Natural occurrence of monoploids and polyploids in the Indian catfish, Heteropneustes fossilis

T. J. Pandian* and R. Koteeswaran

School of Biological Sciences, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai 625 021, India

Natural occurrence of male and female haploid, triploid and tetraploid Heteropneustes fossilis is reported for the first time. Karyotypic and nuclear volumetric evidences are described to confirm the haploid, triploid and tetraploid nature of the identified individuals. Studies on spermatogenesis also confirm the observed unusual ploidies in these individuals.

OWING to the absence of well-defined sex chromosomes in fishes, polyploidy has spontaneously originated, perhaps repeatedly, and has been sustained in populations of diverse orders1. In fact much has been written on this subject by Ohno2. Expectedly, natural triploid populations have evolved in 8 genera representing 3 orders of fish; the viviparous Poeciliids (Poecilia, Poecilopsis)2, oviparous Cyprinids (Carassius4; Misgurnus5; Phoximus6; Rutilus7) and Athernids (Menidia)8. Viable hybrid unisexual triploids have also been recorded in Poecilia9: (i) P. latipinna-2 mexicana, and (ii) P. latipinna-mexicana; Poecilopsis10: (i) P. 2 monacha-lucida (ii) P. monacha-2 lucida, and (iii) P. monacha-viriosa-lucida; and Phoximus11: (i) P. 2 eos-neogaeus, and (ii) P. eos- 2 neogaeus1. Likewise, naturally occurring tetraploids have been reported in Carassius auratus4, the European Barbus sp.12, Misgurnus anguillicaudatus5 and Cobitis biwae13. The frequency with which unusual base replacements, inactivating mutations can occur in the duplicated genes, and the workload for replication has perhaps minimized the abundance of tetraploid fish species14.


*For correspondence.

In India, Pandey and Lakra15 recorded tetraploidy in a single individual of Clarias batrachus, using karyotype (2n = 50; 4n = 100) as the evidence. While listing chromosome number of several fishes, Manna16 doubted the possible occurrence of polyploidy in Heteropneustes fossilis, but provided no supporting evidence for it. Tiwary et al.17 claimed successful induction of triploidy in H. fossilis, but have not provided acceptable evidence for their claim. To the best of our knowledge, no report is as yet available for natural occurrence of haploids (male and female) in any fish species, although the publication of Varadaraj18 stands out as a single publication on the induction of viable haploid gynogenetic Oreochromis mossambicus.

This present communication reports on the natural occurrence of monoploids and polyploids (triploids and tetraploids), both in males and females in the South Indian populations of the catfish, H. fossilis, on the basis of the evidences of erythrocyte nuclear volume and karyotype. We have also shown the unconventional mechanism of spermatogenesis in these naturally occurring polyploids.

Collections of H. fossilis were made from different sources in Tamilnadu and Kerala during April–October 1998. As many as 120 individuals were randomly selected from these populations, for confirmation of their ploidy groups. Initially, a number of individuals were sacrificed to acquire blood for erythrocyte nuclear measurement19, and tissues for karyotyping20. However, all subsequent analyses were made following noninvasive procedures, as live monoploids and polyploids were required for further studies: Hence, blood was collected by caudal puncturing. Smears were fixed in methanol for 1 min and stained in 4% Giemsa in phosphate buffer (pH 6.4) for 10 min, and were subjected to nuclear measurements using stage and ocular micrometer (Erica, Japan) under a phase contrast microscope (Nikon,
Japan).

Table 1 shows the occurrence of monoploids, diploids, triploids, and tetraploids at the frequency of 1.7, 91.7, 4.2 and 2.5% respectively. In all these unusual ploidy groups, both males and females were recorded, though the frequency of female triploid and tetraploid was only one each, against 4 and 2 males, respectively.

Ploidy was identified on the basis of both erythrocyte (RBC) volume, and chromosome number. The nuclear volume of RBC increased from 4.1 µm3 in a haploid to 8.7, 13.7 and 19.5 µm3 in diploid, triploid and tetraploid, respectively (Figure 1). In tetraploids, the nuclear volume widely varied, compared to other ploidy groups.

The diploid chromosome number varied between 56 and 58. Of the 110 individuals analysed, as many as 86 individuals had 58 chromosomes, 15 individuals had 56, and the rest 57. Of the 120 individuals analysed, 2 proved to be haploids, of which the female bore 30

1135a.gif (13618 bytes)

1135b.gif (19844 bytes)

Figure 1.  Erythrocytes of haploids, diploids, triploids and tetraploid Indian catfish, H. fossilis. All photomicrographs were made at the same magnification of 40 ´ . Note the increase in diameter of the darkly stained nucleus in the haploids, diploid and polyploids.

chromosomes and the male 29 only. All the 5 identified as triploids consistently had 87 chromosomes. No difference was noted in the chromosome number between male and female triploids. The tetraploid carried 116 chromosomes. The presence of microchromosomes were observed in all these ploidy groups (Figure 2).

Table 2 shows the head diameter of euploid and aneuploid sperms generated by haploids, diploids, and polyploids of H. fossilis. In diploids, spermatogenesis is typical and conventional, resulting in the production of 94% euploid (n) sperms; likewise, spermatogenesis was also typical and conventional in tetraploids, resulting in the production of 90% euploid (2n) sperms. But, the spermatogenesis in triploids was unconventional and hazardous resulting the production of 56% euploid sperms and 43% aneuploid sperms. Among the euploid sperms, some were haploids while others were deploids, triploids, and some even tetraploids (Figure 3). The hazardous nature of spermatogenesis is indicated by the presence of hypohaploids, hypodiploids, hypotriploids and hypertriploids. The ability of triploid and tetraploid sperms to activate/fertilize diploid H. fossilis eggs (n) has been reported elsewhere21,22.

To the best of our knowledge this is the first report on the natural occurrence of male and female haploids in fish; triploids and tetraploids have already been reported, mostly from China, Japan, Europe, and North America1. Based on a single individual of Clarias batrachus, natural occurrence of tetraploidy in India was claimed15.

In India, the presence of the genus Heteropneustes is predominently represented by a single species H. fossilis. In recent years the occurrence of H. microps, which hails from Sri Lanka, has been reported (S. Sridhar and M. A. Haniffa, pers. commun.). The morphological character by which these two species are distinguished is by the anal fin, which remains confluent with caudal fin in H. microps, but separate in H. fossilis. That all the 120 individuals analysed in the present work had anal and caudal fins, typical of H. fossilis clearly indicates that the individuals were not hybrids of these

1136a.jpg (16291 bytes)

Figure 2.  Karyotypes of the male and female haploids, diploid, triploid, and tetraploid H. fossilis. Photomicrographs for haploids, diploid and triploid were made at the magnification of 100 ´ and for tetraploid at 40 ´ . Arrows indicate the microchromosome(s).

1136b.jpg (20493 bytes)

Figure 3.  Sperms of diploid and tetraploid (upper panel) and triploid (lower panel) H. fossilis. Based on nuclear diameter (lightly visible in the diploid and tetraploid, as indicated by arrows), genomic levels of sperms can be identified; note the presence of hyperdiploid (HPD) and hypohaploid (HPH) sperms in tetraploids. Note also the presence of haploid (n), diploid (2n), triploid (3n) and tetraploid (4n) sperms in diploid and polyploids. Sperms with two tails (2T) and two heads (2H) (also indicated by an arrow in the right upper panel) are indicated. All photomicrographs were made at the magnification of 40 ´ .

two species. Moreover, the fact that almost conventional but partially hazardous spermatogenesis occurs in tetraploid individuals also confirms that these analysed monoploids and polyploids were neither a new species nor a hybrid.

It is an established fact that whereas triploid females are sterile, males are partially fertile and produce viable sperms1. However, fertile female triploids have been reported in a couple of carp species23–25; in these, the pathways through which fertile oocytes are produced differ in general from the conventional one1. The hazardous pathways through which sperms are generated in these partially fertile triploid males have been broadly indicated by a couple of previous authors from their flow cytometric and cytological studies26,27. In triploid Pagrus major Kawamura et al.28 reported the production of sperm carrying haploid to heptaploid genome. In the present study too, sperms with haploid to tetra-ploid genome were recorded. It is not clear how from a triploid, sperms carrying 4n–7n genome can be generated.

Secondly, some sperms generated by triploids were aneuploids sometimes with 2 heads and 2 tails (e.g. Pagrus major)29. These two kinds of abnormalities appear to be common for triploid H. fossilis too. Therefore, an intensive study on cytological pathways, through which sperms carrying polyploid genomes are generated in these unusual ploidy groups, is presently being studied.


  1. Pandian, T. J. and Koteeswaran, R., Hydrobiologia, 1998, 384, 167–243.
  2. Ohno, S., Evolution by Gene Duplication, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1970, p. 300.
  3. Schultz, J., Am. Nat., 1969, 103, 605–619.
  4. Kobayashi, H., Kawashima, Y. and Takeuchi, N., Jpn. J.
    Icthyol
    ., 1976, 17, 153–160.
  5. Arai, K., Matsubara, K. and Suzuki, R., Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi, 1991, 57, 2167–2172.
  6. Joswiak, G. R., Stasiak, R. H. and Koop, B. F., Experientia, 1985, 41, 505–507.
  7. Collares-Pereira, M. J., in Selection, Hybridization and Genetic Engineering in Acquaculture (ed. Tiews, K.), Heenemann,
    Berlin, 1987, vol. 1, pp. 83–92.
  8. Echelle, A. A., Echelle, A. F., Debault, L. E. and Dunham,
    D. W., J. Fish, Biol., 1988, 32, 835–844.
  9. Monaco, P. J., Rasch, E. M. and Balsano, J. S., in Evolutionary Genetics of Fishes (ed. Turner, B. J.), Plenum Publishing Corp., New York, 1984, pp. 311–328.
  10. Schultz, J., in Evolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae), (eds Medde, G. K. and Snelson, F. F.), Prentice Hall, USA, 1989, pp. 69–87.
  11. Dawley, R. M., Schultz, R. J. and Goddard, K. A., Copeia, 1987, 87, 275–283.
  12. Agnese, J. F., Berresi, P., Leveque, C. and Guegan, J. F., Aquat. Living Res., 1990, 3, 305–311.
  13. Kusunoki, T. K., Arai, K. and Suzuki, R., Fish. Sci., 1994, 60, 415–422.
  14. Larhammar, D. and Risinger, C., Trends Genet., 1994, 10, 418–419.
  15. Pandey, N. and Lakra, W. S., Aquaculture, 1997, 149, 31–38.
  16. Manna, G. K., in Fish Genetics in India (eds Das, P. and Jhingran, A. G.), Today and Tomorrow’s Printers and Publishers, New Delhi, 1989, pp. 21–46.
  17. Tiwary, B. K., Kirubaharan, R. and Ray, A. K., Asian Fish. Sci., 1997, 10, 123–130.
  18. Varadaraj, K., J. Exp. Zool., 1993, 167, 460–467.
  19. Varadaraj, K., Ph D thesis, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai, 1990.
  20. Kligermann, A. D. and Bloom, S. E., J. Fish. Res. Bd Can., 1977, 34, 226–269.
  21.  
  22. Koteeswaran, R. and Pandian, T. J., J. Exp. Zool., 1998 (under preparation).
  23. Koteeswaran, R. and Pandian, T. J., Aquacult. Res., 1998 (under preparation).
  24. Wu, W., Li, C., Liu, G., Xu, D., Liu, C., Xie, J. and Shen, C., Acta Hydrobiol. Sci., 1988, 12, 335–363.
  25. Yang, X., Chen, M., Yu, X. and Chen, H., Aquaculture, 1993, 111, 320.
  26. Cherfas, N. B., Gomelsky, B. I., Emelyanova, O. V. and Recourbratsky, A. V., Aquacult. Fish. Manag., 1994, 25, 943–953.
  27. Benfey, T. J., Sutterlin, A. M. and Thompson, A. J., Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 1986, 1682, 1–33.
  28. Koteeswaran, R., Sheela, S. G. and Pandian, T. J., Curr. Sci., 1995, 61, 545–547.
  29. Kawamura, K., Hosoya, K. and Fukusho, K., Fish. Sci., 1995, 61, 355–356.
  30. Nakumara, M., Tsuchiya, F., Isahashi, M. and Nagahama, Y., Zool. Sci., 1995, 10, 117–125.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.  Financial support by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and the Department of Biotechnology,
New Delhi, is gratefully acknowledged. We are thankful to Dr M. A. Haniffa and Mr S. Sridhar, Palayankottai for their help.

Received 23 November 1998; accepted 25 January 1999