High chromosome conservation detected by comparative chromosome painting in chicken, pigeon and passerine birds

Abstract

Chicken chromosome paints for macrochromosomes 1-10, Z, and the nine largest microchromosomes (Griffin et al. 1999) were used to analyze chromosome homologies between chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus: Galliformes), domestic pigeon (Columba livia: Columbiformes), chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs Passeriformes), and redwing (Turdus iliacus: Passeriformes). High conservation of syntenies was revealed. In general, both macro- and microchromosomes in these birds showed very low levels of interchromosomal rearrangements. Only two cases of rearrangements were found. Chicken chromosome 1 corresponds to chromosome 1 in pigeon, but to chromosomes 3 and 4 in chaffinch and chromosomes 2 and 5 in redwing. Chicken chromosome 4 was shown to be homologous to two pairs of chromosomes in the karyotypes of pigeon and both passerine species. Comparative analysis of chromosome painting data and the results of FISH with (TTAGGG)n probe did not reveal any correlation between the distribution of interstitial telomere sites (ITSs) and chromosome rearrangements in pigeon, chaffinch and redwing. In chaffinch, ITSs were found to co-localize with a tandem repeat GS (Liangouzov et al. 2002), monomers of which contain an internal TTAGGG motif.

A Gene-Based Genetic Linkage Map of the Collared Flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis) Reveals Extensive Synteny and Gene-Order Conservation During 100 Million Years of Avian Evolution

“…In the end, only two rearrangements that distinguish the karyotypes of the chicken and the collared flycatcher are strongly supported by our data (supplemental data) and are also independently confirmed in other species. These include a fission of the ancestral chromosome 1 in Passeriformes to yield the collared flycatcher linkage groups Fal3 and Fal8 (supported by data in Guttenbach et al 2003;Derjusheva et al 2004;Itoh and Arnold 2005) and the fusion of ancestral chromosomes 4 (corresponding to Fal5) and 10 (Fal18) in the chicken lineage to yield Gga4 (supported by Reed et al 2005). One or a few more rearrangements could be indicated by our data but would need a denser map for confirmation.…”

“…This has subsequently been confirmed through analyses of vertebrate genome sequence data, including chicken (Bourque et al 2005), the only bird that has had its genome sequenced to date (International Chicken Genome Sequencing Consortium 2004). Moreover, evidence for an unusually stable avian karyotype with few interchromosomal rearrangements has been obtained by cross-species chromosome painting or the use of other types of in situ hybridization probes (Shetty et al 1999;Shibusawa et al 2001Shibusawa et al , 2004aRaudsepp et al 2002;Guttenbach et al 2003;Kasai et al 2003;Derjusheva et al 2004;Schmid et al 2005;Itoh et al 1 2006; Fillon et al 2007;Griffin et al 2007;NishidaUmehara et al 2007). However, these experiments rarely have the resolution for detecting intrachromosomal or small-scale interchromosomal rearrangements.…”

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

“…Very high conservation of synteny demonstrated for the chicken and Japanese quail (Shibusawa et al 2001;Guttenbach et al 2003;Schmid et al 2005;Kayang et al 2006;Sasazaki et al 2006) is quite typical of bird karyotypes (Derjusheva et al 2004;Schmid et al 2005;Griffin et al 2007;Nanda et al 2008). At the same time, the rate of intrachromosomal rearrangements that change gene order seems not to be low.…”

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

“…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. Comparative chromosome painting in birds with chicken probes has been performed for over 30 species in at least nine orders (Shetty et al 1999, Schmid et al 2000, Raudsepp et al 2002, Guttenbach et al 2003, Kasai et al 2003, Derjusheva et al 2004, Shibusawa et al 2004a, b, Itoh & Arnold 2005, de Oliveria et al 2005, Nanda et al 2006, reviewed in Griffin et al 2007). …”