in resolving interfamily phylogenetic relationships. Chromosome Res 16:155–170 (2008).
18.
Patton JC, Baker RJ: Chromosomal homology and evolution of Phyllostomatoid bats. Syst Zool 27:449–462 (1978).
19.
Pieczarka JC, Nagamachi CY, O’Brien PCM, et al: Reciprocal chromosome painting between two South American bats: Carollia brevicauda and Phyllostomus hastatus (Phyllostomidae, Chiroptera). Chromosome Res 13:339–347 (2005).
20.
Santos N, Fagundes V, Yonenaga-Yassuda Y, Souza MJ: Comparative karyology of Brazilian vampire bats Desmodus rotundus and Diphylla ecaudata (Phyllostomidae, Chiroptera): banding patterns, base-specific fluorochromes and FISH of ribosomal genes. Hereditas 134:189–194 (2001).
21.
Schmidt U, Greenhall A: Natural History of Vampire Bats, pp 1–246 (CRC Press, Boca Raton 1988).
22.
Simmons NB: Order Chiroptera, in Wilson DE, Reeder DM (eds): Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3rd ed, pp 312–529 (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 2005).
23.
Varella-Garcia M, Morielle-Versute E, Taddei VA: A survey of cytogenetic data on Brazilian bats. Rev Brasil Genet 12:761–793 (1989).
24.
Volleth M, Klett C, Kollak A, et al: ZOO-FISH analysis in a species of the order Chiroptera: Glossophagasoricina (Phyllostomidae).Chromosome Res 7:57–64 (1999).
25.
Volleth M, Heller KG, Pferffer RA, Hameister H: A comparative ZOO-FISH analysis in bats elucidates the phylogenetic relationships between Megachiroptera and five microchiropteran families. Chromosome Res 10:477–497 (2002).
26.
Wetterer AL, Rockman MV, Simmons NB: Phylogeny of phyllostomid bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera): data from diverse morphological systems, sex chromosomes and restriction sites. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 248:1–200 (2000).
27.
Wright AJ, Van Den Bussche RA, Lim BK, Engstrom MD, Baker RJ: Systematics of the genera Carollia and Rhinophylla based on the cytochrome b gene. J Mammal 80:1202–1213 (1999).
28.
Yang F, Carter NP, Shi L, Ferguson-Smith MA: A comparative study of karyotypes of muntjacs by chromosome painting. Chromosoma 103:642–652 (1995).
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.