Cross-species chromosome painting in Cetartiodactyla: Reconstructing the karyotype evolution in key phylogenetic lineages
- 434 Downloads
Recent molecular and morphological studies place Artiodactyla and Cetacea into the order Cetartiodactyla. Within the Cetartiodactyla such families as Bovidae, Cervidae, and Suidae are well studied by comparative chromosome painting, but many taxa that are crucial for understanding cetartiodactyl phylogeny remain poorly studied. Here we present the genome-wide comparative maps of five cetartiodactyl species obtained by chromosome painting with human and dromedary paint probes from four taxa: Cetacea, Hippopotamidae, Giraffidae, and Moschidae. This is the first molecular cytogenetic report on pilot whale, hippopotamus, okapi, and Siberian musk deer. Our results, when integrated with previously published comparative chromosome maps allow us to reconstruct the evolutionary pathway and rates of chromosomal rearrangements in Cetartiodactyla. We hypothesize that the putative cetartiodactyl ancestral karyotype (CAK) contained 25–26 pairs of autosomes, 2n = 52–54, and that the association of human chromosomes 8/9 could be a cytogenetic signature that unites non-camelid cetartiodactyls. There are no unambiguous cytogenetic landmarks that unite Hippopotamidae and Cetacea. If we superimpose chromosome rearrangements on the supertree generated by Price and colleagues, several homoplasy events are needed to explain cetartiodactyl karyotype evolution. Our results apparently favour a model of non-random breakpoints in chromosome evolution. Cetariodactyl karyotype evolution is characterized by alternating periods of low and fast rates in various lineages. The highest rates are found in Suina (Suidae+Tayasuidae) lineage (1.76 rearrangements per million years (R/My)) and the lowest in Cetaceans (0.07 R/My). Our study demonstrates that the combined use of human and camel paints is highly informative for revealing evolutionary karyotypic rearrangements among cetartiodactyl species.
Keywordscetaceans Pecora hippopotamus breakpoint reuse Zoo-FISH chromosome evolution
diploid number of chromosomes
bacterial artificial chromosome
cetartiodactyl ancestral karyotype
degenerate oligonucleotide primer–polymerase chain reaction
fluorescence in-situ hybridization
banding G banding by trypsin using Giemsa
million years ago
phylogenetic analysis using parsimony
rearrangements per million years
This study was funded in part by the research grants of the Russian Fund for Basic Research, programs of the Russian Academy of Science MCB, BOE, and Integration program of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Science (A.S.G.) and a Wellcome Trust grant to M.A.F.-S.
R.S. was partially supported by a grant ‘Mobility of Italian and foreign researchers residing abroad’ from the Italian Ministry of Universities and Research. F.Y. is supported by the Wellcome Trust. We gratefully acknowledge Stephen O’Brien (Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, NCI-Frederick) for providing cell lines of whale and okapi; Marlys Houck and Oliver A. Ryder (Frozen Zoo of San Diego Zoo’s Conservation Research Center, CA) for providing hippo and giraffe cell lines; and Michael Dean, M. Thompson (NCI-Frederick) for help in providing giraffe samples.
R.S. would like to acknowledge Lutz Froenike for discussion and comments on whale phylogenetics.
- Bosma AA, Haan NA, Arkesteijn GJ, Yang F, Yerle M, Zijlstra C (2004) Comparative chromosome painting between the domestic pig (Sus scrofa) and two species of peccary, the collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu) and the white-lipped peccary (T. pecari): a phylogenetic perspective. Cytogenet Genome Res 105:115–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bunch TD, Foote WC, Maciulis A (1985) Chromosome banding pattern homologies and NORs for the Bactrian camel, guanaco and llama. J Hered 76:115–118Google Scholar
- Fitch WM, Beintema JJ (1999) Correcting parsimonious trees for unseen nucleotide substitutions: the effect of dense branching as exemplified by ribonuclease. Mol Biol Evol 7(5):438–443Google Scholar
- Gatesy J (1997) More DNA support for a Cetacea/Hippopotamidae clade: the blood-clotting protein gene gammafibrinogen. Mol Biology Evol 14:537–543Google Scholar
- Hsu TC, Benirschke K (1967) An atlas of mammalian chromosomes. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Janis CM, Scott KM, Jacobs LL (1998) Evolution of tertiary mammals of north America. terrestrial carnivores, ungulates, and ungulatelike mammals. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Mahon A (2004) A molecular supertree of the Artiodactyla. In: Bininda-Emonds ORP (ed) Phylogenetic supertrees: Combining information to reveal the tree of life. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 411–437Google Scholar
- Marcot JD (2007) Molecular phylogeny of terrestrial artiodactyls. In: Prothero DR, Foss SE (eds) The evolution of artiodactyls. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 4–18Google Scholar
- Nowak RM (1999) Order artiodactyla. In: Walker’s mammals of the world. John Hopkins University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Ryder OA (2006a) A G-stained karyotype of Massai giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis tippelskirchi). In: O’Brien SJ, Menninger JC, Nash WG (eds) Atlas of mammalian chromosomes. Wiley-Liss, Hoboken, NJ, p 577Google Scholar
- Ryder OA (2006b) A G- stained karyotype of okapi (Okapia johnstoni). In: O’Brien SJ, Menninger JC, Nash WG (eds) Atlas of mammalian chromosomes, Wiley-Liss, Hoboken, NJ, p 577Google Scholar
- Shimamura M, Yasue H, Ohshima K, Abe H, Kato H, Kishiro T, Goto M, Munechikak I, Okada N (1997) Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even toed ungulates. Nature 388:666–670Google Scholar
- Simpson CD (1984) Artiodactyls. In: Anderson S, Jones JK (eds) Orders and Families of Recent Mammals of the World. Wiley, New York, pp 563–588Google Scholar
- Stanyon R (2006) A G- stained karyotype of hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius). In: O’Brien SJ, Menninger JC, Nash WG (eds) Atlas of Mammalian Chromosomes. Wiley-Liss, Hoboken, NJ, p 573Google Scholar