Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 May 29;15(5):e0232509. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232509

Chromosomal evolution and phylogenetic considerations in cuckoos (Aves, Cuculiformes, Cuculidae)

Michelly da Silva dos Santos 1,2,‡, Rafael Kretschmer 3,‡, Ivanete de Oliveira Furo 1,2, Ricardo José Gunski 4, Analía del Valle Garnero 4, Mirela Pelizaro Valeri 5, Patricia C M O’Brien 6, Malcolm A Ferguson-Smith 6, Edivaldo Herculano Corrêa de Oliveira 1,2,7,*
Editor: Igor V Sharakhov8
PMCID: PMC7259548  PMID: 32469879

Abstract

The Cuckoos have a long history of difficult classification. The species of this order have been the subject of several studies based on osteology, behavior, ecology, morphology and molecular data. Despite this, the relationship between Cuculiformes and species of other orders remains controversial. In this work, two species of Cuculidae, Guira guira (Gmelin, 1788) and Piaya cayana (Linnaeus, 1766), were analyzed by means of comparative chromosome painting in order to study the chromosome evolution of this group and to undertake the first chromosome mapping of these species. Our results demonstrate high chromosomal diversity, with 2n = 76 in G. guira, with fission and fusion events involving ancestral syntenies, while P. cayana presented only fissions, which were responsible for the high diploid number of 2n = 90. Interestingly, there were no chromosomal rearrangements in common between these species. Our results, based on Giemsa staining, were compared with previous data for other cuckoos and also with taxa proposed as sister-groups of Cuculiformes (Otidiformes, Musophagiformes and Opisthocomiformes). Cytogenetic comparisons demonstrated that cuckoo species can be divided into at least three major groups. In addition, we found no evidence to place Cuculiformes close to the groups proposed previously as sister-groups.

Introduction

The order Cuculiformes is represented by only one family, Cuculidae (cuckoos), which is an ancient and diverse group comprising 149 species [1]. Despite the fact that the majority of species of cuckoos build their own nests, sometimes breeding in a cooperative way, this group of birds is known for the cases of brood parasites [2,3]. Recently, cuckoos have been the subject of interesting studies, gaining attention in such different areas as the maternal inheritance of eggs [4], their evolution [3,5], biogeography [6] and phylogenetic relationships [7].

The phylogenetic relationships of cuckoos have a long and enigmatic history [8]. For instance, the hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoazin Müller, 1776) [9] and turacos (Musophagidae) [10] were considered as sister groups to cuckoos. However, molecular studies have not produced any evidence to consider the hoatzin as a Cuculiformes, or as their sister group [11]. Adittionally, these authors found no evidence to support the close relationship between turacos and cuckoos or between turacos and hoatzin. Hence, despite the great progress in the reconstruction of the phylogeny of Aves in recent years, the position of these three groups remains unresolved. In fact, the most recent avian phylogenies suggest different sister relationships to Cuckoos: Prum et al. [12] support the bustards (Otidiformes) and Jarvis et al. [13], the turacos (Musophagiformes). Hence, despite these efforts, further studies are still required to resolve the evolutionary history and relationships of the Cuculiformes with other bird groups.

Up to now, there have been few cytogenetic studies of representative species of the Cuculiformes, and those that are available date from before 1991 and are mainly limited to a description of the diploid number (2n) and the karyotype [14–19]. These studies demonstrate a large variety of karyotypes, with diploid numbers ranging from 2n = 64 in Crotophaga major (Linnaeus, 1758) [15] to 2n = 76 in Piaya cayana (Linnaeus, 1766) [14].

However, in the last two decades, a large amount of data on chromosome mapping in birds has been generated [20], including in the hoatzin [21], which make genome comparison possible between Cuculiformes species. Hence, in this study we aim to investigate chromosome diversification in cuckoos, considering the challenges faced by other efforts to reconstruct the evolutionary processes that have occurred in this group of birds. Thus, for the first time, we describe whole chromosome painting in two species of cuckoos, the Guira Cuckoo (Guira guira Gmelin, 1788) and the Squirrel Cuckoo (P. cayana). Our results are compared with the chromosome painting data from the hoatzin [21] and the classical cytogenetics data from Otidiformes and Musophagiformes species, in order to check if the phylogeny proposed by Jarvis et al. [13] or that suggested by Prum et al. [12] is supported by the cytogenetic data.

Material and methods

Biological samples

Two species of cuckoos (Cuculiformes, Cuculidae) were analyzed in this study: the Guira Cuckoo (G. guira) and the Squirrel Cuckoo (P. cayana). The individuals were captured with mist nets in their natural environment (Table 1) and the experiments were approved by the Ethics Committee on Animal Experimentation (CEUA) of the Universidade Federal do Pampa under no. 026/2012. For P. cayana, birds were held manually, and an area of the underside of the wing was cleaned with ethanol 70%. Afterwards, lidocaine gel was applied for local anesthesia. A small biopsy (0,3 cm2) was collected using a scalpel blade, and a topical antibacterial was applied before releasing the animal. For G. guira, animals were euthanatized using ketamine/xylazine, and the bone marrow was obtained from the femur.

Table 1. Characterization of the samples used in this study.

Species Sample 2n Locality
G. guira 2 Male 76 Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil
P. cayana 1 Female 90 Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil
P. cayana 1 Female 90 Porto Vera Cruz, Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil
Open in a new tab

Chromosome preparation

Chromosomes were obtained either by short-term bone marrow [22] or fibroblast culture [23]. Both protocols included colchicine (0,05%) treatment for 1 h, hypotonic treatment (75 mM KCl) for 15 minutes, and cell fixation in methanol:acetic acid (3:1, v/v). After three to four rounds of washing/fixation, chromosome suspensions were kept in a freezer.

Conventional staining and karyotype analyses

Chromosome suspensions were dropped onto a clean glass slide and stained with Giemsa in order to assess the morphology of macrochromosomes and to determine the chromosome number. The chromosome number was determined analyzing at least 20 metaphases using a 100× objective (Leica DM1000).

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)

FISH experiments were performed using Gallus gallus probes corresponding to GGA1–10 and Leucopternis albicollis (LAL) probes homologous to GGA1 (LAL 3, 6, 7, 15, and 18), 2 (LAL 2, 4, and 20), 3 (LAL 9, 13, 17, and 26), 4 (LAL 1 and 16), 5 (LAL 5) and 6 (LAL 3) [24], labeled by biotin and detected using streptavidin-CY3 (Invitrogen). Both sets of probes were obtained by flow cytometry at the Cambridge Resource Centre for Comparative Genomics (Cambridge, UK). Fluorescence results were analyzed and acquired using a Zeiss Imager 2 microscope, 63× objective and Axiovision 4.8 software (Zeiss, Germany).

Results

Karyotype description

The karyotype of G. guira showed 76 chromosomes. The karyotype consists of 12 pairs of macrochromosomes: 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are metacentric; 1 and 2 are submetacentric; 5 is acrocentric and 6 and 10 are telocentric. The Z sex chromosome is submetacentric and its size lies between pairs 3 and 4. The W sex chromosome was not analyzed in this study (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Complete karyotype of a male G. guira (2n = 76), in conventional Giemsa staining.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

P. cayana had 2n = 90. Macrochromosomes (13 pairs) of P. cayana are different in morphology and size from those of G. guira (Fig 2). Pairs 1, 5, 6 and 10 are telocentric; pair 2 is submetacentric; 3, 4 and 11 metacentric and the pairs 7, 8 and 9 are acrocentric. The sex chromosome Z is submetacentric and equivalent in size to pair 2. The W is acrocentric and equivalent in size to pair 7.

Fig 2. Complete karyotype of a female P. cayana (2n = 90), in conventional Giemsa staining.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

FISH experiments

Whole-chromosome probes GGA1–10 showed that only the chromosomes GGA1, 2, 3 and 9 were not involved in interchromosomal rearrangements in G. guira (Figs 3 and 5A). Chicken chromosomes GGA6, 7 and 8 probes hybridized to two chromosomes each, while GGA4 and 5 probes hybridized to three pairs each. Chromosome fusions were found in four GGU chromosomes: GGA7seg/GGA4seg (GGU4), GGA5seg/GGA10 (GGU5), GGA5seg/GGA6seg (GGU8), GGA8seg/GGA4p (GGU9). Moreover, the GGU7q, GGU12p do not have homology to chromosomes GGA1-10, suggesting that these regions must indicate fusion with microchromosomes. Additionally, it was clear that the segment corresponding to GGA1q (GGU1p) was not hybridized by any probe from LAL, suggesting that there must be at least one more pair of LAL chromosomes corresponding to GGA1 that is missing from the current set of LAL probes, as pointed out by Kretschmer et al. [25]. Although the GGU1 and 3 are homologous to GGA1 and GGA3, respectively, the chromosome morphology of these chromosomes in GGU and the pattern of signals observed with LAL probes suggest the occurrence of centromere repositioning due to inversions or centromeric shift in both chromosomes. A homology map based on the results of the experiments using GGA and LAL probes in GGU is shown in Fig 5A.

Fig 3. Examples of fluorescence in situ hybridization experiments with whole-chromosome probe derived from G. gallus (GGA) and L. albicollis (LAL) onto G. guira (GGU) chromosomes.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Fig 5. Homologous chromosomal segments in G. gallus (GGA), L. albicollis (LAL) and G. guira (A, GGU), and P. cayana (B, PCA) macrochromosomes as detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using G. gallus and L. albicollis whole chromosome paints.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

Segments not hybridized with LAL probes are indicated with an asterisk. Segments not hybridized with LAL and GGA probes are indicated by white gaps.

The patterns of hybridization of the chicken paints GGA1–GGA9 to chromosomes of P. cayana indicate that GGA5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 are entirely homologous to PCA4, 7, 9, 11 and 12, respectively. Probes 1, 3 and 4 painted 2 distinct pairs of P. cayana each, while the syntenic group corresponding to GGA2 is split between three pairs (Figs 4 and 5B). The paint GGA7 indicates that this chromosome was involved in a fusion event (PCA7), probably with a microchromosome, since none of the GGA probes hybridized to a segment in the long arm of this chromosome. L. albicollis probes confirmed the results obtained with G. gallus probes. Moreover, the segment corresponding to GGA1qterm (PCA1q) was not hybridized by any LAL probes used, as well as in GGU. Additionally, LAL probes indicated that a pericentric inversion had occurred in PCA2 (GGA2q). A homology map based on the results of the experiments using GGA and LAL probes in PCA is shown in Fig 5B.

Fig 4. Examples of fluorescence in situ hybridization experiments with whole-chromosome probe derived from G. gallus (GGA) and L. albicollis (LAL) onto P. cayana (PCA) chromosomes.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

Discussion

This study contributes to an understanding of chromosome evolution in two cuckoo species by providing the first chromosome painting data for these species. Our results also demonstrate a high chromosomal diversity, with G. guira presenting 2n = 76 with fission and fusion events, while P. cayana, in contrast, presents mainly fissions and just one fusion event, which are responsible for the high diploid number found, 2n = 90. Interestingly, no chromosomal rearrangements were found in common between G. guira and P. cayana. Additionally, our results with Giemsa staining are compared to other cuckoos and taxa that have been proposed recently as sister groups to cuckoos (Otidiformes, Musophagiformes and Opisthocomiformes).

Cytogenetic data remain scarce for cuckoo species and are restricted to classical cytogenetics with conventional staining [14–19]. The diploid number for G. guira was first determined to be 2n = 72 by de Lucca [26] and 2n = 66 in the study of Waldrigues and Ferrari [27], while for P. cayana, it was reported to be 2n = 76 [14]. However, our results indicate that the diploid number for both species is higher, 2n = 76 for G. guira and 2n = 90 for P. cayana. These findings indicate that chromosomal information from historical publications needs to be reviewed.

Regarding chromosome morphology and size, three basic karyotype patterns could be observed in cuckoos: 1) The avian standard karyotype, as found in chicken (few macrochromosomes, the first eight pairs are clearly larger than the others), found in Cuculus species and in Surniculus lugubris [16,18,19]: 2) A karyotype in which the first three pairs are of similar size to those in group 1, but with a higher number of medium-size biarmed macrochromosomes, probably derived by Robertsonian translocation. These karyotypes are found in G. guira (present study) and in the genus Crotophaga [14,15] and: 3) A karyotype in which the first three pairs are clearly smaller than in other cuckoo species and in chicken, probably derived from chromosomal fissions. This pattern of chromosome organization can be found in P. cayana (present study), Carpococcyx renauldi (2n = 60) [17], and in Phaenicophaeus tristis (2n = 78) [19].

The chromosome painting results confirmed that ancestral syntenies corresponding to chicken chromosomes 1–3 are fully conserved in G. guira (Fig 5A), while in P. cayana karyotype (Fig 5B), these synteny groups have undergone fissions (Fig 7A). Besides that, chromosome fusions were observed in G. guira. Although we observed many fusions in G. guira, only one fusion was detected in P. cayana, involving the chromosome homologous to GGA7 and possibly a microchromosome (considering that this segment was not labeled by any of the chromosome paints used). As G. guira is in the same subfamily as Crotophaga species (Crotophaginae) and has a similar karyotype [14,15], we can predict that the chromosome rearrangements observed in G. guira might be similar in Crotophaga species.

Fig 7. Schematic representation of the structural rearrangements found in PCA2, PCA13, PCA15 and GGU3.

Fig 7

Open in a new tab

Two fissions in the ancestral synteny homologous to GGA2 led to two chromosome pairs, homologous to GGA2p (A) and one chromosome pair homologous to GGA2q. GGA2q underwent a pericentric inversion, forming PCA2 (B).

The L. albicollis probes confirm the results obtained with G. gallus probes. However, in both species studied here the chromosomal reorganization would not have been found by the G. gallus probes alone. LAL6, which is homologous to a segment in GGA1q, revealed the occurrence of a pericentric inversion on chromosome 1 of G. guira, not found in P. cayana (Fig 6). This finding indicates that the inversion occurred after the divergence of the two species. Likewise, the fission of ancestral chromosome 1 in P. cayana also occurred after their divergence.

Fig 6. Schematic representation of the structural rearrangements found in GGU1, PCA1 and PCA6.

Fig 6

Open in a new tab

GGA1q underwent a pericentric inversion, leading to GGU1 (A). A centric fission in the ancestral synteny homologous to GGA1 led to two chromosome pairs, homologous to GGA1p and GGA1q (B).

The centromeric fission of the chromosome homologous to GGA1 is a frequent event in birds, appearing independently in different orders [20]. Pair 2 of P. cayana, which is homologous to GGA2, also showed an inversion, which was observed with probes corresponding to LAL2 (Fig 7B). These findings are in accordance with the fact that intrachromosomal rearrangements are frequent in avian genomes and may contribute to the phenotypic diversity of different bird species [28,29].

When the cuckoo karyotypes are compared with those of turacos [30,31], a sister group to cuckoos in the analysis of Jarvis et al. [13], a drastic difference is clearly observed with karyotypes of Group 1 and 2 here proposed in Cuculiformes. However, turacos show karyotypes similar with group 3, because they are characterized by the first three pairs of similar size [30,31], and smaller than in cuckoos of Groups 1 and 2. The other difference between cuckoos from Group 1 and 2 and turacos relate to the diploid number. To our knowledge, only two turaco species have been karyotyped: Musophaga violacea and Tauraco porphyreolophus, both with 2n = 82, which are higher than in species from Groups 1 and 2, but not very different of Group 3.

The karyotype of the Houbara bustard (Chlamydotis undulata), the only species available in the order Otidiformes, is similar to the ancestral karyotype of birds with 2n = 78, with 8 pairs considered as macrochromosomes and 30 pairs as microchromosomes. Chromosome fissions were proposed in the chromosomes homologous to GGA4q and 5 based on G-banding patterns [32]. If these rearrangements were confirmed by chromosome painting, they would represent synapomorphies with Cuculiformes, corresponding to the rearrangements observed in G. guira.

The hoatzin (O. hoazin) has been also considered as a sister taxon to cuckoos [33,34], or even considered to be a cuckoo [9]. However, the analysis performed by Hughes [8] support a sister relationship between the hoatzin and turacos, and not cuckoos. Sorenson and Payne [11] did not find evidence to include the hoatzin within Cuculiformes, or a sister relationship between cuckoos and hoatzin based on molecular data. Also, these authors did not find evidence to support a close relationship between turacos and cuckoos or between turacos and hoatzin. In a previous study, the fusion between GGA8/6 and GGA9/2 and the fissions of chromosomes homologous to GGA1 and GGA2 were found in the hoatzin (dos Santos et al., 2018). Although we found a fission in GGA1 in P. cayana, the breakpoints were not the same: in hoatzin the breakpoint was in an interstitial region, while in P. cayana it was a centric fission. However, the fission breakpoint on GGA2 in hoatzin was the same as in P. cayana. One of the resulting segments (corresponding to LAL4) was involved in a fusion event in hoatzin (GGA2q/10), while the same segment was involved in other fission in P. cayana.

In addition, the phylogenetic relationships within Cuculiformes are still problematic. Hence, Piaya occupies the basal position on the strict-consensus trees based on combined osteological, behavioral and ecological data, and based on behavioral and ecological data only [35]. However, a study based only on osteological characters shows a different topology in which the genus Carpococcyx occupies a basal position, while Piaya is in a more derived position, despite their similar karyotypes [8]. In despite of this, Guira and Crotophaga, which have similar karyotypes (Group 2) are placed as sister groups [8]. Therefore, although the importance of cytotaxonomy in supporting some phylogenetic results is clear, cytogenetic data of Cuculiformes are still fragmental, and only the analyses of a higher number of species can clarify the correct direction of rearrangements during the diversification of this order.

In conclusion, by combining comparative chromosome painting and conventional staining studies, we demonstrate that the cuckoo species can be classified into at least three groups based on their karyotypes. Unfortunately, so far, chromosome data have not defined the phylogenetic position and relationships of Cuculiformes with other birds. Considering that our results show that this order exhibits clear karyological diversity, additional detailed studies on a higher number of species should help to clarify the phylogeny of this interesting group of birds.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the staff of the research group from the “Diversidade Genética Animal” from the Universidade Federal do Pampa and to the “Laboratório de Cultura de Tecidos e Citogenética”, SAMAM, from the Instituto Evandro Chagas, for technical support. We would also like to thank the SISBIO for logistic support. This study was financed by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) and Pró-Reitoria de Ensino e Pesquisa (PROPESP), Universidade Federal do Pará. Finally, we would like to thank Mr. Alex Araújo for the illustration of the G. guira used in Fig 1 and the P. cayana in Fig 2.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) Grant number 307382/2019-02 to EHCO and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Gill F, Donsker D, Rasmussen P. (Eds). 2020. IOC World Bird List (v10.1). http://www.worldbirdnames.org/ (accessed on 10 February 2020).
  • 2.Payne RB. The cuckoos. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005; p. 644. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Krüger O, Sorenson MD, Davies NB. Does coevolution promote species richness in parasitic cuckoos? Proc. R. Soc. B. 2009; 276: 3871–3879. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Fossøy F, Sorenson MD, Liang W, Ekrem T, Moksnes A, Møller P, et al. Ancient origin and maternal inheritance of blue cuckoo eggs. Nat Commun. 2016; 12: 7, 10272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Livezey BC, Zusi RL. Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy II. Analysis and discussion. Zoolog. Journal of the Linnean Soc. 2007; 149: 1–95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Posso SR, Donatelli RJ. Biogeography on the early distribution of cuckoos (Aves: Cuculiformes). Zoologia. 2012; 29: 187–194. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Qiu S, Liu H, Cai Yan-Sen, Hou W, Dou L, Zhang Xiu-Yue, et al. Complete mitochondrial genome and the phylogenetic position of the common cuckoo, Cuculus canorus bakeri (Aves: Cuculiformes). Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2019; 4: 2, 2802–2803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hughes JM. Monophyly and phylogeny of cuckoos (Aves, Cuculidae) inferred from osteological characters. Zoolog. Journal of the Linnean Soc. 2000; 130: 263–307. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE. Phylogeny and Classification of Birds A Study in Molecular Evolution; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1990; p. 1080. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hughes JM, Baker AJ. Phylogenetic relationships of the enigmatic Hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoazin) resolved using mitochondrial and nuclear gene sequences. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 1999; 16: 1300–1307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sorenson MD, Payne RB. A molecular genetic analysis of cuckoo phylogeny In The cuckoos (ed Payne R. B) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005. pp. 68–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Prum RO, Berv JS, Dornburg A, Field DJ, Townsend JP, Lemmon EM, et al. A comprehensive phylogeny of birds (Aves) using targeted next-generation DNA sequencing. Nature. 2015; 526: 569–573. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jarvis ED, Mirarab S, Aberer AJ, Li B, Houde P, Li Cai et al. Whole-genome analyses resolve early branches in the tree of life of modern birds. Science. 2014; 346: 1320–1331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Waldrigues A, Ferrari I. Karyotypic study of Cuculiform Birds. I. Karyotype of the Smooth-Billed Ani (Crotophaga ani) Rev. Brasil. Genet. 1982; 1: 121–129. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Waldrigues A, Ferrari I, Neto AF. Estudo cariotípico em duas espécies de Cuculiformes Americanos (Aves). Acta Amazonica. 1983; 13: 37–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bian X, Qingwei L. Studies on the karyotypes of birds V. The 20 species of climber birds (Aves). Zoological Research. 1989; 10: 309–317. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Belterman RHR, De Boer LEM.. A miscellaneous collection of bird karyotypes. Genetica. 1990; 83, 17–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mohanty MK, Bhunya SP. Report on the karyology of three cytologically unknown birds: Surniculus lugubris, Orthotomus sutorius and Hippolais caligata. Z. zool. Syst. Evo1ut.-forsch. 1990; 28: 20–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bian X, Cai H, Ning S, Xong X, Han L, Chen X, et al. Studies on the Karyotypes of Birds XII. 15 Species of Nonpasserines. (Aves). Zoological Research. 1991; 12: 407–412. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kretschmer R, Ferguson-Smith MA, de Oliveira EHC. Karyotype evolution in birds: from conventional staining to chromosome painting. Genes. 2018b; 9: 181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.dos Santos MS, Furo IO, Tagliarini MM, Kretschmer R, O’Brien PCM, Ferguson-Smith MA, et al. The Karyotype of the Hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoazin)–A Phylogenetic Enigma of the Neornithes. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2018; 156:158–164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Garnero AV, Gunski RJ. Comparative analysis of the karyotype of Nothura maculosa and Rynchotus rufescens (Aves: Tinamidae). A case of chromosomal polymorphism. The Nucleus. 2000; 43: 64–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sasaki M, Ikeuchi T, Maino S. A feather pulp culture for avian chromosomes with notes on the chromosomes of the peafowl and the ostrich. Experientia. 1968; 24: 1923–1929. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.de Oliveira EHC, Tagliarini MM, Rissino JD, Pieczarka JC, Nagamachi CY, O’Brien PCM, et al. Reciprocal chromosome painting between white hawk (Leucopternis albicollis) and chicken reveals extensive fusions and fissions during karyotype evolution of Accipitridae (Aves, Falconiformes). Chromosome Res. 2010; 18: 349–355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kretschmer R, Furo IO, Gunski RJ, Garnero AV, Pereira JC, et al. Comparative chromosome painting in Columbidae (Columbiformes) reinforces divergence in Passerea and Columbea. Chromosome Res. 2018c; 26: 211–223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.de Lucca EJ. Cariótipos de 14 espécies de aves das ordens Cuculiformes, Galliformes, Passeriformes e Tinamiformes. Rev Bras de Pesquisas Méd e Biol. 1974; 7: 253–263. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Waldrigues A, Ferrari I. Estudo cromossômico em Guira guira (Aves). Ciênc. Cult. 1980; 32: 267–G.1.6. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ayala FJ, Coluzzi M. Chromosome speciation: humans, drosophila, and mosquitoes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005; 102: 6535–6542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Damas J, O’Connor RE, Griffin DK, Larkin DM. Avian Chromosomal Evolution In Avian Genomics in Ecology and Evolution, Kraus R.H.S. Switzerland AG: 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Stock AD, Mengden GA. Chromosome banding pattern conservatism in birds and nonhomology of chromosome banding patterns between birds, turtles, snakes and amphibians. Chromosoma. 1975; 50: 69–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Belterman RHR, De Boer LEM. A karyological study of 55 species of birds, including karyotypes of 39 species new to cytology. Genetica. 1984; 65: 39–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mahiddine-Aoudjit L, Boucekkine O, Ladjali-Mohammedi K. Banding cytogenetics of the vulnerable species Houbara bustard (Otidiformes) and comparative analysis with the Domestic fowl. Comparative Cytogenetics 2019, 13, 1–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hedges SB, Simmons MD, van DIJK MAM, CASPERS Gert-Jan, de JONG WW, SIBLEY CG. Phylogenetic relationships of the hoatzin, an enigmatic South American bird. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1995; 92: 11662–11665. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mindell DP, Sorenson MD, Huddleston CJ, Miranda HC, Knight A Jr, Sawchuk SJ, et al. Phylogenetic relationships among and within select avian orders based on mitochondrial DNA In Mindell DP, ed. Avian mol evolution and systematics. New York, NY, USA: Academic press; 1997; p. 213–247. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hughes JM. Phylogenetic Analysis of the Cuculidae (Aves, Cuculiformes) Using Behavioral and Ecological Characters. The Auk. 1996; 113: 10–22. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Igor V Sharakhov

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

24 Mar 2020

PONE-D-20-07068

Chromosomal evolution and phylogenetic considerations in cuckoos (Aves, Cuculiformes, Cuculidae)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. de Oliveira,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 08 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Igor V. Sharakhov

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods, please provide full details of the handling of the birds and methods used to obtain the biological samples used in your analyses.

3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Dr. de Oliveira,

I have carefully read your manuscript entitled "Chromosomal evolution and phylogenetic considerations in cuckoos (Aves, Cuculiformes, Cuculidae)". The manuscript contains new important information on karyotype structure and chromosomal evolution of two cuckoo species, Guira guira and Piaya cayana, using routine staining and whole chromosome painting with probes derived from two other bird species, and therefore this paper could be published in PLOS ONE. However, I believe that a few points should be addressed in the manuscript. First, I think that a brief characterization of the standard avian/chicken karyotype would be useful for those who are not closely familiar with cytogenetics of birds (see line 189). Second, you state that turacos have first three chromosome pairs of similar size, but these chromosomes are "larger" in the cuckoos of Groups 1 and 2 (see lines 232-233); if you in fact mean that the corresponding chromosomes of cuckoos are unequal in size, please rephrase the sentence. Third, if we assume that Piaya occupies the basal position on the phylogenetic tree due to certain morphological evidence, I do not think that morphological/karyotypic similarity of two other genera mentioned by you means close relationships between these groups, just because their characters may well represent respective symplesiomorphies (see lines 261-269). Moreover, I suggest that authors' names (and probably also years of first publication) are to be added to each species name mentioned both in the abstract and the main text for the first time. I also believe that the four main species names used in the text (i.e., Guira guira, Piaya cayana, Gallus gallus and Leucopternis albicollis) should be spelled out only if mentioned for the first time, and respectively cited as G. guira, P. cayana, G. gallus and L. albicollis in other parts of the text. Unnecessary text highlighting (lines 14 to 16) must be removed as well. Please change "round", "5", "cuckoos species" and "female" to "rounds", "5B", "cuckoo species" and "male" respectively (lines 97, 164, 195 and 406). Furthermore, please keep all your references in the reference list to the style recommended by PLOS, including removal of an unnecessary ISSN number (line 349). In addition, a few species/subspecies names given in the reference list (lines 318, 339 and 390) should be italicized.

Yours sincerely,

Reviewer #2: The presented manuscript aims to reconstruct the chromosome diversification in Cuculiformes using FISH with whole-chromosome probes in order to resolve the evolutionary processes in this taxon. This study is of importance as phylogenetic relationships of cuckoos is controversial and cytogenetic data are scarce, most of which require revision. The work is done at a good technical level and the manuscript meets the criteria for the publication in PLOS ONE journal.

Minor comments:

1) Lines 201-206. Consider revising the sentence: "In contrast to the extensive fusions observed in Guira guira, in Piaya cayana we observed just the fusion between the homologous chromosome GGA7 with an unidentified segment in PCA7, probably with a microchromosome, since none of the GGA and LAL probes tested – which corresponded to macrochromosome of GGA - hybridized to this segment"

2) Line 406. In the Figure 1 legend "a female Guira guira" should be replaced with "a male Guira guira"

3) Lines 410, 413. In the Figure 3 and 4 legends wcp (whole-chromosome probe) should be decrypted

4) Year is misssed in the reference 13

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Vladimir E. Gokhman

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 May 29;15(5):e0232509. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232509.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

15 Apr 2020

Dear Reviewers,

First of all, we would like to thank you for taking your time and patience in order to try to make the manuscript better. We tried to follow most of your suggestions, and answer your doubts. We hope we have achieved these goals.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Reviewer 1

1. First, I think that a brief characterization of the standard avian/chicken karyotype would be useful for those who are not closely familiar with cytogenetics of birds (see line 189).

A: Yes, we agree and we added a short description of the standar karyotype..

2. Second, you state that turacos have first three chromosome pairs of similar size, but these chromosomes are "larger" in the cuckoos of Groups 1 and 2 (see lines 232-233); if you in fact mean that the corresponding chromosomes of cuckoos are unequal in size, please rephrase the sentence.

A: Yes, we agree, the paragraph was unclear. We reformulated it.

3. Third, if we assume that Piaya occupies the basal position on the phylogenetic tree due to certain morphological evidence, I do not think that morphological/karyotypic similarity of two other genera mentioned by you means close relationships between these groups, just because their characters may well represent respective symplesiomorphies (see lines 261-269).

A: Yes, after a careful analysis, we decided to rewrite this paragraph, taking into account the phylogenetic proposal as a whole.

4. Moreover, I suggest that authors' names (and probably also years of first publication) are to be added to each species name mentioned both in the abstract and the main text for the first time. I also believe that the four main species names used in the text (i.e., Guira guira, Piaya cayana, Gallus gallus and Leucopternis albicollis) should be spelled out only if mentioned for the first time, and respectively cited as G. guira, P. cayana, G. gallus and L. albicollis in other parts of the text. Unnecessary text highlighting (lines 14 to 16) must be removed as well. Please change "round", "5", "cuckoos species" and "female" to "rounds", "5B", "cuckoo species" and "male" respectively (lines 97, 164, 195 and 406). Furthermore, please keep all your references in the reference list to the style recommended by PLOS, including removal of an unnecessary ISSN number (line 349). In addition, a few species/subspecies names given in the reference list (lines 318, 339 and 390) should be italicized.

A: Thank you for the corrections. We followed every corrections and suggestions, including the correct form of reference list recommended by Plos One.

Reviewer 2

1. Lines 201-206. Consider revising the sentence: "In contrast to the extensive fusions observed in Guira guira, in Piaya cayana we observed just the fusion between the homologous chromosome GGA7 with an unidentified segment in PCA7, probably with a microchromosome, since none of the GGA and LAL probes tested – which corresponded to macrochromosome of GGA - hybridized to this segment"

A: Yes, the sentence was quite confuse. We changed it to “Although we observed many fusions in Guira gira, only one fusion was detected in Piaya cayana, involving the chromosome homologous to GGA7 and possibly a microchromosome (considering that this segment was not labeled by any of the chromosome paints used).

2. Line 406. In the Figure 1 legend "a female Guira guira" should be replaced with "a male Guira guira"

A: Yes, we corrected it.

3. Lines 410, 413. In the Figure 3 and 4 legends wcp (whole-chromosome probe) should be decrypted

A: Yes, we corrected it.

4. Year is misssed in the reference 13

A: Thank you very much, we corrected it.

Decision Letter 1

Igor V Sharakhov

17 Apr 2020

Chromosomal evolution and phylogenetic considerations in cuckoos (Aves, Cuculiformes, Cuculidae)

PONE-D-20-07068R1

Dear Dr. Oliveira,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Igor V. Sharakhov

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Igor V Sharakhov

24 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-07068R1

Chromosomal evolution and phylogenetic considerations in cuckoos (Aves, Cuculiformes, Cuculidae)

Dear Dr. de Oliveira:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Igor V. Sharakhov

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES