Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 8 (7), e70071

Chromosome Painting in Three Species of Buteoninae: A Cytogenetic Signature Reinforces the Monophyly of South American Species


Chromosome Painting in Three Species of Buteoninae: A Cytogenetic Signature Reinforces the Monophyly of South American Species

Edivaldo Herculano C de Oliveira et al. PLoS One.


Buteoninae (Falconiformes, Accipitridae) consist of the widely distributed genus Buteo, and several closely related species in a group called "sub-buteonine hawks", such as Buteogallus, Parabuteo, Asturina, Leucopternis and Busarellus, with unsolved phylogenetic relationships. Diploid number ranges between 2n = 66 and 2n = 68. Only one species, L. albicollis had its karyotype analyzed by molecular cytogenetics. The aim of this study was to present chromosomal analysis of three species of Buteoninae: Rupornis magnirostris, Asturina nitida and Buteogallus meridionallis using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) experiments with telomeric and rDNA probes, as well as whole chromosome probes derived from Gallus gallus and Leucopternis albicollis. The three species analyzed herein showed similar karyotypes, with 2n = 68. Telomeric probes showed some interstitial telomeric sequences, which could be resulted by fusion processes occurred in the chromosomal evolution of the group, including the one found in the tassociation GGA1p/GGA6. In fact, this association was observed in all the three species analyzed in this paper, and also in L. albicollis, suggesting that it represents a cytogenetic signature which reinforces the monophyly of Neotropical buteoninae species.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.


Figure 1
Figure 1. Conventional karyotype of Asturina nitida (A), Rupornis magnirostris (B) and Buteogallus meridionalis (C).
Figure 2
Figure 2. 18S-45SrDNA probes (green) and telomeric probes (red) in Asturina nitida (A and B), Rupornis magnirostris (C and D) and Buteogallus meridionallis (E and F).
Note that in (A) and (C), NOR-bearing chromosomes are associated. Arrows show interstitial telomeric sequences.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Representative FISH experiments using whole chromosome probes derived from Gallus (GGA) onto Buteogallus meridionallis (BME), Asturina nitida (ANI) and Rupornis magnirostris (RMA).
Figure 4
Figure 4. Homology map between Buteoninae karyotype and chicken paints.
Correspondences are indicated by colors. White sections represent segments not hybridized by any of the applied probes.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Whole chromosome probe derived from L. albicollis which corresponds to a fusion GGA1p/GGA6, confirming this rearrangement as a synapomorphy shared by Buteoninae species.
Asturina nitida (A), Rupornis magnirostris (B) and Buteogallus meridionalis (C). In (D), an experiment using the same probe onto Gallus gallus metaphase chromosomes.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 6 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles


    1. Rieseberg LH (2001) Chromosomal rearrangements and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 16: 351–358. - PubMed
    1. Skinner BM, Griffin DK (2012) Intrachromosomal rearrangements in avian genome evolution: evidence for regions prone to breakpoints. Heredity 108: 37–41. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Amaral KF, Jorge W (2003) The Chromosomes of the Order Falconiformes: a review. Ararajuba 11: 65–73.
    1. Storer RW (1971) Classification of birds, p. 1–19. In: Farner DS and King J (eds) Avian biology. Academic Press, New York.
    1. Thiollay JM (1994) Family Accipitridae, p. 52–205. In: del Hoyo J, Elliot A and Sargatal J (eds.) Handbook of the birds of the world: New world vultures to Guinea fowl, v. 2. Barcelona: Lynx.

Publication types

Grant support

This research was supported by CNPq (no. 300818/2009-7,, Comitê de Ética em pesquisas com animais de experimentação CEPAE-UFPA) and a grant to MAF from the Wellcome Trust in support of the Cambridge Resource Centre for Comparative Genomics. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.