Chromosome Research

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 379–392 | Cite as

Karyotype diversity suggests that Laonastes aenigmamus (Laotian rock rat) (Rodentia, Diatomyidae) is a multi-specific genus

  • Florence Richard
  • Michèle Gerbault-Seureau
  • Bounneuang Douangboupha
  • Kham Keovichit
  • Jean-Pierre Hugot
  • Bernard Dutrillaux
Original Article

Abstract

Laonastes aenigmamus (Khanyou) is a recently described rodent species living in geographically separated limestone formations of the Khammuan Province in Lao PDR. Chromosomes of 21 specimens of L. aenigmamus were studied using chromosome banding as well as fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) techniques using human painting, telomere repeats, and 28S rDNA probes. Four different karyotypes were established. Study with human chromosome paints and FISH revealed that four large chromosomes were formed by multiple common tandem fusions, with persistence of some interstitial telomeres. The rearrangements separating the different karyotypes (I to IV) were also reconstructed. Various combinations of Robertsonian translocations or tandem fusions involving the same chromosomes differentiate these karyotypes. These rearrangements create a strong gametic barrier, which isolates specimens with karyotype II from the others. C-banding and FISH with telomere repeats also exhibit large and systematized differences between karyotype II and others. These data indicate an ancient reproductive separation and suggest that Laonastes is not a mono-specific genus.

Keywords

Laonastes aenigmamus Chromosomes Rearrangements Gametic barrier 

Abbreviations

FISH

Fluorescent in situ hybridization

KCl

Potassium chloride

HSA

Homo sapiens

MNHN

Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle

DMSO

Dimethyl sulfoxide

Karyo

Karyotype

P

Painting probe

References

  1. Beklemisheva VR, Romanenko SA, Biltueva LS et al (2011) Reconstruction of karyotype evolution in core Glires. I. The genome homology revealed by comparative chromosome painting. Chromosom Res 19:549–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Capanna E, Gropp A, Winkring H, Noack, Civitelli MV (1976) Robertsonian metacentrics in the mouse. Chromosoma 58:341–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Dawson MR, Marivaux L, Li CK, Beard KC, Metais G (2006) Laonastes and the “Lazarus effect” in recent mammals. Science 311:1456–1458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dutrillaux B (1979) Chromosomal evolution in primates: tentative phylogeny from Microcebus murinus (Prosimian) to man. Hum Genet 48:251–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dutrillaux B, Couturier J (1981) La partique de l’analyse chromosomique. Ed Masson ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Dutrillaux B, Couturier J, Muleris M, Lombard M, Chauvier G (1982) Chromosomal phylogeny of forty-two species or subspecies of Cercopithecoids (Primates Catarrhini). Ann Genet 25:96–109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Flynn LJ (2007) Origin and evolution of the diatomyidae, with clues to paleoecology from the fossil record. Bull Carnegie Mus Nat Hist 39:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerbault-Seureau M, Bonnet-Garnier A, Richard F, Dutrillaux B (2004) Chromosome painting comparison of Leontopithecus chrysomelas (Callitrichine, Platyrrhini) with man and its phylogenetic position. Chromosom Res 12:691–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Graphodatsky AS, Yang F, Dobigny G et al (2008) Tracking genome organization in rodents by Zoo-FISH. Chromosom Res 16:261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hebert PDN (2002) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc Royal Soc Ser B 270:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huchon D, Chevret P, Jordan U et al (2007) Multiple molecular evidence for a living mammalian fossil. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:7495–7499CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Jenkins PD, Kilpatrick CW, Robinson MF, Timmins RJ (2005) Morphological and molecular investigations of a new family, genus and species of rodent (Mammalia: Rodentia: Hystricognatha) from Lao PDR. Syst Biodivers 2:419–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johns GC, Avise JC (1998) A comparative summary of genetic distances in the vertebrates from the mitochondrial cytochromes b gene. Mol Biol Evol 14:1481–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee C, Sasi R, Lin CC (1993) Interstitial localization of telomeric DNA sequences in the Indian muntjac chromosomes: further evidence for tandem fusions in the karyotypic evolution of the Asian muntjacs. Cytogenet Cell Genet 63:156–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Nicolas V, Herbreteau V, Couloux A, Keovichit K, Douangboupha B, Hugot JP (2012) A remarkable case of micro-endemism in Laonastes aenigmamus (Diatomyidae, Rodentia) revealed by nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequence data. PLoS ONE 7(11):e48145. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048145 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Popescu P, Hayes H, Dutrillaux B (1998) Techniques de cytogénétique animale. Ed INRA Editions, ParisGoogle Scholar
  17. Richard F, Dutrillaux B (2012) Low, complex and probably reticulated chromosome evolution of Sciuromorpha (Rodentia) and Lagomorpha. Cytogenet Genome Res 137:218–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Richard F, Lombard M, Dutrillaux B (2003) Reconstruction of the ancestral karyotype of eutherian mammals. Chromosom Res 11:605–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Romanenko SA, Perelman PL, Serdukova NA et al (2006) Reciprocal chromosome painting between three laboratory rodent species. Mamm Genome 17:1183–1192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Romanenko S, Perelman PL, Trifonov VA et al (2015) A first generation comparative chromosome map between Guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) and humans. PLoS One. doi:10.1372/journal.pone.0127937 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Sannier J, Gerbault-Seureau M, Dutrillaux B, Richard F (2011) Conserved although very different karyotypes in Gliridae and Sciuridae and their contribution to chromosomal signatures in Glires. Cytogenet Genome Res 134:51–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Schweizer D, Loidi J (1987) A model for heterochromatin dispersion and the evolution of C-band patterns. Chromosom Today 9:61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sikes RS, Gannon WL (2011) Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. J Mammal 92:235–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stanyon R, Yang F, Moreschalchi AM, Galleni L (2004) Chromosome painting in the long-tailed field mouse provides insights into the ancestral murid karyotype. Cytogenet Genome Res 105:406–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. White MJD (1973) Animal cytology and evolution, 3rd edn. University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Yang F, Graphodatsky AS, Li T et al (2006) Comparative genome maps of the pangolin, sloth, anteater and human revealed by cross-species chromosome painting: further insight into the ancestral karyotype and genome evolution of eutherian mammals. Chromosom Res 14:283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florence Richard
    • 1
  • Michèle Gerbault-Seureau
    • 1
  • Bounneuang Douangboupha
    • 2
  • Kham Keovichit
    • 2
  • Jean-Pierre Hugot
    • 1
  • Bernard Dutrillaux
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut de Systématique, Evolution, Biodiversité ISyEB-UMR 7205 CNRS MNHN UPMC EPHEMuséum National d’Histoire NaturelleParisFrance
  2. 2.National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI)VientianeLao People’s Democratic Republic

Personalised recommendations