A comparative cytogenetic study of chromosome homology between chicken and Japanese quail

Abstract

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.

A mammalian neural tissue opsin (Opsin 5) is a deep brain photoreceptor in birds

“…Because nucleotide sequences are higly conserved between chicken and quail, chicken and quail probes are widely used for both species in methods such as Northern hybridization, Southern hybridization, in situ hybridization, chromosomal mapping using FISH, and microarrays (17,(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40). Therefore, we used chicken DNA sequences for in situ hybridization with 33 P-labeled (17).…”

Centromere positions in chicken and Japanese quail chromosomes: de novo centromere formation versus pericentric inversions

“…The total number of chromosomes is the same in both species (2n078). Furthermore, a high degree of syntenic conservation has been demonstrated using different approaches, such as comparative gene mapping (Shibusawa et al 2001;Schmid et al 2005;Galkina et al 2006;Kayang et al 2006), chromosome painting (Schmid et al 2000;Guttenbach et al 2003), and linkage analysis (Kayang et al 2006;Sasazaki et al 2006). The conservation of both macro-and microchromosomes suggests the absence of interchromosomal rearrangements accompanying the divergence of the chicken and Japanese quail.…”

“…The majority of chicken microchromosomes are acrocentric whereas quail microchromosomes are primarily submetacentric (Kaelbling and Fechheimer 1983;Calderón and Pigozzi 2006;Krasikova et al 2006Krasikova et al , 2009. Centromere positions on some macrochromosomes are also different (Ryttman and Tegelstrom 1981;Shibusawa et al 2001Shibusawa et al , 2004. First attempts to explain the discrepancy were done using high-resolution G-banding of metaphase chromosomes (Ryttman and Tegelstrom 1981;Sasaki 1981;Stock and Bunch 1982).…”

The molecular basis of chromosome orthologies and sex chromosomal differentiation in palaeognathous birds

“…The karyotypic similarities and differences between bird species have been studied morphologically by conventional Giemsa staining and chromosome banding, and, for the past 10 years, molecular cytogenetically by comparative FISH mapping with chromosome-specific paints, cDNA and genomic DNA clones, mostly developed in chicken (Gallus gallus) , Suzuki et al 1999, Schmid et al 2000, Shibusawa et al 2001. Cross-species chromosome hybridization (termed Zoo-FISH) and subsequent comparative gene mapping delineates accurately the chromosomal orthologies between distantly related species and the chromosome rearrangements that have occurred during evolution.…”