Chromosome Research

, 15:1023 | Cite as

Chromosome homology between mouse and three Muridae species, Millardia meltada, Acomys dimidiatus and Micromys minutus, and conserved chromosome segments in murid karyotypes

  • Taro Nakamura
  • Kazumi Matsubara
  • Shumpei P. Yasuda
  • Kimiyuki Tsuchiya
  • Yoichi MatsudaEmail author


Comparative chromosome painting with mouse (Mus musculus, MMU) chromosome-specific DNA probes was performed for three Muridae species, the Indian soft-furred field rat (Millardia meltada), the spiny mouse (Acomys dimidiatus) and the harvest mouse (Micromys minutus). All probes except for the Y probe were successfully hybridized to the chromosomes of all species, and homologous chromosome segments between mouse and the three species were identified at the molecular level. Comparison of our data with the published data of six other genera (Mus, Rattus, Apodemus, Otomys, Rhabdomys and Cricetulus) of the Muridae suggested that the associations MMU1b/17a, 2b/13a, 5b/11a, 7/19, 10b/17b, 10c/17c, 11b/16a, 12/17d and 13b/15, and the single painted chromosomes and chromosome segments MMU3, 4, 5a, 8a, 8b, 16b, 18 and X were probably contained by the ancestral karyotype of the Muridae, and have been strongly conserved throughout murid evolution.

Key words

chromosome painting cytogenetics evolution karyotype mouse Muridae 


  1. Al-Saleh AA (1988) Cytological studies of certain desert mammals of Saudi Arabia 6. First report on chromosome number and karyotype of Acomys dimidiatus. Genetica 76: 3–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Carbone L, Nergadze SG, Magnani E et al. (2006) Evolutionary movement of centromeres in horse, donkey, and zebra. Genomics 87: 777–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cavagna P, Stone G, Stanyon R (2002) Black rat (Rattus rattus) genomic variability characterized by chromosome painting. Mamm Genome 13: 157–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Contreras LC, Torres-Mura JC, Spotorno AE (1990) The largest known chromosome number for a mammal, in a South American desert rodent. Experientia 46: 506–08.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Ducroz JF, Volobouev V, Granjon L (2001) An assessment of the systematics of Arvicanthine rodents using mitochondrial DNA sequences: evolutionary and biogeographical implications. J Mamm Evol 8: 173–06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engelbrecht A, Dobigny G, Robinson TJ (2006) Further insights into the ancestral murine karyotype: the contribution of the Otomys–Mus comparison using chromosome painting. Cytogenet Genome Res 112: 126–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Froenicke L (2005) Origins of primate chromosomes — as delineated by Zoo-FISH and alignments of human and mouse draft genome sequences. Cytogenet Genome Res 108: 122–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Grützner F, Himmelbauer H, Paulsen M, Ropers H-H, Haaf T (1999) Comparative mapping of mouse and rat chromosomes by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Genomics 55: 306–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Guilly M-N, Fouchet P, de Chamisso P, Schmitz A, Dutrillaux B (1999) Comparative karyotype of rat and mouse using bidirectional chromosome painting. Chromosome Res 7: 213–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Jansa SA, Weksler M (2004) Phylogeny of muroid rodents: relationships within and among major lineages as determined by IRBP gene sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol 31: 256–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jüdes U (1981) G- and C-band karyotypes of the harvest mouse, Micromys minutus. Genetica 54: 237–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Makino S (1944) Studies on the murine chromosomes, IV. The karyotypes of the mole-rat and the harvest-mouse. Cytologia 13: 237–45.Google Scholar
  13. Matsubara K, Nishida-Umehara C, Kuroiwa A, Tsuchiya K, Matsuda Y (2003) Identification of chromosome rearrangements between the laboratory mouse (Mus musculus) and the Indian spiny mouse (Mus platythrix) by comparative FISH analysis. Chromosome Res 11: 57–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Matsubara K, Nishida-Umehara C, Tsuchiya K, Nukaya D, Matsuda Y (2004) Karyotypic evolution of Apodemus (Muridae, Rodentia) inferred from comparative FISH analyses. Chromosome Res 12: 383–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Matsuda Y, Chapman VM (1995) Appliciation of fluorescence in situ hybridization in genome analysis of the mouse. Electrophoresis 16: 261–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Matsuda Y, Harada Y-N, Natsuume-Sakaki S, Lee K, Shiomi T, Chapman VM (1992) Location of the mouse complement factor H gene (cfh) by FISH analysis and replication R-banding. Cytogenet Cell Genet 61: 282–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Michaux J, Catzeflis F (2000) The bushlike radiation of muroid rodents is exemplified by the molecular phylogeny of the LCAT nuclear gene. Mol Phylogenet Evol 17: 280–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Montefalcone G, Tempesta S, Rocchi M, Archidiacono N (1999) Centomere repositioning. Genome Res 9: 1184–188.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Murphy WJ, Stanyon R, O’Brien SJ (2001) Evolution of mammalian genome organization inferred from comparative gene mapping. Genome Biol 2: R0005.1–R0005.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Musser GG, Carleton MD (2005) Family Muridae. In: Wilson DE, Reeder DE, eds., Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3rd edn. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 1189–1531.Google Scholar
  21. Nanda I, Raman R (1981) Cytological similarity between the heterochromatin of the large X and Y chromosomes of the soft-furred field rat, Millardia meltada (family: Muridae). Cytogenet Cell Genet 30: 77–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rabbitts P, Impey H, Heppell-Parton A et al. (1995) Chromosome specific paints from a high resolution flow karyotype of the mouse. Nat Genet 9: 369–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Rambau RV, Robinson TJ (2003) Chromosome painting in the African four-striped mouse Rhabdomys pumilio: detection of possible murid specific contiguous segment combinations. Chromosome Res 11: 91–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Richard F, Lombard M, Dutrillaux B (2003) Reconstruction of the ancestral karyotype of eutherian mammals. Chromosome Res 11: 605–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Scherthan H, Cremer T, Arnason U, Weier H-U, Lima-de-Faria A, Frönicke L (1994) Comparative chromosome painting discloses homologous segments in distantly related mammals. Nat Genet 6: 342–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Silva MJ de J, Yonenaga-Yassuda Y (1998) Karyotype and chromosomal polymorphism of an undescribed Akodon from Central Brazil, a species with the lowest known diploid chromosome number in rodents. Cytogenet Cell Genet 81: 46–0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Stanyon R, Yang F, Cavagna P et al. (1999) Reciprocal chromosome painting shows that genomic rearrangement between rat and mouse proceeds ten times faster than between humans and cats. Cytogenet Cell Genet 84: 150–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Stanyon R, Yang F, Morescalchi AM, Galleni L (2004) Chromosome painting in the long-tailed field mouse provides insights into the ancestral murid karyotype. Cytogenet Genome Res 105: 406–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ventura M, Archidiacono N, Rocchi M (2001) Centromere emergence in evolution. Genome Res 11: 595–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ventura M, Antonacci F, Francesca M et al. (2007) Evolutionary formation of new centromeres in macaque. Science 316: 243–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Volobouev VT, Gautun J-C, Tranier M (1996a) Chromosome evolution in the Genus Acomys (Rodentia, Muridae): chromosome banding analysis of Acomys cahirinus. Mammalia 60: 217–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Volobouev V, Gautun J-C, Sicard B, Tranier M (1996b) The chromosome complement of Acomys spp. (Rodentia, Muridae) from Oursi, Burkina Faso — the ancestral karyotype of the cahirinus-dimidiatus group? Chromosome Res 4: 526–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Volobouev VT, Aniskin VM, Lecompte E, Ducroz J-F (2002) Patterns of karyotype evolution in complexes of sibling species within three genera of African murid rodents inferred from the comparison of cytogenetic and molecular data. Cytogenet Cell Genet 96: 261–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wienberg J (2004) The evolution of eutherian chromosomes. Curr Opin Genet Dev 14: 657–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Wienberg J, Stanyon R (1995) Chromosome painting in mammals as an approach to comparative genomics. Curr Opin Genet Dev 5: 792–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wienberg J, Jauch A, Stanyon R, Cremer T (1990) Molecular cytotaxonomy of primates by chromosomal in situ suppression hybridization. Genomics 8: 347–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Yang F, O’Brien PCM, Ferguson-Smith MA (2000) Comparative chromosome map of the laboratory mouse and Chinese hamster defined by reciprocal chromosome painting. Chromosome Res 8: 219–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taro Nakamura
    • 1
  • Kazumi Matsubara
    • 2
  • Shumpei P. Yasuda
    • 3
  • Kimiyuki Tsuchiya
    • 4
  • Yoichi Matsuda
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Laboratory of Animal Cytogenetics, Graduate School of ScienceHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  2. 2.Laboratory of Animal Cytogenetics, Creative Research Initiative ‘Sousei’Hokkaido UniversityKita-kuJapan
  3. 3.Laboratory of Ecology and Genetics, Graduate School of Environmental Earth ScienceHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  4. 4.Laboratory of Wild Animals, Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of AgricultureTokyo University of AgricultureAtsugiJapan

Personalised recommendations