Caryologia. International Journal of Cytology, Cytosystematics and Cytogenetics 75(2): 129-141, 2022 Firenze University Press www.fupress.com/caryologia ISSN 0008-7114 (print) | ISSN 2165-5391 (online) | DOI: 10.36253/caryologia-1562 Caryologia International Journal of Cytology, Cytosystematics and Cytogenetics Citation: Mikail Açar, Neslihan Taşar (2022) A statistical overview to the chro- mosome characteristics of some Centaurea L. taxa distributed in the Eastern Anatolia (Turkey). Caryologia 75(2): 129-141. doi: 10.36253/caryolo- gia-1562 Received: February 01, 2022 Accepted: July 06, 2022 Published: September 21, 2022 Copyright: © 2022 Mikail Açar, Neslihan Taşar. This is an open access, peer- reviewed article published by Firenze University Press (http://www.fupress. com/caryologia) and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. ORCID MA: 0000-0003-3848-5798 NT: 0000-0002-0417-4660 A statistical overview to the chromosome characteristics of some Centaurea L. taxa distributed in the Eastern Anatolia (Turkey) Mikail Açar1,*, Neslihan Taşar2 Department of Plant and Animal Production, Tunceli Vocational School of Higher Educa- tion, Munzur University, Tunceli, 62000, Turkey *Corresponding author. E-mail: mikailacar@munzur.edu.tr Abstract. This study performed statistical analyses based on chromosome micromor- phology of 18 Centaurea taxa, two of which are endemic. ANOVA, Correlation analy- sis, Discriminant analysis and Cluster analysis were performed to determine the rela- tionships between taxa based on chromosomal features. In addition, according to the data obtained from these analyses, the relationships between taxa and sections were tried to be interpreted. As a result of the analyses, the taxa C. drabifolia Sm. floccosa (Boiss.) Wagenitz & Greuter, C. kotschyi (Boiss. & Heldr.) Hayek var. floccosa (Boiss.) Wagenitz and C. behen L. and C. polypodiifolia Boiss pseudobehen (Boiss.) Wagen- itz were located close to each other. These taxa are located in the same sections in the morphological classification. Besides, in the Discriminant analysis, the taxa of Acrocen- tron, Microlophus, Cheirolepis sections were closely located compared to all other taxa. However, results were not seen to cover all taxa of the sections. This study revealed various chromosomal characteristics of some Centaurea taxa distributed in the Eastern Anatolia. It also performed statistical analyses on these data. While determining the relationships between taxa according to chromosomal characteristics, comparing chro- mosomal formulas and indices collectively and evaluating the relationships was found to be relatively consistent with morphological classification. Keywords: Centaurea, chromosome, endemic, statistical analysis, Turkey. INTRODUCTION Members of the Asteraceae family occupy a wide range of habitat types and are found in almost every region except Antarctica. There are 129 gen- era and 1156 species of the Asteraceae family in Turkey. Centaurea L. genus, which is one of the important genera of the Asteraceae family, is accepted as a systematically problematic genus and spreads globally with approximately 700 species in Asia, North Africa, America, and Europe (Güner et al. 2000). In Turkey, the genus Centaurea is represented by 238 species. 125 of these species are endemic (Güner et al. 2012). The endemism rate of this genus, which has many endemic species, is approximately 52%. The systematics of the genus Centaurea has changed, especially with the development of molec- 130 Mikail Açar, Neslihan Taşar ular techniques, and some problems have been solved. In the light of these studies, it is known that Turkey is the essential gene center of the genus Centaurea with many rare endemic species. Species of the Centaurea in Turkey can gener- ally grow in very different habitats such as stony cal- careous cliffs, vineyards, roadsides, coastlines, steppe, scrub, fallow areas, sandy beaches, forests, dry mead- ows, rocky slopes. In addition, although many species of this genus have medicinal properties, especially the flowering above-ground parts or only the flower is used to cure many diseases and relieve pain (Yeşilada et al. 2004; Gürbüz & Yeşilada 2007). Many taxonomic, cyto- taxonomic, morphological, anatomical and karyological studies have been carried out on Centaurea taxa, which are used medically (Haratym et al. 2020; Fattaheian- Dehkordi et al. 2021; Khammar & Djeddi 2012; ) This study was carried out on a statistical evaluation of data obtained from our previous cytological studies (Hayta et al. 2017; Tasar et al. 2018a; 2018b; 2018c). In the current study, it is aimed to investigate the relationship between taxa, whose karyotype character- istics were revealed using micromorphological chromo- some data, and investigate the compatibility and useful- ness of this relationship with morphological classifica- tion by performing various statistical analyses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Material Plant samples belonging to the genus Centaurea were collected and numbered between 2011 and 2012 from their natural habitats in different localities in Elazığ province (Turkey) and its surroundings by field studies. The localities of the taxa are given in Table 1. Methods Chromosome measurements The seeds of the plant samples were sown in petri dishes and germinated in an oven at 20-22 ºC. Roots reaching 1–2 cm in length from the germinated seeds were cut and kept in colchicine for 2 hours at room temperature and subjected to pretreatment. Afterward, the root tips were placed in Carnoy fixative (3:1) and kept in the refrig- erator at +4 ºC for 24 hours and fixed. At the end of the period, root tips were hydrolyzed in 1N HCl in an oven at 60 ºC for 5-18 minutes. Root tips removed from hydroly- sis were stained with Feulgen stain for 1 hour in a dark environment at room temperature. Then it was washed 2-3 times with tap water. For preparation, the growth meris- tem part was cut off with a sharp razor blade in a drop of 45% acetic acid on the slide, and the coverslip was closed (Elçi 1982). The photographs of each species’ three best somatic cells were taken with a Canon digital camera and an Olympus BX53 microscope with a 100-lens. The nam- ing system of Levan et al. (1964) was used to locate the centromere. The intra-chromosomal asymmetry index (A1) was calculated according to the formula proposed by Zarco (1986). The interchromosomal asymmetry index (A2) and karyotype symmetry nomenclature were made according to Stebbins (1971). Chromosomes measurements of Centaurea taxa are given in Table 3. Data Analyses Various formulas and indexes were used for analy- ses based on chromosome characteristics. The measure- ments were built on haploid datasets. The calculations and abbreviations used in the analysis are as follows. TLC (total length of chromosomes), MTLC (mean of total length of chromosomes), MAX (maximum length of chromosome), MIN (minimum length of chromosomes), MLA (mean of long arms), MSA (mean of short arms), MrV (mean of r-value), MdV (mean of d value), MAR (mean of arm ratio), MCI (mean of chromosome index), MRLC (mean of relative length of chromosomes), DRL (difference of range of relative length), TF% (total form percentage), S% (relative length of shortest chromosome), A1 (intrachromosomal asymmetry index), A2 (interchro- mosomal asymmetry index), and A (Degree of asymme- try). Both arm ratios were assumed to be equally affected (Adhikary 1974). All karyotype formulas and indexes were determined based on Huziwara (1962) (TF%), Lev- an et al. (1964) (r and d values), Zarco (1986) (A1 and A2), Watanabe (1999) (A), Peruzzi & Eroğlu (2013) (CI) as well. The abbreviations were taken from Rezeai et al. (2014) (RLC%, DRL, S%). The formulas are as follows. Formulas and Indexes r value = d value = Length of the long arm of chromosome-Length of the short arm of chromosome arm ratio = CI = 131A statistical overview to the chromosome characteristics of some Centaurea L. taxa distributed in the Eastern Anatolia RLC% = x 100 DRL = (maximum relative length) - (minimum relative length) TF% = x 100 S% = x 100 , (li = lengths of a long arm, si = lengths of a short arm, n = haploid chromosome number). (n = number of homologous chromo- some pairs, bi = the average length of short arms in every homologous chromosome pair, Bi = the average length of long arms in every homologous chromosome pair). (S = standard deviation of chromosome lengths, = mean of chromosome lengths). A data matrix was constructed according to 17 chromosomal traits in Table 4. The discriminant analy- sis (LDA) was used based on the data matrix. Next, the Table 1. The localities of studied taxa. Taxa Localities Voucher specimen C. aggregata Fisch. & C.A.Mey. ex DC. subsp. aggregata B7 Elazığ; Sivrice, Gözeli village, Kuşakcı mountain slopes, 1550 m. 28.06.2012, Based on Grids (Turkey): A6, A7, A8, A9, B6, B7, B8, B9, C5, C6, C10 Taşar 1001 C. virgata Lam. B7 Elazığ; Koçkale village on the Elazig-Bingöl road, mountainous area, 1380 m. 21.06.2012, Based on Grids (Turkey): A2, A3, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C10 Taşar 1003 C. balsamita Lam. B7 Elazığ; Sürsürü district, roadside, 1050 m. 02.07.2012, Based on Grids (Turkey): A2, B7, B8, B9, C4, C6, C8 Taşar 1006 C. behen L. B7 Elazığ; Keban road, Beşik village entrance, roadside, 1090 m. 15. 07. 2012, Based on Grids (Turkey): B6, B7, B8, B9, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10 Taşar 1009 C. polypodiifolia Boiss. var. pseudobehen (Boiss.) Wagenitz B7 Elazığ; Çemişgezek, Danbüken, In the village of Avşan, 1090 m. 16.07.2012 , Based on Grids (Turkey): B6, B7 Taşar 1010 C. polypodiifolia Boiss. var. polypodiifolia B7 Elazığ; Baskil, Kumtarla village, hills, 1090 m. 14.07.2012, Based on Grids (Turkey): A8, A9, B6, B7, B8, B9, C9, C10 Taşar 1012 C. carduiformis DC. subsp. carduiformis var. carduiformis B7 Elazığ; Keban, Pınarlar village on Arapgir road, field edges, 1430 m. 20-07-2012, Based on Grids (Turkey): A3, A4, A5, A6, A8, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, C4, C5 Taşar 1013 C. urvillei DC. subsp. armata Wagenitz B7 Elazığ; Baskil, radiolink station surroundings, 1350 m. 16.06.2011, Based on Grids (Turkey): A2, A4, A5, B1, B2, B6, B7, C5, C6 Taşar 1015 C. urvillei DC. subsp. hayekiana Wagenitz B7 Elazığ; Baskil, Kayabeyli village, slopes, 1460 m. 13.06.2011, Based on Grids (Turkey): B6, B7, C3 Taşar 1017 C. urvillei DC. subsp. urvillei B7 Elazığ; Harput, Rocky areas around Anguzlu Baba Tomb, 1400 m. 13.06.2011, Based on Grids (Turkey):A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, B2, B6, B7, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6,C7 Taşar 1014 C. cynarocephala Wagenitz B7-Elazığ; Sivrice, Gözeli village, Kuşakçı mountain, 1750 m. 23.06.2012, Based on Grids (Turkey): C8 Taşar 1020 C. kurdica Reichardt B7 Elazığ; Baskil roadway, 23. km. roadsides, 1280 m. 13.07.2011, Based on Grids (Turkey): B7, B8, C8 Taşar 1022 C. derderiifolia Wagenitz B7 Elazığ; Baskil, Haroğlu mountain lower slopes, 1350 m. 22.07.2011, Based on Grids (Turkey): B6, B7 Taşar 1024 C. drabifolia Sm. floccosa (Boiss.) Wagenitz & Greuter B7 Elazığ; Baskil, Haroğlu mountain, behind the TV station, rocky area, 1950 m. 22.07.2011, Based on Grids (Turkey): A4, A5, A6, B2, B3, B4, B6, B7, C3, C4 Taşar 1025 C. kotschyi (Boiss. & Heldr.) Hayek var. floccosa (Boiss.) Wagenitz B7 Elazığ; Baskil, Yukarı Kuluşağı village Kuzucuk hamlet mountainous region, 1350 m. 26.08.2012, Based on Grids (Turkey): B6, C6 Taşar 1026 C. saligna (K.Koch) Wagenitz B7 Elazığ; Palu, Baltasi village, the hills behind the military post, 1450 m. 17.07.2012, Based on Grids (Turkey): B6, B7, B8, B9, C9, C10 Taşar 1027 C. iberica Trev. ex Sprengel B7 Elazığ; Sürsürü District, 1067 m. 22.06.2011, Based on Grids (Turkey): A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, B1, B2, B3, B4, B8, B9, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10 Taşar 1028 C. solstitialis L. subsp. solstitialis B7 Elazığ; Sürsürü District, 1067 m. 22.06.2011, Based on Grids (Turkey): A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A7, A8, B1, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C8, C9 Taşar 1029 132 Mikail Açar, Neslihan Taşar Table 2. The sections of the studied Centaurea taxa. Section Taxa Acrolophus C. aggregata subsp. aggregata, C. virgata Acrocentron C. urvillei subsp. hayekiana, C. urvillei subsp. urvillei, C. carduiformis subsp. carduiformis var. carduiformis, C. urvillei subsp. armata Stizolophus C. balsamita Microlophus C. behen, C. polypodiifolia var. pseudobehen, C. polypodiifolia var. polypodiifolia Cynaroides C. cynarocephala, C. kurdica Cheirolepis C. derderiifolia, C. drabifolia subsp. floccosa, C. kotschyi var. floccosa, C. saligna Calcitrapa C. iberica Mesocentron C. solstitialis subsp. solstitialis Table 3. Chromosomes measurements of Centaurea taxa (Ch. No: Chromosome No, C: Total length of the chromosome, L: Length of the long arm, S: Length of the short arm, CP: Centromeric position). Ch. No C L S CP Ch. No C L S CP C. aggregata subsp. aggregata C. urvillei subsp. hayekiana 1 4.74 2.37 2.37 M 1 6.07 3.04 3.04 M 2 4.74 2.47 2.26 m 2 4.54 2.54 2 m 3 4.68 2.53 2.16 m 3 3.86 2.43 1.43 sm 4 4.32 2.95 1.37 sm 4 3.75 1.93 1.82 m 5 4.32 2.95 1.37 sm 5 3.68 2.18 1.5 m 6 4.21 2.95 1.26 sm 6 3.68 2.32 1.36 sm 7 3.89 2.37 1.53 m 7 3 1.64 1.36 m 8 3.68 2.32 1.37 m 8 2.89 1.64 1.25 m 9 3.37 1.68 1.68 M 9 2.57 1.29 1.29 M 10 3.05 1.58 1.47 m 10 2.29 1.14 1.14 M C. urvillei subsp. urvillei C. behen 1 5.28 2.64 2.64 M 1 4.04 2.57 1.46 sm 2 4.66 2.56 2.1 m 2 3.96 2.14 1.82 m 3 4.24 2.8 1.44 sm 3 3.5 1.89 1.61 m 4 4.08 2.04 2.04 M 4 3.46 1.93 1.54 m 5 4 2.28 1.72 m 5 3.43 1.71 1.71 M 6 3.58 2.12 1.46 m 6 3.21 1.61 1.61 M 7 3.4 2.12 1.28 m 7 3.14 1.57 1.57 M 8 2.92 1.66 1.26 m 8 3.07 1.75 1.32 m 9 2.88 2.16 0.72 sm 10 2.8 2.08 0.72 sm C. polypodiifolia var. pseudobehen C. polypodiifolia var. polypodiifolia 1 4.4 2.32 2.08 m 1 4.66 2.61 2.05 m 2 4.04 2.38 1.66 m 2 3.8 1.9 1.9 M 3 4.12 2.92 1.2 sm 3 3.07 1.83 1.24 m 4 3.84 2.56 1.28 sm 4 2.59 1.59 1 m 5 3.6 2.04 1.56 m 5 2.37 1.32 1.05 m 6 3.44 2.16 1.28 m 6 2.37 1.66 0.71 sm 7 3.44 1.72 1.72 M 7 2.12 1.22 0.9 m 8 3.26 1.63 1.63 M 8 1.93 1.24 0.68 sm C. carduiformis subsp. carduiformis C. urvillei subsp. armata 1 6.11 3.63 2.49 m 1 4.74 2.37 2.37 M 2 5.18 3.15 2.03 m 2 4.74 2.47 2.26 m 133A statistical overview to the chromosome characteristics of some Centaurea L. taxa distributed in the Eastern Anatolia Ch. No C L S CP Ch. No C L S CP 3 4.55 2.93 1.63 sm 3 4.68 2.53 2.16 m 4 4.31 2.49 1.82 m 4 4.32 2.95 1.37 sm 5 4.25 2.39 1.86 m 5 4.32 2.95 1.37 sm 6 4.22 2.65 1.57 m 6 4.21 2.95 1.26 sm 7 4.01 2.8 1.2 sm 7 3.89 2.37 1.53 m 8 3.52 2.09 1.43 m 8 3.68 2.32 1.37 m 9 3.3 2.15 1.15 sm 9 3.37 1.68 1.68 M 10 2.88 1.57 1.31 m 10 3.05 1.58 1.47 m C. cynarocephala C. kurdica 1 6.41 3.62 2.79 sm 1 5.81 3.36 2.44 m 2 5.12 3.5 1.62 M 2 5.17 3.01 2.16 m 3 4.99 3.09 1.9 m 3 4.71 2.36 2.36 M 4 4.35 3.21 1.15 sm 4 4.76 2.86 1.91 m 5 4.29 2.15 2.15 M 5 4.4 2.7 1.69 m 6 4.22 2.62 1.6 m 6 4.18 2.58 1.6 m 7 3.91 2.38 1.53 m 7 4.09 2.7 1.4 sm 8 3.68 2.26 1.41 m 8 4.06 3.03 1.2 sm 9 3.18 1.79 1.38 m 9 3.91 2.41 1.5 m C. derderiifolia C. drabifolia subsp. floccosa 1 2.48 1.46 1.02 m 1 4.42 2.21 2.21 M 2 2.4 1.4 1 m 2 3.84 2.53 1.32 sm 3 2.3 1.39 0.9 m 3 3.84 2.53 1.32 sm 4 2.1 1.31 0.79 m 4 3.37 2.37 1 sm 5 2.06 1.03 1.03 M 5 3.28 2.21 1.08 sm 6 2.07 1.16 0.9 sm 6 3.06 1.85 1.21 m 7 1.98 1.21 0.77 m 7 3 1.79 1.21 m 8 1.9 1.08 0.82 m 8 2.89 1.79 1.11 m 9 1.85 1.1 0.76 m 9 2.76 1.61 1.16 m 10 1.81 1.27 0.53 sm 10 2.84 2 0.84 sm 11 1.67 1.03 0.64 m 11 2.54 1.49 1.05 m 12 1.54 0.84 0.7 m 12 2.21 1.11 1.11 M 13 1.52 1.03 0.48 sm 13 2.13 1.18 0.95 m 14 1.47 0.74 0.73 m 14 2.03 1.13 0.89 m 15 1.35 0.77 0.58 m 15 1.95 1.16 0.79 m 16 1.35 0.77 0.58 m 16 1.89 1.05 0.84 m 17 1.29 0.65 0.65 M 17 1.79 0.95 0.84 m 18 1.13 0.52 0.61 m 18 1.79 1 0.79 m C. kotschyi var. floccosa C. saligna 1 4.93 3.48 1.44 sm 1 6.08 3.44 2.65 m 2 3.81 2.56 1.26 sm 2 5.26 2.95 2.31 m 3 3.81 2.26 1.56 m 3 5.1 2.55 2.55 M 4 3.26 1.63 1.63 M 4 4.66 3.03 1.63 sm 5 3.1 1.8 1.3 m 5 4.52 2.52 2 m 6 3 1.8 1.2 m 6 4.02 2.18 1.84 m 7 2.9 1.8 1.1 m 7 3.9 2.52 1.38 sm 8 2.85 1.74 1.11 m 8 3.47 2.02 1.45 m 9 2.74 1.7 1.04 m 9 3.18 1.98 1.2 m 10 2.56 1.59 0.96 m 11 2.41 1.33 1.07 m 12 2.37 1.19 1.19 M 134 Mikail Açar, Neslihan Taşar cluster analysis was made using the Manhattan distance index to determine the relationships between Centau- rea taxa’s chromosome properties (Romesburg 2004). In addition, the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) analy- sis was performed to see strong and weak relationships between chromosome traits. At the same time, Shapiro - Wilk normality test was performed. Then, the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to deter- mine whether the difference between the data was statis- tically significant. All the analyses were carried out with PAleontoSTatistics (PAST) (Hammer et al. 2001). RESULTS Chromosome micromorphological features of 18 Centaurea taxa were specified, and statistical analyses were performed on them using formulas created using various chromosome features. Mitotic metaphase chro- mosome images of Centaurea taxa are given in Figure 1, and karyotype features are given in Table 4. One way ANOVA test, which is one of the analyses made accord- ing to the chromosome characteristics of the taxa, is given in Table 5. According to the values obtained with the formulas using the micromorphological chromo- some features of taxa, the data show a normal distribu- tion according to the Shapiro-Wilk test (p>0.05) and the residual plot graph is shown in Figure 2 accordingly. Then, according to the one-way ANOVA test p-value, the difference between taxa was statistically significant (p<0.05) (Table 5). Correlation analysis According to the correlation analysis, there are rela- tions between the r-values of chromosomal data accord- ing to the significance level less than p <0.05. Particularly a high positive relationship among MTLC-MLA-MSA, MrV-A1-A, MAR-A1-A, MRLC-A2, and a strong negative relations among TLC-MRLC, TLC-A2, MCL-A1, MCL- A, MCI-MAR-MrV and MrV- TF% values (Figure 3). Discriminant analysis (LDA) According to LDA (Table 6-7, Figure 4), the first two components explained most of the variation accord- ing to chromosome data between the taxa. While the first two components explain 93.56% and 4,34% of the variance, respectively, these characters explained 97.9% of the total variation. The variation most affected were TLC, MRLC, MCI, and DRL%. Similarly, since some variables (such as A, A1) have lower values than calcula- tions, the effects on variation in LDA have been low. In addition, with the results obtained with the chromosomal characters determined by the formulas, taxa grouped according to sections (given groups) were regrouped (predicted group) by discriminant analysis and distributed into groups with an accuracy of around 5.5%. In other words, when the sections determined according to the morphology of the taxa were regrouped with the characters determined according to the chro- mosomal formulas in the analysis, the overlap was around 5.5%. Ch. No C L S CP Ch. No C L S CP 13 2.37 1.19 1.19 M 14 2.3 1,26 1.04 m 15 2,22 1.19 1.04 m 16 2.22 1.56 0.67 sm 17 2.07 1.04 1.04 M 18 1.44 0.89 0.56 m C. iberica C. solstitialis subsp. solstitialis 1 2.95 1.84 1.11 m 1 3.53 2.39 1.14 sm 2 2.76 1.68 1.08 m 2 2.81 1.58 1.22 m 3 2.42 1.49 0.93 m 3 2.72 1.47 1.25 m 4 2.29 1.31 0.98 m 4 2.28 1.22 1.06 m 5 2.25 1.26 0.99 m 5 2.25 1.36 0.89 m 6 2.01 1.2 0.82 m 6 2.23 1.12 1.12 M 7 1.97 0.99 0.99 M 7 2.17 1.42 0.75 sm 8 1.84 1.06 0.78 m 8 1.81 1.17 0.64 sm 9 1.84 1.24 0.61 sm 10 1.57 0.84 0.73 m 135A statistical overview to the chromosome characteristics of some Centaurea L. taxa distributed in the Eastern Anatolia Cluster analysis According to the Cluster analysis results made accord- ing to the UPGMA algorithm and Manhattan distance index, the taxa are divided into 3 main groups (Figure 5). These groups are also divided into subgroups among themselves. The Stizolophus and Cynaroides sections were found together in Group 1, the Microlophus section in Group 2, and the Cheirolepis section in Group 3. Especially C. drabifolia subsp. f loccosa and C. kotschyi var. floccosa; C. behen and C. polypodifolia var. pseudobehen; C. urvillei subsp. armata and C. aggregata subsp. aggregata stand out as closely related taxa. With- in these relationships, C. urvillei subsp. armata and C. aggregata subsp. aggregata taxa were found to be close to each other in terms of chromosomal characteristics, although they were in different sections. DISCUSSION This study investigated 18 taxa belonging to 8 sec- tions of genus Centaurea (Table 2). Among the inves- tigated taxa, C. derderifolia, C. saligna are endemic to Turkey. No statistical study of this scale has been encountered based on chromosome characteristics on the genus. In some studies, the cluster analysis data can yield similar trees with the morphological classification of the taxa (Açar & Satıl 2019; Arabaci et al., 2021; Dir- menci et al. 2019; Genç et al. 2021). Figure 1. Mitotic metaphase chromosomes of Centaurea taxa (1. C. aggregata subsp. aggregata, 2. C. virgata, 3. C. balsamita, 4. C. behen, 5. C. polypodiifolia var. pseudobehen, 6. C. polypodiifolia var. polypodiifolia, 7. C. carduiformis subsp. carduiformis var. carduiformis, 8. C. urvil- lei subsp. armata, 9. C. urvillei subsp. hayekiana, 10. C. urvillei subsp. urvillei, 11. C. cynarocephala, 12. C. kurdica, 13. C. derderiifolia, 14. C. drabifolia subsp. floccosa, 15. C. kotschyi var. floccosa, 16. C. saligna, 17. C. iberica, 18. C. solstitialis subsp. solstitialis, Scale bars: 10 µm). 136 Mikail Açar, Neslihan Taşar Ta bl e 4. K ar yo ty pe c ha ra ct er is tic s of C en ta ur ea t ax a (T LC : T ot al L en gh t of C hr om os om es , M T LC ( M ea n of T ot al L en gt h of C hr om os om es , M A X : M ax im um L en gt h of C hr om os om e, M IN : M in im um L en gt h of C hr om os om e, M LA : M ea n of L on g A rm s, M SA : M ea n of S ho rt A rm s, M rV : M ea n of r V al ue , M dV : M ea n of d V al ue , M A R : M ea n of A rm R at io , M C I: M ea n of C hr om os om e In de x, M R LC : M ea n of R el at iv e Le ng th o f C hr om os om es , D R L: D iff er en ce o f R an ge o f R el at iv e Le ng th , T F% : T ot al F or m P er ce nt ag e, S % : R el at iv e Le ng th o f Sh or te st C hr om os om e, A 1: In tr ac hr om os om al A sy m m et ry I nd ex , A 2: In te rc hr om os om al A sy m m et ry I nd ex ). C en ta ur ea T ax a T LC M T LC M A X M IN M LA M SA M rV M dV M A R M C I M R LC D R L T F% S% A 1 A 2 A C . a gg re ga ta s ub sp . a gg re ga ta 41 .0 0 4. 10 2. 95 1. 26 2. 42 1. 68 1. 44 0. 74 1. 52 41 .1 8 10 .0 1 4. 10 0. 41 0. 43 0. 27 0 0. 10 0. 17 9 C . u rv ill ei s ub sp . h ay ek ia na 36 .3 3 3. 63 3. 03 1. 14 2. 02 1. 62 1. 24 0. 40 1. 27 44 .5 8 10 .0 1 10 .4 3 0. 45 0. 38 0. 18 2 0. 10 0. 10 9 C . u rv ill ei s ub sp . u rv ill ei 37 .8 4 3. 78 2. 64 0. 72 2. 25 1. 54 1. 46 0. 71 1. 68 39 .4 3 10 .0 1 6. 55 0. 41 0. 27 0. 36 8 0. 10 0. 18 7 C . v ir ga ta 63 .5 2 3. 53 4. 63 0. 63 2. 23 1. 29 1. 73 0. 94 1. 83 38 .0 6 5. 56 6. 88 0. 37 0. 14 0. 34 8 0. 06 0. 26 6 C . b al sa m ita 33 .9 5 2. 61 2. 49 0. 64 1. 62 0. 99 1. 62 0. 63 1. 68 38 .4 2 7. 69 7. 72 0. 38 0. 26 0. 35 6 0. 08 0. 23 8 C . b eh en 27 .8 1 3. 48 2. 57 1. 32 1. 89 1. 58 1. 20 0. 31 1. 21 45 .6 8 12 .5 0 3. 47 0. 45 0. 51 0. 14 7 0. 13 0. 09 1 C . p ol yp od iif ol ia v ar . p se ud ob eh en 30 .1 4 3. 77 2. 32 1. 20 2. 22 1. 55 1. 43 0. 67 1. 49 41 .4 2 12 .5 0 3. 77 0. 41 0. 52 0. 26 7 0. 13 0. 17 7 C . p ol yp od iif ol ia v ar . p ol yp od iif ol ia 22 .9 1 2. 86 2. 61 0. 68 1. 67 1. 19 1. 40 0. 48 1. 51 40 .6 6 12 .5 0 11 .9 3 0. 42 0. 26 0. 29 9 0. 12 0. 16 8 C . c ar du ifo rm is s ub sp . c ar du ifo rm is v ar . c ar du ifo rm is 42 .3 3 4. 23 3. 63 1. 15 2. 58 1. 65 1. 57 0. 93 1. 60 38 .9 6 10 .0 0 7. 63 0. 39 0. 32 0. 35 2 0. 10 0. 22 1 C . u rv ill ei s ub sp . a rm at a 41 .0 0 4. 10 2. 95 1. 37 2. 42 1. 68 1. 44 0. 74 1. 52 41 .1 8 10 .0 0 4. 10 0. 41 0. 46 0. 27 1 0. 10 0. 17 9 C . c yn ar oc ep ha la 40 .1 5 4. 46 3. 62 1. 38 2. 74 1. 73 1. 59 1. 01 1. 66 38 .7 3 11 .1 1 8. 06 0. 39 0. 38 0. 34 9 0. 11 0. 18 4 C . k ur di ca 41 .0 9 4. 57 3. 36 1. 20 2. 78 1. 80 1. 54 0. 98 1. 63 38 .7 2 11 .1 1 4. 63 0. 40 0. 36 0. 34 5 0. 11 0. 22 6 C . d er de ri ifo lia 32 .2 7 1. 79 1. 46 0. 58 1. 04 0. 75 1. 39 0. 29 1. 42 42 .2 8 5. 55 4. 17 0. 42 0. 40 0. 24 8 0. 06 0. 21 2 C . d ra bi fo lia s ub sp . fl oc co sa 49 .6 3 2. 75 2. 53 0. 79 1. 66 1. 09 1. 52 0. 57 1. 54 40 .3 8 5. 55 5. 31 0. 40 0. 31 0. 30 5 0. 06 0. 20 6 C . k ot sc hy i v ar . fl oc co sa 50 .3 6 2. 79 3. 48 0. 56 1. 66 1. 13 1. 47 0. 53 1. 48 41 .2 4 5. 56 6. 91 0. 41 0. 16 0. 27 7 0. 06 0. 19 1 C . s al ig na 40 .1 9 4. 46 3. 44 1. 20 2. 58 1. 89 1. 36 0. 69 1. 42 41 .9 1 11 .1 1 7. 21 0. 42 0. 35 0. 26 6 0. 11 0. 15 4 C . i be ri ca 21 .9 0 2. 19 1. 84 0. 61 1. 29 0. 90 1. 43 0. 39 1. 45 41 .3 8 10 .0 0 6. 29 0. 41 0. 33 0. 28 1 0. 10 0. 17 7 C . s ol st iti al is s ub sp . s ol st iti al is 19 .8 0 2. 47 2. 39 0. 64 1. 46 1. 01 1. 45 0. 45 1. 49 40 .9 5 12 .5 8. 71 0. 41 0. 27 0. 28 7 0. 12 0. 18 5 Ta bl e 5. O ne w ay A N O VA te st r es ul ts . Te st fo r eq ua l m ea ns Su m o f s qr s df M ea n sq ua re F p (s am e) B et w ee n gr ou ps : 45 34 3. 3 16 28 33 .9 6 35 1. 6 8. 14 9E -1 79 W ith in g ro up s: 23 29 .6 4 28 9 8. 06 10 4 Pe rm ut at io n p (n =9 99 99 ) To ta l: 47 67 2. 9 30 5 1E -0 5 om eg a2 : 0. 94 83 137A statistical overview to the chromosome characteristics of some Centaurea L. taxa distributed in the Eastern Anatolia Wagenitz (1975) divided the genus Centaurea into 34 sections in Flora of turkey. Wagenitz (1975) also stated that the genus in Flora of Turkey is taxonomically dif- ficult and noted that much more studies are needed. In addition, he emphasized that it is especially important to obtain cytological data. There are many taxonomic dif- Figure 2. Shapiro - Wilk normality test(p=0.4809>0.05)-Residual plot. Figure 3. Correlation analysis between karyotype characteristics ((TLC: Total Lenght of Chromosomes, MTLC (Mean of Total Length of Chromosomes, MAX: Maximum Length of Chromosome, MIN: Minimum Length of Chromosome, MLA: Mean of Long Arms, MSA: Mean of Short Arms, MrV: Mean of r Value, MdV: Mean of d Value, MAR: Mean of Arm Ratio, MCI: Mean of Chromosome Index, MRLC: Mean of Relative Length of Chromosomes, DRL: Difference of Range of Relative Length, TF%: Total Form Percentage, S%: Relative Length of Shortest Chromosome, A1: Intrachromosomal Asymmetry Index, A2: Interchromosomal Asymmetry Index). 138 Mikail Açar, Neslihan Taşar ficulties in the genus, which has a large number of taxa according to the Flora of Turkey. Therefore, studies on the genus containing many such species will provide important data. In this study, taxa from 8 sections were discussed. Relationships between taxa were tried to be revealed based on cytological data. In the cluster analysis, which is one of the analy- ses, although the grouping to cover the whole section was not fully formed, some taxa could be located close to each other in the same section. However, as seen in the discriminant analysis, individuals belonging to the same section in a certain way could not be found in the same spot. In addition, some taxa were close in both dis- criminant analysis and cluster analysis, and this result was also found to be consistent with morphological classification. This result shows us a strong relationship between these taxa, such as C. drabifolia subsp. floccosa and C. kotschyi var. floccosa and C. behen and C. poly- Table 6. Discriminant analysis (LDA) of Centaurea taxa showing the eigenvalues of the total variance. PC Eigenvalue % variance 1 185.98 93.56 2 8.6347 4.344 3 2.3673 1.191 Figure 4. Discriminant analysis scatter plot diagram (Different colors and numbers refer to different sections, Black(1): Acrolophus, Aqua (2): Acrocentron, Blue(3): Stizolophus, Green(4): Microlophus, Yellow(5): Cynaroides, Red(6): Cheirolepis, Purple(7): Calcitrapa, Pink(8): Mes- ocentron). Table 7. Discriminant analysis (LDA) of Centaurea taxa showing the given (morphological sections) and predicted groups (after the analyses). Taxa Given group Classification C. aggregata subsp. aggregata 1 5 C. urvillei subsp. hayekiana 2 5 C. urvillei subsp. urvillei 2 5 C. virgata 1 5 C. balsamita 3 4 C. behen 4 7 C. polypodiifolia var. pseudobehen 4 7 C. polypodiifolia var. polypodiifolia 4 7 C. carduiformis subsp. carduiformis var. carduiformis 2 5 C. urvillei subsp. armata 2 5 C. cynarocephala 5 6 C. kurdica 5 6 C. derderiifolia 6 5 C. drabifolia subsp. floccosa 6 5 C. kotschyi var. floccosa 6 5 C. saligna 6 5 C. iberica 7 4 C. solstitialis subsp. solstitialis 8 8 139A statistical overview to the chromosome characteristics of some Centaurea L. taxa distributed in the Eastern Anatolia podifolia var. pseudobehen. Also these taxa are located in the same sections in the morphological classification. In addition, in the discriminant analysis, the taxa of Acro- centron; Microlophus; Cheirolepis sections were located close to each other according to the diagram compared to all other taxa (Figure 4). On the discriminant analysis, there was a 5.5% over- lapping classification between the sections in which they were classified according to the taxa morphological clas- sification and the new groups that emerged according to the relations between them as a result of the analyses made according to the chromosomal formulas (Table 7). Accordingly, most of the taxa in the Cherloides section were found in the Cynaroides section. Again, according to the analysis, Sections 1 and 3, Acrolophus and Sti- zolophus sections were not included in the new group- ing. As a result, other sections are sufficient to classify these taxa. However, the most important result is that the morphological classification and the classification made according to the data series obtained from the chromosomal formulas show similarity at a rate of 5.5%. Moreover, it has no linear relationship in taxonomic terms. Genç et al. (2021) reached the same conclusion in their study. Accordingly, chromosomal formulas are not suitable for evaluating together with each other to draw a meaningful conclusion. However, it would be more appropriate to compare taxa one by one. Cluster analysis can be a helpful tool in classifying taxa. Accordingly, sections of Acrocentron, Microlophus, Cynaroides were grouped with each other. This result was also relatively similar in the discriminant analy- sis. In general, when this analysis is performed accord- ing to morphological data, while there is a more directly proportional grouping, according to the data using the formulas obtained with chromosomal micromorpho- logical data, although there is consistency in some sec- tions, there may be a possibility that the classification to be made using these data in classifying taxa in general terms may be incorrect. In conclusion, there is no general overlap between morphological classification and chromosomal micro- morphological-based classification. In addition, there were taxa located close to each other in both morpho- logical data and chromosomal micromorphological data. Undoubtedly, these taxa are estimated to be closely related to each other. However, the results obtained from the formulas were seen as characters while creating data sets, and analyses were made in that way. The validity of this needs to be investigated better with more data and evaluation of taxa from different perspectives. This study also provides important data for this situation. This study revealed various chromosomal charac- teristics of Centaurea taxa distributed in Eastern Ana- tolia. It also performed statistical analyses on these data 1 2 3 Figure 5. Cluster analysis according to karyotype characteristics show that 3 main groups (Same colored taxa are located in the same sec- tion). 140 Mikail Açar, Neslihan Taşar and revealed that comparing chromosomal calculations separately in taxa would be more beneficial in morpho- logical classification than classifying them together into analysis structures. REFERENCES Açar M, Satıl F. 2019. Distantes R. Bhattacharjee (Stach- ys L. /Lamiaceae) Altseksiyonu Taksonları Üzer- inde Karşılaştırmalı Anatomik ve Mikromorfolojik Çalışmalar [Comparative Micromorphological and Anatomical Investigations on the Subsection Dis- tantes R.Bhattacharjee (Stachys L./Lamiaceae)]. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi. 22(Ek Sayı 2): 282-295. Adhikary AK. 1974. Precise determination of centromere location. Cytologia. 39: 11-16. Arabaci, T., Çelenk, S., Özcan, T., Martin, E., Yazici, T., Açar, M., ... & Dirmenci, T. 2021. Homoploid hybrids of Origanum (Lamiaceae) in Turkey: morphologi- cal and molecular evidence for a new hybrid. Plant Biosystems-An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology, 155(3): 470-482. Dirmenci T, Özcan T, Açar M, Arabacı T, Yazıcı T, Mar- tin E. 2019. A rearranged homoploid hybrid species of Origanum (Lamiaceae): O. × munzurense Kit Tan & Sorger. Botany Letters. 166(2): 153-162. Elçi Ş. 1982. Sitogenetikte Gözlemler ve Araştırma Yöntemleri [Observations and Research Methods in Cytogenetics]. Elazığ: Fırat Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, Uğurel Matbaası, No:3; 166 s. Genç H, Yildirim B, Açar M, Çetin T. 2021. Statistical evaluation of chromosomes of some Lathyrus L. taxa growing in Turkey. Caryologia. 74(3): 107-117. doi: 10.36253/caryologia1124 Gurbuz I, Yesilada E. 2007. Evaluation of the antiulcero- genic effect of the sesquiterpene lactones from Cen- taurea solstitialis ssp. solstitialis by using various in vivo and biochemical techniques. J. Ethnopharmacol. 112: 284–295. Güner A, Özhatay N, Ekim T, Başer KHC. 2000. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, Vol. 11 (Supple- ment 2). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 656 p. Güner A, Aslan S, Ekim T, Vural M, Babaç MT. (eds.) 2012. Türkiye Bitkileri Listesi (Damarlı Bitkiler) [ List of Plants of Turkey (Vascular Plants)]. Neza- hat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi ve Flora Araştırmaları Derneği Yayını. İstanbul. Fattaheian-Dehkordi, S., Hojjatifard, R., Saeedi, M., Kha- nav, M. 2021. A review on antidiabetic activity of Centaurea spp.: a new approach for developing herbal remedies. Evid.-based complement. Alternative Med., logical Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica. 4(1): 1-9. Haratym, W., Weryszko-Chmielewska, E., & Konarska, A. 2020. Microstructural and histochemical analysis of aboveground organs of Centaurea cyanus used in herbal medicine. Protoplasma, 257(1): 285-298. Hayta S, Tasar N, Kiran Y, Baser B. 2017. Compara- tive morphological, karyological and palynological investigations of three endemic Centaurea L. species (Asteraceae) in Turkey. Botany Letters. 164(3): 241– 251. Huziwara Y. 1962. Karyotype analysis in some genera of Compositae. VIII. Further studies on the chromo- some of Aster. American Journal of Botany. 49(2): 116-119. Khammar, A., & Djeddi, S. 2012. Pharmacological and biological properties of some Centaurea species. Eur J Sci Res, 84(3): 398-416. Levan A, Fredga K, Sandberg AA. 1964. Nomenclature for Centromeric Position on Chromosomes. Heredi- tias. 52: 201-220. Peruzzi L, Eroğlu HE. 2013. Karyotype asymmetry: again, how to measure and what to measure? Comparative cytogenetics. 7(1): 1-9. Rezaei M, Naghavi MR, Hoseinzadeh AH, Abbasi A, Jahangiri B. 2014. Study of Karyological Characteris- tics in Papaver bracteatum and Papaver somniferum. Cytologia. 79(2): 187-194. Romesburg HC. 2004. Cluster Analysis for Researchers. North Carolina: Lulu press; 334 p. Tasar N, Dogan G, Kiran Y. 2018a. Karyological Investi- gation on Seven Centaurea L. (Asteraceae) Taxa from Turkey. Cytologia. 83(3): 317–321. Tasar N, Dogan G, Evren H, Kiran Y. 2018b. Karyological analysis of two endemic Centaurea L. species from Turkey. International Journal of Nature and Life Sci- ences (IJNLS). 2(1): 22-33. Tasar N, Dogan G, Kiran Y, Rahman MO, Cakilcioglu U. 2018c. Morphologıcal, Anatomıcal and Cytologıcal Investıgatıons on three taxa of Centaurea L. (Aster- aceae) From Turkey. Bangladesh J. Plant Taxon. 25(2): 215-226. Stebbins GL. 1971. Chromosomal Evolution in Higher Plants. Edward Arnold. London. Wagenitz, G. 1975. Centaurea L. In: Davis, P.H. (Ed.), Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, 5. Edin- burgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 465–585. Watanabe K, Yahara T, Denda T, Kosuge K. 1999. Chro- mosomal evolution in the genus Brachyscome (Aster- aceae, Astereae): Statistical tests regarding correlation 141A statistical overview to the chromosome characteristics of some Centaurea L. taxa distributed in the Eastern Anatolia between changes in karyotype and habit using phylo- genetic information. J. Plant Res. 112: 145-161. Yesilada E, Gurbuz I, Bedir E, Tatli I, Khan IA. 2004. Iso- lation of antiulcerogenic sesquiterpene lactones from Centaurea solstitialis ssp. solstitialis through bioassay- guided fractionation procedures in rats. J. Ethnop- harmacol. 95: 213–219. Zarco RC. 1986. A new method for estimating karyotype asymmetry. Taxon. 35(3): 526-530. Caryologia International Journal of Cytology, Cytosystematics and Cytogenetics Volume 75, Issue 2 - 2022 Firenze University Press Cytogenetic Studies of Six Species in Family Araceae from Thailand Piyaporn Saensouk1, Surapon Saensouk2,*, Rattanavalee Senavongse2 Effect of Ag Nanoparticles on Morphological and Physio-biochemical Traits of the Medicinal Plant Stevia Rebaudiana Sherzad R. Abdull, Sahar H. Rashid*, Bakhtiar S. Ghafoor, Barzan S. Khdhir Morphometric analysis and genetic diversity in Hypericum L. using sequence related amplified polymorphism Wei Cao1, Xiao Chen2,*, Zhiwei Cao3 Population Differentiation and Gene Flow of Salicornia persica Akhani (Chenopodiaceae) Xiaoju Zhang1, Li Bai2,*, Somayeh Esfandani-Bozchaloyi3 SCoT molecular markers are efficient in genetic fingerprinting of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) cultivars Shiva Shahsavari1, Zahra Noormohammadi1,*, Masoud Sheidai2,*, Farah Farahani3, Mohammad Reza Vazifeshenas4 First record of nucleus migration in premeiotic antherial cells of Saccharum spontaneum L. (Poaceae) Chandra Bhanu Singh1, Vijay Kumar Singhal2, Manish Kapoor2,* Genetic Characterization of Salicornia persica Akhani (Chenopodiaceae) Assessed Using Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA Zhu Lin1,*, Hamed Khodayari2 Comparative chromosome mapping of repetitive DNA in four minnow fishes (Cyprinidae, Cypriniformes) Surachest Aiumsumang1, Patcharaporn Chaiyasan2, Kan Khoomsab3, Weerayuth Supiwong4, Alongklod Tanomtong2 Sumalee Phimphan1,* Classical chromosome features and microsatellites repeat in Gekko petricolus (Reptilia, Gekkonidae) from Thailand Weera Thongnetr1, Surachest Aiumsumang2, Alongklod Tanomtong3, Sumalee Phimphan2,* Genotoxic and antigenotoxic potential of encapsulated Enhalus acoroides (L. f.) Royle leaves extract against nickel nitrate Made Pharmawati1,*, Ni Nyoman Wirasiti1, Luh Putu Wrasiati2 Chromosomal description of three Dixonius (Squamata, Gekkonidae) from Thailand Isara Patawang1, Suphat Prasopsin2, Chatmongkon Suwannapoom3, Alongklod Tanomtong4, Puntivar Keawmad5, Weera Thongnetr6,* First Report on Classical and Molecular Cytogenetics of Doi Inthanon Bent-toed Gecko, Cyrtodactylus inthanon Kunya et al., 2015 (Squamata: Gekkonidae) in Thailand Suphat Prasopsin1, Nawarat Muanglen2, Sukhonthip Ditcharoen3, Chatmongkon Suwannapoom4, Alongklod Tanomtong5, Weera Thongnetr6,* Evaluation of genetic diversity and Gene-Pool of Pistacia khinjuk Stocks Based On Retrotransposon-Based Markers Qin Zhao1,*, Zitong Guo1, Minxing Gao1, Wenbo Wang1, Lingling Dou1, Sahar H. Rashid2 A statistical overview to the chromosome characteristics of some Centaurea L. taxa distributed in the Eastern Anatolia (Turkey) Mikail Açar1,*, Neslihan Taşar2 Cytotoxicity of Sunset Yellow and Brilliant Blue food dyes in a plant test system Elena Bonciu1, Mirela Paraschivu1,*, Nicoleta Anca Șuțan2, Aurel Liviu Olaru1