Karyotypes and Giemsa C-banding patterns of Zebrina pendula, Z. purpusii and Setcreasea purpurea, compared with those of Tradescantia ohiensis.

Abstract

It has been proposed that the genera Zebrina and Setcreasea of the family Commelinaceae should be united and reunited, respectively, with the genus Tradescantia, mainly based on morphological studies. In the present study, karyotypes and Giemsa C-banding patterns in the root-tip cells of three Zebrina and two Setcreasea clones were analyzed, and were compared with those of a triploid Tradescantia clone. Z. pendula and Z. purpusii (both 2n = 24) were found to have similar karyotypes (4 M + 6 ST + 14 T; M = meta-, ST = subtelo-, T = telocentric chromosomes), while Z. pendula cv Quadricolor (2n = 23) had a unique karyotype (6 M + 5 ST + 11 T + 1 SA; SA = short acrocentric chromosome). The only clear difference between Z. pendula and Z. purpusii was that one and two subtelocentric chromosomes, respectively, had satellites at the short arms. Two clones of S. purpurea (2n = 24) had karyotypes (8 M + 8 M' + 8 SM; M' = nearly meta-, SM = submetacentric chromosomes) similar to each other. T. ohiensis (2n = 18) had a symmetric karyotype (9 M + 9 SM) consisting of larger chromosomes than S. purpurea. Many clear Giemsa C-bands were detected, in addition to centromeric bands in all chromosomes of all clones. Z. pendula and Z. purpusii commonly had single clear interstitial bands in eight telocentric chromosomes each, but they also had unique telomeric and other interstitial bands, respectively. Z. pendula cv Quadricolor had a unique banding pattern, i.e., satellite bands in the unique short chromosome, telomeric bands at the long arms of all metacentric chromosomes, and single interstitial bands in six telocentric chromosomes. Two clones of S. purpurea had telomeric bands at many chromosome arms and satellite bands in two nearly metacentric and one submetacentric chromosomes, but some differences were found between them. On the other hand, all the chromosomes of T. ohiensis had telomeric bands at both arms, and three submetacentric chromosomes had satellite bands. These result prove structural differentiation of chromosomes occurred among the clones, especially in Zebrina, and show that S. purpurea is relatively close to T. ohiensis, while Zebrina is obviously distant from the other two genera. Therefore, there remains a question cytologically at least for uniting Zebrina with Tradescantia.

A new chitin-binding lectin from rhizome of Setcreasea purpurea with antifungal, antiviral and apoptosis-inducing activities

“…The present article describes the isolation and partial characterization of a lectin from Setcreasea purpurea Boom and based on its source of species, N-terminal amino-acid sequence, carbohydratebinding specificity, excellent stability and other qualities, this lectin could be classified to the family of chitin-binding plant proteins composed of hevein domains. In recent years, few of the researches on Setcreasea purpurea were carried out except karyotypes [43] and there were no reports on the bioactive proteins. This lectin, designated as SPL, might represent the first isolated proteinaceous constituent of Setcreasea purpurea.…”

Demographic Performance Predicts Invasiveness of Species in the Commelinaceae Under High-Nutrient Conditions

“…Invasive species are expected to have high rates of population growth and many projections suggest high population growth rates for invasive taxa (e.g., k ¼ 2.2-1.4; Shea and Kelly 1998). Sensitivity analyses for invasive species have also provided insight into stage-specific management (e.g., Kelly 1998, Parker 2000, as suggested by Sakai et al 2001). For example, Shea et al (2005) predict that seed predators may be capable of reducing population growth rates to k , 1 (population no longer replacing itself) in some parts of the introduced range but not in others.…”

Karyotype differentiation in three species of Tripogandra Raf. (Commelinaceae) with different ploidy levels

“…Cytogenetic analyses using other karyotype parameters, such as C-banding and staining with fluorochromes, have also contributed to an understanding of the relationships among some Commelinaceae species (Jones and Kenton, 1984; Kenton, 1991; Sakurai and Ichikawa, 2001). Parokonny et al (1992) showed that some cryptic species of Gibasis can be clearly distinguished using techniques such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and genomic in situ hybridization (GISH).…”