Comparative chromosome painting of chicken autosomal paints 1–9 in nine different bird species (original) (raw)
Article navigation
Research Articles| March 30 2004
aDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Würzburg, Würzburg (Germany);
Search for other works by this author on:
aDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Würzburg, Würzburg (Germany);
Search for other works by this author on:
aDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Würzburg, Würzburg (Germany);
Search for other works by this author on:
bDepartment of Biological Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge (UK)
Search for other works by this author on:
bDepartment of Biological Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge (UK)
Search for other works by this author on:
aDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Würzburg, Würzburg (Germany);
Search for other works by this author on:
Cytogenet Genome Res (2003) 103 (1-2): 173–184.
Received:
September 24 2003
Accepted:
October 23 2003
Published Online:
March 30 2004
Abstract
In a Zoo-FISH study chicken autosomal chromosome paints 1 to 9 (GGA1–GGA9) were hybridized to metaphase spreads of nine diverse birds belonging to primitive and modern orders. This comparative approach allows tracing of chromosomal rearrangements that occurred during bird evolution. Striking homologies in the chromosomes of the different species were noted, indicating a high degree of evolutionary conservation in avian karyotypes. In two species, the quail and the goose, all chicken paints specifically labeled their corresponding chromosomes. In three pheasant species as well as in the American rhea and blackbird, GGA4 hybridized to chromosome 4 and additionally to a single pair of microchromosomes. Furthermore, in the pheasants fission of the ancestral galliform chromosome 2 could be documented. Hybridization of various chicken probes to two different chromosomes or to only the short or long chromosome arm of one chromosome pair in the species representing the orders Passeriformes, Strigiformes, and Columbiformes revealed translocations and chromosome fissions during species radiation. Thus comparative analysis with chicken chromosome-specific painting probes proves to be a rapid and comprehensive approach to elucidate the chromosomal relationships of the extant birds.
References
Belterman RHR, De Boer LEM: A karyological study of 55 species of birds, including karyotypes of 39 species new to cytology. Genetica 65:39–82 (1984).
Burt DW, Bruley C, Dunn IC, Jones CT, Ramage A, Law AS, Morrice DR, Paton IR, Smith J, Windsor D, Sazanov A, Fries R, Waddington D: The dynamics of chromosome evolution in birds and mammals. Nature 402:411–413 (1999).
Chowdhary BP, Fronicke L, Gustavsson I, Scherthan H: Comparative analysis of the cattle and human genomes: detection of ZOO-FISH and gene mapping-based chromosomal homologies. Mammal Genome 7:297–302 (1996).
Chowdhary BP, Raudsepp T, Fronicke L, Scherthan H: Emerging patterns of comparative genome organization in some mammalian species as revealed by Zoo-FISH. Genome Res 8:577–589 (1998).
Chowdhary BP, Raudsepp T: HSA4 and GGA4: Remarkable conservation despite 300-Myr divergence. Genomics 64:102–105 (2000).
Christidis L: Aves, in John B (ed): Animal Cytogenetics, Vol 4, Chordata 3. (Gebrüder Bornträger, Berlin 1990).
Fronicke L, Wienberg J: Comparative chromosome painting defines the high rate of karyotype changes between pigs and bovids. Mammal Genome 12:442–449 (2001).
Graphodatsky AS, Yang F, O’Brien PC, Serdukova N, Milne BS, Trifonov V, Ferguson-Smith MA: A comparative chromosome map of the Arctic fox, red fox and dog defined by chromosome painting and high resolution G-banding. Chrom Res 8:253–263 (2000).
Griffin DK, Haberman F, Masabanda J, O’Brien P, Bagga M, Sazanov A, Smith J, Burt DW, Ferguson-Smith M, Wienberg J: Micro- and macrochromosome paints generated by flow cytometry and microdissection: tools for mapping the chicken genome. Cytogenet Cell Genet 87:278–281 (1999).
Grützner F, Zend-Ajusch E, Stout K, Munsche S, Niveleau A, Nanda I, Schmid M, Haaf T: Chicken microchromosomes are hypermethylated and can be identified by specific painting probes. Cytogenet Cell Genet 93:265–269 (2001).
Guillier-Gencik Z, Bernheim A, Coullin P: Generation of whole-chromosome painting probes specific to each chicken macrochromosome. Cytogenet Cell Genet 87:282–285 (1999).
Iannuzzi L, Di Meo GP, Perucatti A, Incarnato D: Comparison of the human with the sheep genomes by use of human chromosome-specific painting probes. Mammal Genome 10:719–723 (1999).
Nanda I, Schrama D, Feichtinger W, Haaf T, Schartl M, Schmid M: Distribution of telomeric (TTAGGG)n sequences in avian chromosomes. Chromosoma 111:215–227 (2002).
Nie W, Wang J, O’Brien PC, Fu B, Ying T, Ferguson-Smith MA, Yang F: The genome phylogeny of domestic cat, red panda and five mustelid species revealed by comparative chromosome painting and G-banding. Chrom Res 10:209–222 (2002).
Ponce de Leon FA, Ambady S, Hawkins GA, Kappes SM, Bishop MD, Robl JM, Beattie CW: Development of a bovine X chromosome linkage group and painting probes to assess cattle, sheep, and goat X chromosome segment homologies. Proc natl Acad Sci, USA 93:3450–3454 (1996).
Raudsepp T, Houck ML, O’Brien PC, Ferguson-Smith MA, Ryder OA, Chowdhary BP: Cytogenetic analysis of California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) chromosomes: comparison with chicken (Gallus gallus) macrochromosomes. Cytogenet Genome Res 98:54–60 (2002).
Scherthan H, Cremer T, Arnason U, Weier U, Lima-de-Faria A, Fronicke L: Comparative chromosome painting discloses homologous segments in distantly related mammals. Nature Genet 6:342–347 (1994).
Schmid M, Enderle E, Schindler D, Schempp W: Chromosome banding and DNA replication patterns in bird karyotypes. Cytogenet Cell Genet 52:139–146 (1989).
Schmid M, Nanda I, Guttenbach M, Steinlein C, Hoehn H, Schartl M, Haaf T, Weigend S, Fries R, et al: First report on chicken genes and chromosomes 2000. Cytogenet Cell Genet 90:169–218 (2000).
Schmitz A, Oustry A, Vaiman D, Chaput B, Frelat G, Cribiu EP: Comparative karyotype of pig and cattle using whole chromosome painting probes. Hereditas 128:257–263 (1998).
Shetty S, Griffin DK, Graves JAM: Comparative painting reveals strong chromosome homology over 80 million years of bird evolution. Chrom Res 7:289–295 (1999).
Shibusawa M, Nishida-Umehara C, Masabanda J, Griffin DK, Isobe T, Matsuda Y: Chromosome rearrangements between chicken and guinea fowl defined by comparative chromosome painting and FISH mapping of DNA clones. Cytogenet Genome Res 98:225–230 (2002).
Stock AD, Mengden GA: Chromosome banding pattern conservatism in birds and non-homology of chromosome banding patterns between birds, turtles and amphibians. Chromosoma 50:69–77 (1975).
Takagi N, Sasaki M: A phylogenetic study of bird karyotypes. Chromosoma 46:91–120 (1974).
Tegelström H, Ryttman H: Chromosomes in birds (Aves): evolutionary implications of macro- and microchromosome numbers and lengths. Hereditas 94:225–233 (1981).
Telenius H, Carter NP, Bebb CE, Nordenskjold M, Ponder BA, Tunnacliffe A: Degenerate oligonucleotide-primed PCR: general amplification of target DNA by a single degenerate primer. Genomics 13:718–725 (1992).
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
2004
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.
Sign in
Digital Version
Pay-Per-View Access
$39.00
1 Karger Article Bundle Token
$150
Rental
This article is also available for rental through DeepDyve. 