Article Figures & Tables
Figures
- Fig. 1.
Mating of a marbled crayfish female with a P. fallax male. The male (top) holds the female firmly with the chelipeds and ischial hooks and his gonopods are plugged into the female's spermatheca.
- Fig. 2.
Comparison of complete mitochondrial genomes of marbled crayfish, P. fallax and P. alleni. The sequences of marbled crayfish from two laboratory populations (Heidelberg, Petshop) and two wild populations (Moosweiher, Madagascar) are completely identical. In contrast, the sequences of P. fallax and P. alleni differ in 144 and 1165 SNPs (vertical lines) from marbled crayfish, respectively. Purple bars indicate positions of 12S rRNA and cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) fragments that were used for an earlier phylogenetic analysis (Martin et al., 2010).
- Fig. 3.
Ploidy status of the marbled crayfish genome. (A) Microsatellite locus PclG-02 in marbled crayfish showing a combination of three alleles of 267 bp, 271 bp and 303 bp fragment length. (B) Flow cytometry of haemocytes of P. fallax (Pf) and marbled crayfish (mc) revealing an approximately 1.4 fold increased DNA content in marbled crayfish. The right panel shows the means±standard deviations (s.d.) of two biological and three technical replicates. Differences are highly significant (P=1.33×10−7, Welsh two-sided t-test).
- Fig. 4.
Differences in global DNA methylation between marbled crayfish (red) and P. fallax (blue). Three complete juveniles and major organs of three adult females were analysed in each crayfish. Note the consistently and significantly greater methylation levels in P. fallax (P=1.48×10−7 for the sum of all samples, Welsh two-sided t-test). Error bars represent s.d.
- Fig. 5.
Comparison of morphological characters between marbled crayfish and P. fallax. (A) Annulus ventralis from exuvia of marbled crayfish. (B) Annulus ventralis of P. fallax. (C) Annulus ventralis of P. alleni. Note striking structural difference to sperm receptacles of marbled crayfish and P. fallax. (D) Areola of marbled crayfish. (E) Areola of P. fallax. (F) Left cheliped of marbled crayfish of 8.4 cm TL. (G) Left cheliped of P. fallax female of 4.7 cm TL. Form, dentation and setation of the chelae are very similar in both species. (H) Coloration of cephalothorax in marbled crayfish. (I) Coloration of cephalothorax in P. fallax male (photo: C. Lukhaup).
- Fig. 6.
Comparison of growth between marbled crayfish and P. fallax. The three groups were reared for 250 days at 20°C under identical conditions and fed with the same food ad libitum. The differences between marbled crayfish and P. fallax females are highly significant (asterisks; P=2.06×10−5; Welsh two-sided t-test). Error bars represent s.d.
- Fig. 7.
Comparison of body size and fecundity between marbled crayfish and P. fallax. (A) Largest marbled crayfish from our laboratory having a total length of 10.3 cm. (B) Clutch of same specimen consisting of 731 eggs. (C) Differences in carapace length between populations of ovigerous marbled crayfish (mc) and P. fallax females (PF) from comparable climatic regions. Data for marbled crayfish (n=57) was obtained in Madagascar (Jones et al., 2009) and data for P. fallax (n=27) was obtained in Florida (Hendrix et al., 2000). Horizontal bars indicate ranges and vertical lines indicate mean values (m) and lower and upper range limits. The difference between marbled crayfish and P. fallax females is highly significant as indicated by the P-value. (D) Differences in clutch size between the same populations as in (C). The difference is highly significant as indicated by the P-value. For statistical calculations, the s.d. was taken as half the range, and a Bonferroni adjustment for multiplicity was applied.
Tables
- Table 1.
Crossbreeding experiments between marbled crayfish, P. fallax and P. alleni
- Table 2.
Parentage analysis in crossbreeds of marbled crayfish x P. fallax
Keywords
Article Navigation
Related articles
Cited by...
More in this TOC section
Similar articles
Other journals from The Company of Biologists
First person interview – Mary Salcedo
Have you seen our interviews with early-career first authors of our papers? In the latest issue, first author Mary Salcedo discusses her latest Methods and Techniques paper in which a newly created method geometrically analyses 789 insect wings.
Find out how Pamela Imperadore’s Travelling Fellowship grant from The Company of Biologists took her to Germany, where she used new imaging techniques to investigate the cellular machinery underlying octopus arm regeneration. Don’t miss the next application deadline for 2020 travel, coming up on 29 November. Where will your research take you?
On the cover, David Coppola, Brent Craven and their colleagues refute a widely-debated theory of olfactory coding first suggested by the Nobel Laureate Lord Adrian over half a century ago.
Biology Open has strong credentials and publishing with us is easy and fast. BiO aims to provide rapid publication for scientifically sound observations and valid conclusions in developmental, cell, experimental and translational biology. Submit your paper here – you’ll be in good company!
Recent cell science highlights in BiO – Masamitsu Sato and colleagues show that the conserved microtubule-associated protein CLASP facilitates bundling of spindle microtubules in early mitosis.
Transfer to Biology Open
If your submission to one of our sister journals, Development, Journal of Cell Science, Journal of Experimental Biology or Disease Models & Mechanisms, is unsuccessful, you can transfer your paper and any reviews directly to Biology Open. The majority of papers transferred with reviews are accepted for publication - find out more.
BiO joins the Review Commons initiative
Biology Open is pleased to be a part of the new and exciting Review Commons initiative, launched by EMBO and ASAPbio. Streamlining the publishing process, Review Commons enables high-quality peer review to take place before journal submission. Papers submitted to Review Commons will be assessed independently of any journal, focusing solely on the paper’s scientific rigor and merit.
preLights - Mammalian Y RNAs are modified at discrete guanosine residues with N-glycans
Connor Rosen discusses his selected preprint by Carolyn Bertozzi, Ryan Flynn and their co-workers on the glycosylation of small non-coding RNAs in mammalian cells.