A comparative karyological study of the blue-breasted quail (Coturnix chinensis, Phasianidae) and California quail (Callipepla californica, Odontophoridae) (original) (raw)
Article navigation
Research Articles| July 14 2004
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,
bLaboratory of Animal Cytogenetics, Center for Advanced Science and Technology, and
cChromosome Research Unit, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo;
Search for other works by this author on:
dLaboratory of Applied Animal Genetics, Graduate School of Biosphere Science, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima (Japan);
Search for other works by this author on:
eDepartment of Biological Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge (UK)
Search for other works by this author on:
eDepartment of Biological Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge (UK)
Search for other works by this author on:
aLaboratory of Cytogenetics, Division of Bioscience, Graduate School of Environmental Earth Science,
bLaboratory of Animal Cytogenetics, Center for Advanced Science and Technology, and
cChromosome Research Unit, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo;
Search for other works by this author on:
Cytogenet Genome Res (2004) 106 (1): 82–90.
Abstract
We conducted comparative chromosome painting and chromosome mapping with chicken DNA probes against the blue-breasted quail (Coturnix chinensis, CCH) and California quail (Callipepla californica, CCA), which are classified into the Old World quail and the New World quail, respectively. Each chicken probe of chromosomes 1–9 and Z painted a pair of chromosomes in the blue-breasted quail. In California quail, chicken chromosome 2 probe painted chromosomes 3 and 6, and chicken chromosome 4 probe painted chromosomes 4 and a pair of microchromosomes. Comparison of the cytogenetic maps of the two quail species with those of chicken and Japanese quail revealed that there are several intrachromosomal rearrangements, pericentric and/or paracentric inversions, in chromosomes 1, 2 and 4 between chicken and the Old World quail. In addition, a pericentric inversion was found in chromosome 8 between chicken and the three quail species. Ordering of the Z-linked DNA clones revealed the presence of multiple rearrangements in the Z chromosomes of the three quail species. Comparing these results with the molecular phylogeny of Galliformes species, it was also cytogenetically supported that the New World quail is classified into a different clade from the lineage containing chicken and the Old World quail.
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).
DeBry RW, Seldin MF: Human/mouse homology relationships. Genomics 33:337–351 (1996).
de la Sena CA, Nestor KE: Variability of C-banding patterns in Japanese quail chromosomes. Genome 34:993–997 (1991).
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).
Kansaku N, Shimada K, Ohkubo T, Saito N, Suzuki T, Matsuda Y, Zadwony D: Molecular cloning of chicken vasoactive intestinal polypeptide receptor complementary DNA, tissue distribution and chromosomal localization. Biol Reprod 64:1575–1581 (2001).
Kimball RT, Braun EL, Zwartjes PW, Crowe TM, Ligon JD: A molecular phylogeny of the pheasants and partridges suggests that these lineages are not monophyletic. Mol Phylogenet Evol 11:38–54 (1999).
Kuroda Y, Arai N, Arita M, Teranishi M, Hori T, Harata M, Mizuno S: Absence of Z-chromosome inactivation for five genes in male chickens. Chromosome Res 9:457–468 (2001).
Kuroiwa A, Watanabe T, Hishigaki H, Takahashi E, Namikawa T, Matsuda Y: Comparative FISH mapping of mouse and rat homologues of twenty-five human X-linked genes. Cytogenet Cell Genet 81:208–212 (1998).
Kuroiwa A, Yokomine T, Sasaki H, Tsudzuki M, Tanaka K, Namikawa T, Matsuda Y: Biallelic expression of Z-linked genes in male chickens. Cytogenet Genome Res 99:310–314 (2002).
McQueen HA, McBride D, Miele G, Bird AP, Clinton M: Dosage compensation in birds. Curr Biol 11:253–257 (2001).
O’Brien SJ, Wienberg J, Lyons LA: Comparative genomics: lessons from cats. Trends Genet 13:393–399 (1997).
Ogura K, Matsumoto K, Kuroiwa A, Isobe T, Otoguro T, Jurecic V, Baldini A, Matsuda Y, Ogura T: Cloning and chromosomal mapping of human and chicken Iroquois (IRX) genes. Cytogenet Cell Genet 92:320–325 (2001).
Sasaki M: High resolution G-band karyotypes of the domestic fowl and the Japanese quail. Chrom Inform Serv 31:26–28 (1981).
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).
Serikawa T, Cui Z, Yokoi N, Kuramoto T, Kondo Y, Kitada K, Guénet J-L: A comparative genetic map of rat, mouse and human genomes. Exp Anim 47:1–9 (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, 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).
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 Cell Genet 98:225–230 (2002).
Shoffner RN: Chromosomes in birds, in Busch H (ed): The Cell Nucleus, pp 223–261 (Academic Press, New York 1974).
Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE: Phylogeny and Classification of Birds: A study in molecular evolution (Yale University Press, New Haven 1990).
Sibley 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).
Wienberg J, Stanyon R: Chromosome painting in mammals as an approach to comparative genomics. Curr Opin Genet Dev 5:792–797 (1995).
© 2004 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. 