© 2017 The Japan Mendel Society Cytologia 82(4): 435–441

A First Chromosomal and Nucleolar Organizer Regions (NORs) Analyses of Chevey’s Sheetfish, cheveyi (Siluriformes, )

Krit Pinthong1, Weerayuth Supiwong2*, Baramate Simporn3, Supatcha Chooseangjaew4, Wanpen Kakampuy5 and Alongklod Tanomtong3

1 Department of Fundamental Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, Surindra Rajabhat University, Muang, Surin 32000, 2 Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, Khon Kaen University, Nong Khai Campus, Muang, Nong Khai 43000, Thailand 3 Toxic Substances in Livestock and Aquatic Research Group, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Khon Kaen University, Muang, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand 4 Marine Shellfish Breeding Research Unit, Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Science and Fisheries Tech- nology, Rajamangala University of Technology Srivijaya, Trang campus, Trang 92150, Thailand 5 Faculty of Agriculture and Technology, Nakhon Phanom University, Muang, Nakhon Phanom 48000, Thailand

Received April 19, 2016; accepted July 25, 2017

Summary A first report on nucleolar organizer regions (NORs) and karyological analyses in the Chevey’s sheetfish (Micronema cheveyi) from the Chao Phraya Basin, Thailand, was performed. The mitotic chromosome preparation was directly prepared from kidney cells of ten male and eight female specimens. Conventional stain- ing and Ag-NOR banding techniques were applied to stain the chromosomes. The results shown that the diploid chromosome number of M. cheveyi was 2n=78 and the fundamental numbers (NF) were 96 in both sexes. The karyotype composed of 4 large metacentric, 6 large submetacentric, 10 large acrocentric, 32 medium telocentric, and 26 small telocentric chromosomes. No heteromorphic sex chromosomes were revealed. In addition, the telo- meric NORs were clearly observed at the short arm adjacent to the telomere of the third chromosome pair (sub- metacentric chromosomes). The karyotype formula for M. cheveyi is as follows: m sm a t t 2n (diploid)78=L4 +L 6 +L 10 +M 32 +S 26

Key words Micronema cheveyi, Chromosome, Nucleolar organizer regions (NORs), Karyotype.

Micronema is a small of the family Siluridae to determine chromosome number and karyotype com- native to the Southeast Asian region. There are cur- position has been carried out. Structure, number, and rently three recognized in this genus including morphology of a nucleolar organizer region (NOR) may M. cheveyi, M. hexapterus and M. platypogon (Froese be specific to populations, species, and subspecies. NOR and Pauly 2015, Eschmeyer and Fong 2016). Species of is frequently used to compare variations, as well as to the genus were formerly placed in this identify and explain specifications. Changes in chromo- genus (Eschmeyer and Fong 2016). In Thailand, there some number and structure can alter the number and are about 30 species of the family Siluridae which can structure of NOR. Robertsonian translocations may be classified into 10 genera including Belodontichthys, cause losses of NOR (Yüksel and Gaffaroğlu 2008). Up Ceratoglanis, Hemisilurus, , Micronema, to the present, only 12 species have been cytogenetically , Phalacronotus, , Silurichthys, and investigated reporting the diploid chromosome number Wallago (Ferraris 2007, Rainboth 1996, Vidthayonon (2n) ranging from 40 to 92 chromosomes including S. 2005). Chevey’s sheetfish, M. cheveyi (Fig. 1) is com- phaiosoma, 2n=40; S. schneideri, 2n=40 (Magtoon monly found in natural water bodies such as rivers and and Donsakul 2009); O. siluriodes, 2n=50 (Donsakul floodplains in Thailand. The M. cheveyi is a very fa- 1992, Gomontier et al. 2012); W. micropogon, 2n=56 vorite food fish of Thai people and it has a high market (Donsakul 1996); O. fumidus, 2n=60 (Magtoon and value (Vidthayonon 2005). Donsakul 2009); B. truncatus, 2n=62 (Donsakul 1996); Cytogenetic studies in Thai freshwater fishes are quit K. macrocephalus, 2n=62 (Magtoon and Donsakul scarce, in which only conventional technique reported 2009); K. bicirrhis, 2n=64 (Donsakul 1996); P. apogon 2n=64 (Supiwong et al. 2012), P. bleekeri, 2n=64 (Don- * Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] sakul 1992); W. attu, 2n=86 from India (Rishi and Singh DOI: 10.1508/cytologia.82.435 1983, Sharma and Tripathi 1984); 2n=88 from Thailand 436 K. Pinthong et al. Cytologia 82(4)

Fig. 1. General characteristic of the Chevey’s sheetfish (Micronema cheveyi).

Fig. 2. Metaphase chromosome plates and karyotypes of male (A) and female (B) Chevey’s sheetfish, (Micronema cheveyi), 2n=78, by conventional straining technique. Scale bars indicate 5 µm.

(Donsakul 1996) and K. cryptopterus, 2n=92 (Donsakul breeding in this fish. 1992). The present cytogenetic study is the first report on Materials and methods karyotype analysis and chromosomal characteristic of the NORs of M. cheveyi. The knowledge gained can pro- Ten males and eight females of M. cheveyi were col- vide useful cytogenetic information for further study on lected from the , Sing Buri Province, , evolutionary relationship, conservation, and central part of Thailand. The fish were transferred to 2017 A First Chromosomal and Nucleolar Organizer Regions Analyses of Chevey’s Sheetfish 437

Table 1. Review of fish cytogenetic reports in seven genera of the family Siluridae in Thailand.

Species 2n NF Karyotype Ag-NOR Locality Reference

Belodontichthys truncates 62 100 20m+10sm+8st+24a ̶ Thailand Donsakul 1996 64 98 20m+10sm+4st+30a ̶ Thailand Donsakul 1996 K. cryptopterus 92 110 8m+10st+74a ̶ Thailand Donsakul 1992 K. macrocephalus 62 98 24m+12sm+26a ̶ Thailand Magtoon and Donsakul 2009 Micronema cheveyi 78 96 4m+6sm+10a+58t 2 Thailand Present study Ompok bimaculatus 42 72 18m+12sm+12t (F) ̶ India Rishi 1976 41 70 17m+12sm+12t (M) ̶ India Rishi 1976 42 72 6m+24sm+12t (F) 2 India Khuda-Bukhsh and Das 2007 41 70 5m+24sm+12t (M) 2 India Khuda-Bukhsh and Das 2007 42 68 12m+14sm+16a/t ̶ India Sharma 2008 54 102 16m+26sm+6a+6t 2 India Verma et al. 2011 O. fumidus 60 82 20m+2sm+2st+36a ̶ Thailand Magtoon and Donsakul 2009 O. pabda 54 100 28m+10sm+8a+8t ̶ India Das and Kar 1977 42 ̶ ̶ ̶ India Datta et al. 2003 42 68 12m+14sm+16a/t ̶ India Sharma 2008 42 84 26m+10sm+6a 2 India Verma et al. 2011 O. pabo 54 102 36m+12sm+6t ̶ India Khuda-Bukhsh and Chanda 1989 O. siluriodes 50 88 34m+2sm+2st+12a ̶ Thailand Donsakul 1992 50 90 14m+20sm+6a+10t 2 Thailand Gomontier et al. 2012 64 108 18m+20sm+6a+20t 2 Thailand Supiwong et al. 2012 P. bleekeri 64 92 20m+6sm+2st+36a ̶ Thailand Donsakul 1992 Silurichthys phaiosoma 40 46 2m+4sm+8st+266a ̶ Thailand Magtoon and Donsakul 2009 S. schneideri 40 50 6m+4sm+4st+26a ̶ Thailand Magtoon and Donsakul 2009 Wallago attu 86 106 12m+6sm+2a+66t ̶ India Rishi and Singh 1983 86 116 10m+12sm+8a+56t ̶ India Sharma and Tripathi 1984 88 110 16m+2sm+4st+66a ̶ Thailand Donsakul 1996 W. micropogon 56 86 26m+4sm+26a ̶ Thailand Donsakul 1996

Remarks: 2n=diploid chromosome number, NF=fundamental number (number of chromosome arm), m=metacentric, sm=submetacentric, st=subtelocentric, a=acrocentric, t=telocentric chromosome, F=female, M=male, NOR=nucleolar organizer region, and ̶=not available. laboratory aquaria and were kept under standard condi- tive cytogenetic data among species of the family Siluri- tion for three days prior to the experiments. Procedures dae in Thailand is displayed in the Table 1. In this fam- for fish chromosome were prepared by directly prepared ily, the 2n range from 40 chromosomes in S. phaiosoma from kidney cells modifying from Supiwong et al. and S. schneideri, to 92 chromosomes in K. cryptopterus (2012). The chromosome preparations were stained with and the NF range between 46 and 116. Ghigliotti et al. 10% Giemsa’s for 30 min and NORs were identified by (2007) assumed that species with a larger NF are more Ag-NOR staining (Howell and Black 1980). The meta- advanced in evolutionary terms. Such changes in chro- phase figures were analyzed according to the chromo- mosome arm number appear to be related to the occur- some classification following by Turpin and Lejeune rence of pericentric inversions, which are among the (1965) and Chaiyasut (1989). most common modifications contributing to karyotypic rearrangement in fishes and other vertebrates (Dover Results and discussion 1993, Galetti Jr. et al. 2000, Wang et al. 2010). The M. cheveyi was formerly placed in the Kryptopterus spe- Chromosome number, fundamental number and karyo- cies and the species of the genus Phalacronotus were type of M. cheveyi formerly placed in the Micronema (Eschmeyer and Fong Cytogenetic studies have been firstly performed on 2016). Thus, it seems to be that these genera (Kryptop- eighteen specimens of M. cheveyi from Thailand. The terus, Micronema, and Phalacronotus) have most closed results shown that the diploid chromosome number of relationship among them. Moreover, the cytogenetic data M. cheveyi was 2n=78, and the fundamental numbers are quite in agreement with their morphology. (NF, number of chromosome arms) were 96 in both All specimens investigated have no cytologically sexes (Fig. 2). The present cytogenetic study is also the distinguishable sex chromosome. This characteristic new record in this genus. There are different from other is similar to others in the Siluridae family of Thailand. species in the previous studies (Rishi 1976, Das and Kar However, some silurid catfishes in India such as O. bi- 1977, Rishi and Singh 1983, Sharma and Tripathi 1984, maculatus have differentiated sex chromosome system

Khuda-Bukhsh and Chanda 1989, Donsakul 1992, 1996, as X1X1X2 in male and X1X1X2X2 in female (Khuda- Datta et al. 2003, Khuda-Bukhsh and Das 2007, Sharma Bukhsh and Das 2007). Accordingly, it indicates that 2008, Magtoon and Donsakul 2009, Verma et al. 2011, differentiated sex chromosomes are rare in silurid Gomontier et al. 2012, Supiwong et al. 2012). Compara- catfishes. The karyotype of M. cheveyi consisted of 438 K. Pinthong et al. Cytologia 82(4)

Table 2. Mean of length, short arm chromosome (Ls); length, long arm chromosome (Ll); length, total arm chromosome (LT); relative length (RL); centromeric index (CI) and standard deviation (SD) of RL and CI from metaphase chromosome of 20 cells in Chevey’s sheetfish (Micronema cheveyi) 2n=78.

Chro. pair Ls Ll LT RL±SD CI±SD Chro. size Chro. type

1 1.37 1.78 3.15 0.0429±0.0131 0.566±0.030 Large Metacentric 2 1.30 1.75 3.04 0.0412±0.0014 0.574±0.024 Large Metacentric 3* 1.15 2.02 3.17 0.0425±0.0130 0.639±0.025 Large Submetacentric 4 1.07 1.88 2.94 0.0393±0.0121 0.642±0.028 Large Submetacentric 5 0.88 1.80 2.68 0.0354±0.0089 0.679±0.049 Large Submetacentric 6 0.75 2.52 3.27 0.0421±0.0052 0.765±0.052 Large Acrocentric 7 0.62 2.33 2.95 0.0388±0.0048 0.787±0.066 Large Acrocentric 8 0.72 1.78 2.50 0.0339±0.0083 0.714±0.018 Large Acrocentric 9 0.68 1.71 2.39 0.0310±0.0078 0.719±0.022 Large Acrocentric 10 0.65 1.68 2.33 0.0310±0.0074 0.720±0.021 Large Acrocentric 11 0.00 2.22 2.22 0.0280±0.0037 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 12 0.00 2.16 2.16 0.0270±0.0035 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 13 0.00 2.08 2.08 0.0264±0.0037 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 14 0.00 2.03 2.03 0.0264±0.0032 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 15 0.00 1.98 1.98 0.0256±0.0038 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 16 0.00 1.93 1.93 0.0242±0.0033 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 17 0.00 1.91 1.91 0.0245±0.0036 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 18 0.00 1.84 1.84 0.0231±0.0034 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 19 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.0232±0.0035 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 20 0.00 1.80 1.80 0.0231±0.0035 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 21 0.00 1.78 1.78 0.0232±0.0025 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 22 0.00 1.74 1.74 0.0222±0.0031 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 23 0.00 1.71 1.71 0.0222±0.0029 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 24 0.00 1.70 1.70 0.0229±0.0025 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 25 0.00 1.67 1.67 0.0217±0.0028 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 26 0.00 1.66 1.66 0.0216±0.0027 1.000±0.000 Medium Telocentric 27 0.00 1.60 1.60 0.0206±0.0028 1.000±0.000 Small Telocentric 28 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.0215±0.0027 1.000±0.000 Small Telocentric 29 0.00 1.60 1.60 0.0204±0.0028 1.000±0.000 Small Telocentric 30 0.00 1.56 1.56 0.0203±0.0024 1.000±0.000 Small Telocentric 31 0.00 1.52 1.52 0.0193±0.0022 1.000±0.000 Small Telocentric 32 0.00 1.54 1.54 0.0205±0.0021 1.000±0.000 Small Telocentric 33 0.00 1.53 1.53 0.0196±0.0034 1.000±0.000 Small Telocentric 34 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.0194±0.0021 1.000±0.000 Small Telocentric 35 0.00 1.48 1.48 0.0197±0.0022 1.000±0.000 Small Telocentric 36 0.00 1.47 1.47 0.0183±0.0033 1.000±0.000 Small Telocentric 37 0.00 1.42 1.42 0.0188±0.0035 1.000±0.000 Small Telocentric 38 0.00 1.35 1.35 0.0172±0.0037 1.000±0.000 Small Telocentric 39 0.00 1.27 1.27 0.0168±0.0039 1.000±0.000 Small Telocentric

Remarks: *=NOR-bearing chromosome and chro.=chromosome

4 large metacentric, 6 large submetacentric, 10 large and 28S ribosomal RNA) (Sharma et al. 2002). If these acrocentric, 32 medium telocentric, and 26 small telo- region were active during the interphase prior to mitosis, centric chromosomes (Fig. 2 and Table 2). The present they can be detected by silver nitrate staining (Howell result is disagreement from other silurids analyzed. and Black 1980) since it specifically stain a set of acidic These differences may be due to from the differences in protein related to ribosomal synthesis process; this tech- chromosome diversity and the variation among species. nique actually reveals active NORs and not the rDNA The karyotype formulae for seven genera of the family associated to NORs (Jordan 1987). From the result, M. Siluridae in Thailand show the variation found in the cheveyi had the positive Ag-NOR marks on a single pair number of metacentric, submetacentric, subtelocentric/ of homologous chromosomes. The telomeric NOR on the acrocentric, and acrocentric/telocentric chromosomes short arm of a pair of the biggest submetacentric chro- even inside the same genus. mosome pair (the third pair) was observed (Fig. 3). Two NOR-bearing chromosomes, there is agreeable with O. Chromosome markers of M. cheveyi bimaculatus (Khuda-Bukhsh and Das 2007, Verma et al. In the present study, this is the first report on Thai 2011), O. pabda (Verma et al. 2011), O. siluriodes (Go- silurid catfishes accomplished by Ag-NOR banding tech- montier et al. 2012), P. apogon (Supiwong et al. 2012), nique. The objective of Ag-NOR banding technique is to Silurus aristotelis (Ráb et al. 1994), Si. asotus (Fujioka reach out the NORs which is the representative location 1973) and Si. glanis (Ráb et al. 1991). Moreover, it is of genes (loci) that function in ribosome synthesis (18S similar to several species in other families (reviewed 2017 A First Chromosomal and Nucleolar Organizer Regions Analyses of Chevey’s Sheetfish 439

Fig. 3. Metaphase chromosome plates and karyotypes of male (A) and female (B) Chevey’s sheetfish, (Micronema cheveyi), 2n=78 by Ag-NOR banding technique. Arrows indicate the NOR-bearing chromosome pair. Scale bars indicate 5 µm.

Fig. 4. Idiograms showing lengths and shapes of chromosomes of the Chevey’s sheetfish, (Micronema cheveyi), 2n=78 by con- ventional staining (A) and Ag-NOR banding techniques (B). 440 K. Pinthong et al. Cytologia 82(4) in Arai 2011). All specimens investigated in the pres- Eschmeyer, W. N. and Fong, J. D. 2016. Species by family/subfamily ent study have telomeric NOR on the short arm of the in the Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences. Online Version, Updated 1 March 2016. submetacentric chromosome pair. The NOR position Ferraris, C. J. 2007. Checklist of catfishes, recent and fossil (Osteich- revealed is similar to other previous species studied in thyes: Siluriformes), and catalogue of siluriform primary types. this family (Fujioka 1973, Ráb et al. 1991, 1994, Khuda- Zootaxa 1418: 1–628. Bukhsh and Das 2007, Verma et al. 2011, Gomontier Froese, R., and Pauly, D. 2015. Species of Micronema in FishBase. et al. 2012, Supiwong et al. 2012). Thus, there is con- August 2015 version. Fujioka, Y. 1973. A comparative study of the chromosomes in Japa- servation for the ribosome synthesis genes loci in these nese freshwater fishes. I. A study of the somatic chromosome catfishes. of common catfish Parasilurus asotus (Linne) and fork-tailed The important chromosome marker of the M. cheveyi bullhead Pelteobagrus nudiceps (Sauvage). Bull. Fac. Educ. is the asymmetrical karyotype that all four types of Yamaguchi Univ. 23: 191–195. chromosomes (metacentric, submetacentric, acrocentric, Galetti, P. M. Jr., Aguilar, C. T. and Molina, W. F. 2000. An overview and telocentric chromosomes) were found. An idiogram of marine fish cytogenetics. Hydrobiologia 420: 55–62. Ghigliotti, L., Mazzei, F., Ozouf-Costaz, C., Bonillo, C., Williams, R., demonstrates a continuous length gradation of chromo- Cheng, C. H. C. and Pisano, E. 2007. The two giant sister species somes. The largest and smallest chromosomes show size of the Southern Ocean, Dissostichus eleginoides and Dissosti- difference (approximately 2.5 folds). The chromosome chus mawsoni, differ in karyotype and chromosomal pattern of markers of M. cheveyi are the third chromosome pair ribosomal RNA genes. Polar Biol. 30: 625–634. and the chromosome pair No. 39 which are the largest Gomontier, B., Tanomthong, A., Supiwong, W., Sikhruadong, S., Neeratanaphan, L. and Sanoamuang, L. 2012. Standardized submetacentric chromosome and the smallest telocentric karyotype and idiogram of two-spot glass catfish, Ompok bimac- chromosome, respectively. The data of the chromosomal ulatus (Siluriformes, Siluridae) in Thailand by conventional and checks on mitotic metaphase cells of M. cheveyi are Ag-NOR staining techniques. Cytologia 77: 459–464. showed in Table 2. The idiograms from conventional Howell, W. M. and Black, D. A. 1980. Controlled silver-staining of staining and NOR banding techniques are showed in Fig. nucleolus organizer regions with a protective colloidal developer: A 1-step method. Experientia 36: 1014–1015. 4. The karyotype formula for M. cheveyi is as follows: Jordan, G. 1987. At the heart of the nucleolus. Nature 329: 489–490. m sm a t t 2n (diploid) 78= L4 + L 6 + L 10 + M 32 +S 26 Khuda-Bukhsh, A. R. and Chanda, T. 1989. Somatic chromosomes of three species of hill stream fishes from Assam. In: Fish Genetics in India. Das, P. and Jhingran, A. G. (eds.). Today & Tomorrow’s Acknowledgements Printers and Publishers, New Delhi. pp. 69–73. Khuda-Bukhsh, A. R. and Das, J. K. 2007. Cytogenetic analysis in eight species of teleostean fishes (Pisces): karyotype, multiple This work was financially supported by Coordinat- Ag-NORs, sex chromosomes. Res. Rev. BioSciences 1: 47–52. ing Center for Thai Government Science and Technol- Magtoon, W. and Donsakul, T. 2009. Karyotypes of Silurichthys ogy Scholarship Students (CSTS), National Science and phaiosoma, S. schneideri, Ompok fumidus and Kryptopterus th Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) and Toxic macrocephalus (Family Siluridae) from Thailand. In: 35 Con- Substances in Livestock and Aquatic Animals Research gress on Science and Technology of Thailand, Bangkok. pp. B3–B0084.Ráb, P., Karakousis, Y. and Peios, C. 1994. Karyotype Group, Khon Kaen University. of Silurus aristotelis with reference to the cytotaxonomy of the genus Silurus (Pisces, Siluridae). Folia Zool. 43: 75–81. References Ráb, P., Mayr, B. and Roth, P. 1991. Chromosome banding study of European catfish, Silurus glanis (Pisces, Siluridae). Genetica 83: Arai, R. 2011. Fish Karyotype - a Check List. Springer, Tokyo. 153–157. Chaiyasut, K. 1989. Cytogenetics and Cytotaxonomy of the Family Rainboth, W. J. 1996. Fishes of the Cambodian . Food and Zephyranthes. Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Chul- Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. alongkorn University, Bangkok. Rishi, K. K. 1976. Mitotic and meiotic chromosomes of a teleost, Das, R. K. and Kar, R. N. 1977. Somatic chromosome analysis of a Callichrous bimaculatus (Bloch) with indications of male hetero- siluroid fish, Rita chrysea Day. Caryologia 30: 247–253. gamety. Cienc. Cult. 28: 1171–1173. Datta, S., Rahman, M. M., Haque, M. A., Islam, M. M. and Mollah, Rishi, K. K. and Singh, J. 1983. Chromosomal analysis of the Indian M. F. A. 2003. Chromosomal studies on Ompok pabda (Hamil- silurid, Wallago attu (Schneider) (family: Siluridae). Chromo- ton). OnLine Journal of Biology Science 3: 460–465. some Information Service 34: 10–11. Donsakul, T. 1992. Chromosome study on three species of silurid Sharma, O. P. and Tripathi, N. K. 1984. Somatic chromosome analysis fishes, Kryptopterus cryptopterus, K. bleekeri and Ompok bi- of Wallago attu, a siluroid fish from Jammu (J & K), India. Per- maculatus, of Thailand. In: The 18th Congress on Science and spectives Cytol. Genet. 4: 437–439. Technology of Thailand, Bangkok. pp. 398–399. Sharma, O. P., Tripathi, N. K. and Sharma, K. K. 2002. A review Donsakul, T. 1996. A study of chromosome in freshwater shark (Wal- of chromosome banding in fishes. In: Sobti, R. C. and Obe, G. lago attu), helicopter catfish (W. leerii), twisted-jaw sheatfish (eds.). Some Aspects of Chromosome Structure and Functions. (Belodontichthys dinema) and glass catfish (Kryptopterus bicir- Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi. pp. 109–122. rhis) from Thailand. In: The Proceedings of the 34th Kasetsart Sharma, R. 2008. Chromosomal studies on two endangered catfishes University Annual Conference (Fishery section), Bangkok. pp. O. bimaculatus (Bloch) and O. pabda (Hamilton-Buchanan). In- 367–377. dian J. Anim. Sci. 78: 264–236. Dover, G. 1993. Species Evolution: The Role of Chromosome Change. Supiwong, W., Tanomtong, A., Jumrusthanasan, S., Khakhong, S., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Leelarasamee, K. and Sanoamuang, L. 2012. A first karyotype 2017 A First Chromosomal and Nucleolar Organizer Regions Analyses of Chevey’s Sheetfish 441

analysis and chromosomal characteristic of nucleolar organizer Vidthayonon, C. 2005. Handbook of Freshwater Fish, 2nd ed. Saraka- regions (NORs) in the common sheathfish, Micronema apogon dee Press, Bangkok. (Siluriformes, Siluridae) in Thailand. Cytologia 77: 53–58. Wang, S., Su, Y., Ding, S., Cai, Y. and Wang, J. 2010. Cytogenetic Turpin, R. and Lejeune, J. 1965. Les Chromosomes Humains. Gautier- analysis of orange-spotted grouper, Epinephelus coioides, using Villars, Paris. (in French) chromosome banding and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Hy- Verma, J., Lakra, W. S., Kushwaha, B., Sirajuddin, M., Nagpure, N. S. drobiologia 638: 1–10. and Kumar, R. 2011. Characterization of two freshwater silurid Yüksel, E. and Gaffaroğlu, M. 2008. The analysis of nucleolar orga- catfish using conventional and molecular cytogenetic techniques. nizer regions in Chalcalburnus mossulensis (Pisces: Cyprini- J. Genet. 90: 319–322. dae). J. Fisheries Science.com 2: 587–591.