Journals / Turkish Journal of Zoology / 2005 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 2

Ankara, Bolu ve Zongludak hattında yayılış gösteren Mus domesticus Rutty, 1772 ve Mus macedonicus Petrov ve Ruzic, 1983 (Mammalia: Rodentia) üzerine bir çalışma

A study on Mus domesticus rutty, 1772 and Mus macedonicus Petrov and Ruzic, 1983 (Mammalia: Rodentia) distributed along the line of Ankara, Bolu and Zonguldak

Pages
133–140
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

M. domesticus and M. macedonicus have the same karyological values 2n = 40, NFa = 38 and NF = 40.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:A total of 105 specimens of the genus Mus collected from Ankara, Bartın, Bolu, Düzce and Zonguldak in Turkey were biometrically evaluated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The isocitrate dehydrogenase enzyme system along with karyotypes of 37 specimens were analysed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:M. domesticus and M. macedonicus have the same karyological values 2n = 40, NFa = 38 and NF = 40.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:105 specimens
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

A total of 105 specimens of the genus Mus collected from Ankara, Bartın, Bolu, Düzce and Zonguldak in Turkey were biometrically evaluated. The isocitrate dehydrogenase enzyme system along with karyotypes of 37 specimens were analysed. The zygomatic index and the index of head plus body length/tail length were diagnostic characters for Mus domesticus and Mus macedonicus. Starch gel electrophoresis gave 2 loci (Idh-1 and Idh-2) for the isocitrate dehydrogenase enzyme system. Two alleles (Idh- $1^{100}$ and ldh- $1^{105}$ ) of the ldh-1 locus were determined in M. domesticus and M. macedonicus. M. domesticus and M. macedonicus have the same karyological values 2n = 40, NFa = 38 and NF = 40.

Özet

Ankara, Batın. Bolu, Düzce ve Zonguldak'tan toplanan 105 Mus örneği değerlendirildi. Bu örneklerden 37 tanesinin izositrat dehidrogenaz enzim sistemi özellikleri ve karyotipleri analiz edildi, Zygomatik indeksin (ZI), baş ve beden uzunluğu/kuyruk uzunluğu (H+B/T) indeksi Mus domesticus ve Mus macedonicus için ayırıcı özellikte olduğu saptandı. Nişasta jel elektroforezi izositrat dehidrogenaz enzim sisteminde iki lokusu (Idh-1 ve Idh-Z) ortaya çıkardı. Hem M. domesticus hem de M. macedonicus'ta ldh-1 lokusunda iki alel (Idh- $1^{100}$ ve Idh- $1^{105}$ ] tespit edildi. M. domesticus ve M. macedonicus 2n = 40, NFa = 38 ve NF = 40 değerlerine sahiptir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇOLAK, R., ÇOLAK, E., YİĞİT, N., GÖZCELİOĞLU, B. (2022). Ankara, Bolu ve Zongludak hattında yayılış gösteren Mus domesticus Rutty, 1772 ve Mus macedonicus Petrov ve Ruzic, 1983 (Mammalia: Rodentia) üzerine bir çalışma. Turkish Journal of Zoology, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 2, 133–140. https://ajindex.com/articles/616889

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Auffray, J.C., Tchernov, E., Bonhomme, F., Heth, G., Simson, S. and Nevo, E. 1990. Presence and ecological distribution of Mus "spretoides" and Mus musculus domesticus in Israel. Circum-Mediterranean vicariance in the genus Mus. Z. Sâugetierkd., 55: 1-10.
  2. Ayala, F.J., Powell, J.R., Tracey, M.L., Maurano, C.A. and Perez-Salas, S. 1972. Enzyme variability in the Drosophila willstoni Group. IV. Genie variation in natural populations of Drosophila willistoni. Genetics, 70: 113-139.
  3. Awasthi, M., Bhat, K.V. and Anand, R.K. 1999. Allozymic variation in j four Indian species of Genus Mus: a comparative analysis. Journal of Genetics 78: 73-80.
  4. Bonhomme, F., Catalan, J., Britton-Davidian, J., Chapman, V.M., Morivaki, K., Nevo, E. and Thaler, L. 1984. Biochemical diversity and evolution in the genus Mus. Biochem. Genet. 22: 275-303.
  5. Bonhomme, F., Miyashita, N., Boursot, P., Catalan, J. and Moriwaki, K. 1989. Genetical variation and polyphyletic origin in Japanese Mus musculus. Heredity 63: 299-308.
  6. Boursot, P., Auffray, J. C, Britton-Davidian, J. and Bonhomme, F. 1993. The evolution of house mouse. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24: 119-152.
  7. Britton-Davidian, J. 1990. Genie differentiation in M. m. domesticus populations from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: Geographic patterns and colonization events. Biol. J. Lin. Soc. 41: 27-45.
  8. Bulatova, Nina, Sh., Nadjafova, Rena, S. and Kozlovsky, A.I. 1991. Cytotaxonomic analysis of species of the genera Mus, Apodemus and Ftattusm Azerbaijan. Z. Zool. Syst. Evolut-forsch., 29: 139-153.
  9. Ellerman, J.R. 1948. Key to the rodents of South-West Asia. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 118:765-816.
  10. Ellerman, J.R. and Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals 1758 to 1946.
  11. London. Ford, C.E. and Hamerton, J.L. 1956. A colchicine hypotonic citrate squash sequences for mammalian chromosomes. Stain Technol. 31:247-251.
  12. Frisman, L. V., Korobitsina, K.V. and Yakimenko, L.V. 1990. Genetic differentiation of U.S.S.R. house mice: electrophoretic study of proteins. Biol. J. Lin. Soc. 40: 65-72.
  13. Giagia, E.B., Fraguedakis-Tsolis, S.E. and Chondropoulos, B.P. 1987. Contribution to the study of the taxonomy and zoogeography of wild house mouse, genus Mus L. (Mammalia, Rodentia, jMuridae) in Greece. II. Karyological study of two populations from southern Greece. Mammalia 51: 111-116.
  14. Gündüz, İ., Tez, C, Malikov, V., Vazir, A., Polyakov, V.A. and Searle, J.B. 2000. Mitochondrial DNA and chromosomal studies of wild mice (Mus) fro