To define the process of karyotypic evolution in the Galliformes on a molecular basis, we conducted genome-wide comparative chromosome painting for eight species, i.e. silver pheasant (Lophura nycthemera), Lady Amherst’s pheasant (Chrysolophus amherstiae), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), Western capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), Chinese bamboo-partridge (Bambusicola thoracica) and common peafowl (Pavo cristatus) of the Phasianidae, and plain chachalaca (Ortalis vetula) of the Cracidae, with chicken DNA probes of chromosomes 1–9 and Z. Including our previous data from five other species, chicken (Gallus gallus), Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) and blue-breasted quail (Coturnix chinensis) of the Phasianidae, guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) of the Numididae and California quail (Callipepla californica) of the Odontophoridae, we represented the evolutionary changes of karyotypes in the 13 species of the Galliformes. In addition, we compared the cytogenetic data with the molecular phylogeny of the 13 species constructed with the nucleotide sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene, and discussed the process of karyotypic evolution in the Galliformes. Comparative chromosome painting confirmed the previous data on chromosome rearrangements obtained by G-banding analysis, and identified several novel chromosome rearrangements. The process of the evolutionary changes of macrochromosomes in the 13 species was in good accordance with the molecular phylogeny, and the ancestral karyotype of the Galliformes is represented.

Within the limitations of this study, from the viewpoint of energy absorption ability, the minimum thickness required for a mouthguard is 4 mm, which is generally too large from the viewpoint of player comfort. This finding indicates the necessity of improving the impact absorption ability of mouthguards by considering new designs and developing new materials.

Mouthguards are expected to reduce sports-related orofacial injuries. Numerous studies have been conduced to improve the shock absorption ability of mouthguards using air cells, sorbothane, metal wire, or hard material insertion. Most of these were shown to be effective; however, the result of each study has not been applied to clinical use. The aim of this study was to develop mouthguards that have sufficient prevention ability and ease of clinical application with focus on a hard insertion and space. Ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) mouthguard blank used was Drufosoft and the acrylic resin was Biolon (Dreve-Dentamid GMBH, Unna, Germany). Three types of mouthguard samples tested were constructed by means of a Dreve Drufomat (Type SO, Dreve-Dentamid) air pressure machine: the first was a conventional laminated type of EVA mouthguard material; the second was a three layer type with acrylic resin inner layer (hard-insertion); the third was the same as the second but with space that does not come into contact with tooth surfaces (hard + space). As a control, without any mouthguard condition (NOMG) was measured. A pendulum type impact testing machine with interchangeable impact object (steel ball and baseball) and dental study model (D17FE-NC.7PS, Nissin, Tokyo, Japan) with the strain gages (KFG-1-120-D171-11N30C2: Kyowa, Tokyo, Japan) applied to teeth and the accelerometer to the dentition (AS-A YG-2768 100G, Kyowa) were used to measure transmitted forces. Statistical analysis (anova, P < 0.01) showed significant differences among four conditions of NOMG and three different mouthguards in both objects and sensor. About acceleration: in a steel ball which was a harder impact object, shock absorption ability of about 40% was shown with conventional EVA and hard-insertion and about 50% with hard + space. In a baseball that was softer compared with steel ball, a decrease rate is smaller, reduction (EVA = approximately 4%, hard-insertion = approximately 12%, hard + space = approximately 25%) was admitted in the similar order. A significant difference was found with all the combinations except for between EVA and hard-insertion with steel ball (Tukey test). About distortion: both buccal and lingual, distortions had become small in order of EVA, hard-insertion, and hard + space, too. The decrease rate is larger than acceleration, EVA = approximately 47%, hard-insertion = 80% or more, and hard +space = approximately 98%, in steel ball. EVA = approximately 30%, hard-insertion = approximately 75%, and hard + space = approximately 98% in baseball. And a significant difference was found with all the combinations (Tukey test). Especially, hard + space has decreased the distortion of teeth up to several percentages. Acceleration of the maxilla and distortions of the tooth became significantly smaller when wearing any type of mouthguard, in both impact objects. But the effect of mouthguard was clearer in the distortion of the tooth and with steel ball. Considering the differences of mouthguards, the hard-insertion and the hard + space...

In order to construct a chicken (Gallus gallus) cytogenetic map, we isolated 134 genomic DNA clones as new cytogenetic markers from a chicken cosmid DNA library, and mapped these clones to chicken chromosomes by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Forty-five and 89 out of 134 clones were localized to macrochromosomes and microchromosomes, respectively. The 45 clones, which localized to chicken macrochromosomes (Chromosomes 1–8 and the Z chromosome) were used for comparative mapping of Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica). The chromosome locations of the DNA clones and their gene orders in Japanese quail were quite similar to those of chicken, while Japanese quail differed from chicken in chromosomes 1, 2, 4 and 8. We specified the breakpoints of pericentric inversions in chromosomes 1 and 2 by adding mapping data of 13 functional genes using chicken cDNA clones. The presence of a pericentric inversion was also confirmed in chromosome 8. We speculate that more than two rearrangements are contained in the centromeric region of chromosome 4. All 30 clones that mapped to chicken microchromosomes also localized to Japanese quail microchromosomes, suggesting that chromosome homology is highly conserved between chicken and Japanese quail and that few chromosome rearrangements occurred in the evolution of the two species.

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.