Hemoglobin electrophoresis in the systematics of bats (Microchiroptera) /

Abstract

Electrophoresis is a most useful procedure for systematically comparing proteins of different organisms, and data from electrophoretic studies of blood proteins have aided in the clarification of phylogenetic relationships and in grouping higher taxonomic categories (Foreman, 1960; Dessauer, 1966; Johnson, 1968). Hemoglobins, unlike some serum proteins, are not affected by diet, age, reproductive state, temperature or other variables. There are, however, few electrophoretic data on bat hemoglobin. Manwell and Kerst (1966) and Mitchell (1966) found considerable individual variation and only minor differences between species in the hemoglobins of temperate bats of the family Vespertilionidae. Valdivieso et al. (1969) compared electrophoretic properties of hemoglobin from Puerto Rican bats of the families Phyllostomatidae, Vespertilionidae and Molossidae and found differences and similarities correlated with taxonomic affinity. Although hemoglobins of closely related species were indistinguishable, Valdivieso et al. (op. cit.) concluded that hemoglobin electrophoresis may be used to add additional evidence to estimates of relationships derived from traditional criteria. Two distinct electrophoretic phenotypes of hemoglobin occur in bats of the family Vespertilionidae (Manwell and Kerst, op. cit.; Mitchell, op. cit.; Valdivieso et al., op.

Electrophoretic patterns of serum proteins of neotropical bats (Chiroptera)

“…In many respects species of Artiheus are obviously diverse, e.g., A. phaeotis has higher immunological affinities with other phyllostomatid bats than with the related A. jamaicensis (Gerber and Leone, 1971) and moreover differs chromosomally from other species of Artibeus (Genoways and Baker, 1972). On the other hand, hemoglobins of all Artibeus species studied here are electrophoretically indistinguishable from each other and from other phyllostomatid bats (Valdivieso et al, 1969;Tamsitt and Valdivieso, 1969).…”

“…Although electrophoretic properties of hemoglobins of C. perspicillata do not differ from other phyllostomatid bats (Tamsitt and Valdivieso, 1969), immunologically species of Glossophaga (Glossophaginae) and Carollia are more closely related than has been inferred from morphological evidence (Gerber and Leone, 1971). Consequently, the taxonomic status of the Glossophaginae and Carollinae warrants further study.…”

“…Chromosomally, however, S. rufum is similar to Artibeus species (Baker and Lopez, 1970;Genoways and Baker, 1972) and moreover shares a species of listrophorid mite in common with Puerto Rican A. jamaicensis (Cruz et al, 1974). The electrophoretic pattern of hemoglobin of S. rufum is indistinguishable from Puerto Rican or mainland phyllostomatids (Valdivieso et al, 1969;Tamsitt and Valdivieso, 1969). Why the serum protein fractions of S. rufum are more similar to glossophagine bats, both insular and mainland, than to phylogenetically-related stenodermine bats remains to be determined.…”

“…Elcctrophoretic patterns of hemoglobins, however, do not differ between the two species or among bats of other subfamilies of the Phyllostomatidae (Tamsitt and (1970) placed bats of the genus Sturnira in the Sternoderminae but in a separate tribe, the Sturnirini. In karyotypes (Gardner and O'Neill, 1969), electrophoretic properties of hemoglobins (Tamsitt and Valdivieso, 1969), and immunological properties of sera (Gerber and Leone, 1971 ), species of Sturnira have strong affinities with bats of the subfamily Stenoderminae.…”

“…Previous work with bats has demonstrated the feasibility of correlating biochemical traits with systematic relationship. Manwell and Kerst (1966), Valdivieso et al (1969), Tamsitt and Valdivieso (1969), and Mitchell (1970) found hemoglobin differences among species of bats to be minor but useful in estimating phylogeny at the subfamilial and familial levels. Manwell and Kerst (1966) and Valdivieso et al (1968) found a number of differences at the generic level in lactate dehydrogenase isoenzymes, esterases, and tissue proteins, as well as ontogenetic and sexual differences and some polymorphism.…”