Chromosome rearrangements between chicken and guinea fowl defined by comparative chromosome painting and FISH mapping of DNA clones (original) (raw)
Article navigation
2002
This article was originally published in
Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics
Research Articles| April 14 2003
aLaboratory of Cytogenetics, Division of Bioscience, Graduate School of Environmental Earth Science;
Search for other works by this author on:
aLaboratory of Cytogenetics, Division of Bioscience, Graduate School of Environmental Earth Science;
bChromosome Research Unit, Faculty of Science;
cLaboratory of Animal Cytogenetics, Center for Advanced Science and Technology, Hokkaido University, Sapporo (Japan);
Search for other works by this author on:
dDepartment of Biological Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge (UK)
Search for other works by this author on:
dDepartment of Biological Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge (UK)
Search for other works by this author on:
bChromosome Research Unit, Faculty of Science;
cLaboratory of Animal Cytogenetics, Center for Advanced Science and Technology, Hokkaido University, Sapporo (Japan);
Search for other works by this author on:
aLaboratory of Cytogenetics, Division of Bioscience, Graduate School of Environmental Earth Science;
bChromosome Research Unit, Faculty of Science;
cLaboratory of Animal Cytogenetics, Center for Advanced Science and Technology, Hokkaido University, Sapporo (Japan);
Search for other works by this author on:
Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics (2002) 98 (2-3): 225–230.
Abstract
Chromosome homology between chicken (Gallus gallus) and guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) was investigated by comparative chromosome painting with chicken whole chromosome paints for chromosomes 1–9 and Z and by comparative mapping of 38 macrochromosome-specific (chromosomes 1–8 and Z) and 30 microchromosome-specific chicken cosmid DNA clones. The comparative chromosome analysis revealed that the homology of macrochromosomes is highly conserved between the two species except for two inter-chromosomal rearrangements. Guinea fowl chromosome 4 represented the centric fusion of chicken chromosome 9 with the q arm of chicken chromosome 4. Guinea fowl chromosome 5 resulted from the fusion of chicken chromosomes 6 and 7. A pericentric inversion was found in guinea fowl chromosome 7, which corresponded to chicken chromosome 8. All the chicken microchromosome-specific DNA clones were also localized to microchromosomes of guinea fowl except for several clones localized to the short arm of chromosome 4. These results suggest that the cytogenetic genome organization is highly conserved between chicken and guinea fowl.
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).
Carter NP, Ferguson-Smith MA, Perryman MT, Telenius H, Pelmear AH, Leversha MA, Glancy MT, Wood SL, Cook K, Dyson HM: Reverse chromosome painting: a method for the rapid analysis of aberrant chromosomes in clinical cytogenetics. J med Genet 29:299–307 (1992).
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).
Groenen MAM, Cheng HH, Bumstead N, Benkel BF, Briles WE, Burke T, Burt DW, Crittenden LB, Dodgson J, Hillel J, Lamont S, Ponce de Leon A, Soller M, Takahashi H, Vignal A: A consensus linkage map of the chicken genome. Genome Res 10:137–147 (2000).
Habermann FA, Cremer M, Walter J, Kreth G, von Hase J, Bauer K, Wienberg J, Cremer C, Cremer T, Solovei I: Arrangements of macro- and microchromosomes in chicken cells. Chrom Res 9: 569–584 (2001).
Inazawa J, Ariyama T, Abe T: Physical ordering of three polymorphic DNA markers spanning the regions containing a tumor suppressor gene of renal cell carcinoma by three-color fluorescent in situ hybridization. Jpn J Cancer Res 83:1248–1252 (1992).
Inoue-Murayama M, Kayang BB, Kimura K, Ide H, Nomura A, Takahashi H, Nagamine Y, Takeda T, Hanada H, Tatsuda K, Tsudzuki M, Matsuda Y, Mizutani M, Murayama Y, Ito S: Chicken microsatellite primers are not efficient markers for Japanese quail. Anim Genet 32:7–11 (2001).
Kimball RT, Braun EL, Zwartjes PW, Crowe TM, Ligon JD: A molecular phylogeny of the pheasants and patridges suggests that these lineages are not monophyletic. Mol Phyl Evol 11:38–54 (1999).
Kornegay JR, Kocher TD, Williams LA, Wilson AC: Pathways of lysozyme evolution inferred from the sequences of cytochrome b in birds. J Mol Evol 37:367–379 (1993).
Matsuda Y, Chapman VM: Application of fluorescence in situ hybridization in genome analysis of the mouse. Electrophoresis 16:261–272 (1995).
Piccinni E, Stella M: Some avian karyograms. Caryologia 23:189–202 (1970).
Reed KM, Mendoza KM, Beattie CW: Comparative analysis of microsatellite loci in chicken and turkey. Genome 43:796–802 (2000).
Ryttman H, Tegelström H: G-banded karyotypes of three Galliformes species, domestic fowl (Gallus domesticus), quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica), and turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Hereditas 94:165– 170 (1981).
Sasaki M: High resolution G-band karyotypes of the domestic fowl and the Japanese quail. Chrom Inform Sevice 31:26–28 (1981).
Scherthan H, Cremer T, Arnason U, Weier HU, Lima-de-Faria A, Frönicke L: Comparative chromosome painting discloses homologous segments in distantly related mammals. Nature Genet 6:342–347 (1994).
Schmid M, Nanda I, Guttenbach M, Steinlein C, Hoehn H, Schartl M, Haaf T, Weigend S, Fries R, Buerstedde J-M, Wimmers K, Burt DW, Smith J, A’Hara S, Law A, Griffin DK, Bumstead N, Kaufman J, Thomson PA, Burke T, Groenen MAM, Crooijmans RPMA, Vignal A, Fillon V, Morisson M, Pitel F, Tixier-Boichard M, Ladjali-Mohammedi K, Hillel J, Mäki-Tanila A, Cheng HH, Delany ME, Burnside J, Mizuno S: First report on chicken genes and chromosomes 2000. Cytogenet Cell Genet 90:169–218 (2000).
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, Minai S, Nishida-Umehara C, Suzuki T, Mano T, Yamada K, Namikawa T, Matsuda Y: A comparative cytogenetic study of chromosome homology between chicken and Japanese quail. Cytogenet Cell Genet 95:103–109 (2001).
Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE: Phylogeny and Classification of Birds: A Study in Molecular Evolution (Yale University Press, New Haven 1990).
Silbley CG, Monroe BL Jr: Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World (Yale University Press, New Haven 1990).
Stock AD, Bunch TD: The evolutionary implications of chromosome banding pattern homologies in the bird order Galliformes. Cytogenet Cell Genet 34:136–148 (1982).
Sumner AT: A simple technique for demonstrating centromeric heterochromatin. Exp Cell Res 75:304–306 (1972).
Suzuki T, Kansaku N, Kurosaki T, Shimada K, Zadworny D, Koide M, Mano T, Namikawa T, Matsuda Y: Comparative FISH mapping on Z chromosomes of chicken and Japanese quail. Cytogenet Cell Genet 87:22–26 (1999a).
Suzuki T, Kurosaki T, Shimada K, Kansaku N, Kuhnlein U, Zadworny D, Agata K, Hashimoto A, Koide M, Koike M, Takata M, Kuroiwa A, Minai S, Namikawa T, Matsuda Y: Cytogenetic mapping of 31 functional genes on chicken chromosomes by direct R-banding FISH. Cytogenet Cell Genet 87:32–40 (1999b).
Takagi N, Sasaki M: A phylogenetic study of bird karyotypes. Chromosoma 46:91–120 (1974).
Takahashi E, Hirai Y: Karyotypes of three species of gallinaceous birds. Chrom Inform Sevice 17:9–13 (1974).
Wienberg J, Stanyon R: Chromosome painting in mammals as an approach to comparative genomics. Curr Opin Genet Develop 5:792–797 (1995).
© 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
2003
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. 