, Volume 99, Issue 1, pp 11–17 | Cite as

Differences in the organization and chromosomal allocation of satellite DNA between the European long tailed house miceMus domesticus andMus musculus

  • C. A. Redi
  • S. Garagna
  • G. Della Valle
  • G. Bottiroli
  • P. Dell'Orto
  • G. Viale
  • F. A. Peverali
  • E. Raimondi
  • J. Forejt


We compared the organization of satellite DNA (stDNA) and its chromosomal allocation inMus domesticus and inMus musculus. The two stDNAs show similar restriction fragment profiles after digestion (probed withM. domesticus stDNA) with some endonucleases of which restriction sequences are present in the 230–240 bp repetitive unit of theM. domesticus stDNA. In contrast, EcoRI digestion reveals thatM. musculus stDNA lacks most of the GAATTC restriction sites, particularly at the level of the half-monomer. The chromosome distribution of stDNA (revealed by anM. domesticus stDNA probe) shows different patterns in theM. domesticus andM. musculus karyotypes, with about 60% ofM. domesticus stDNA retained in theM. musculus genome. It is particularly noteworthy that the pericentromeric regions ofM. musculus chromosomes 1 and X are totally devoid ofM. domesticus stDNA sequences. In both groups, the differences in energy transfer between the stDNA-bound fluorochromes Hoechst 33258 and propidium iodide suggest that AT-rich repeated sequences have a much more clustered array in theM. domesticus stDNA, as if they are organized in tandem repeats longer than those ofM. musculus. Considering the data as a whole, it seems likely that the evolutionary paths of the two stDNAs diverged after the generation of the ancestral 230–240 bp stDNA repetitive unit through the amplification, in theM. domesticus genome, of a family repeat which included the EcoRI GAATTC restriction sequence.


Iodide Propidium Iodide Repeated Sequence Restriction Fragment Tandem Repeat 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bonhomme F, Catalan J, Britton Davidian J, Chapman VM, Moriwaki K, Nevo E, Thaler L (1984) Biochemical diversity and evolution in the genus Mus. Biochem Genet 22:275–303Google Scholar
  2. Bottiroli G, Cionini PG, Docchio F, Sacchi CA (1984) In situ evaluation of the functional state of chromatin by means of Quinacrine Mustard staining and time-resolved fluorescence microscopy. Histochem J 16:223–233Google Scholar
  3. Bottiroli G, Croce AC, Gerzeli G, Barni S (1989) DNA double staining for a fluorescence energy transfer study of chromatin in liver cells. Cell Biophys 15:249–263Google Scholar
  4. Britton-Davidian J, Nadeau JH, Croset H, Thaler L (1989) Genic differentiation and origin of Robertsonian populations of the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus Rutty). Genet Res 53:29–44Google Scholar
  5. Brown SDM, Dover GA (1980) Conservation of segmental variants of satellite DNA of Mus musculus in a related species: Mus spretus. Nature 285:47–49Google Scholar
  6. Burns J, Chan VT-W, Jonasson JA, Fleming KA, Taylor S, Mc Gee JOD (1985) Sensitive system for visualising DNA probes hybridized in situ: rapid sex determination of intact cells. J Clin Pathol 38:1085–1092Google Scholar
  7. Corneo G, Ginelli E, Soave C, Bernardi G (1968) Isolation and characterization of mouse and guinea pig satellite deoxyribonucleic acid. Biochemistry 7:4373–4379Google Scholar
  8. Elder FFB, Hsu TC (1988) Tandem fusion in the evolution of mammalian chromosomes. In: Daniel A (ed) The cytogenetics of mammalian autosomal rearrangements. Alan R. Liss, New York, pp 481–506Google Scholar
  9. Elder FFB, Lee MR (1985) The chromosomes of Sigmodon ochrognathus and S. fulviventer suggest a realignment of Sigmodon species groups. J Mammal 66:511–518Google Scholar
  10. Faircloug RH, Cantor CR (1978) The use of singlet-singlet energy transfer to study macromolecules assemblies. Methods Enzymol 48:347–379Google Scholar
  11. Ferris SD, Sage RD, Prager EM, Ritte U, Wilson AC (1983) Mitochondrial DNA evolution in mice. Genetics 105:681–721Google Scholar
  12. Festing MFW, Lovell DP (1981) Domestication and development of the mouse as a laboratory animal. In: Berry RJ (ed) Biology of the house mouse. Academic Press, London, New York, pp 43–62Google Scholar
  13. Flam WG, McCallum M, Walker PMB (1967) The isolation of complementary strands from a mouse DNA fraction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 57:1729–1734Google Scholar
  14. Gamperl R, Ehmann C, Bachmann K (1982) Genome size and heterochromatin variation in rodents. Genetica 58:199–212Google Scholar
  15. Gropp A, Winking H (1981) Robertsonian translocations: cytology, meiosis, segregation patterns and biological consequences of heterozygosity. In: Berry RJ (ed) Biology of the house mouse. Academic Press, London, New York, pp 141–181Google Scholar
  16. Hoerz W, Altenburger W (1981) The compaction of mouse heterochromatin as studied by nuclease digestion. FEBS Lett 134:25–28Google Scholar
  17. Hoerz W, Zachau HG (1977) Characterization of distinct segments in mouse satellite DNA by restriction nucleases. Eur J Biochem 73:383–392Google Scholar
  18. Hsu TC, Arrighi FE (1971) Distribution of constitutive heterochromatin in mammalian chromosomes. Chromosoma 34:243–253Google Scholar
  19. Jones KW (1970) Chromosomal and nuclear location of mouse satellite DNA in individual cells. Nature 255:912–915Google Scholar
  20. Langlois RG, Carrano AV, Gray JW, Van Dilla MA (1980) Cytochemical studies of metaphase chromosomes by flow cytometry. Chromosoma 77:229–251Google Scholar
  21. Latt SA, Sahar E, Eisenhard ME (1979) Pairs of fluorescent dyes as probes of DNA and chromosomes. J Histochem Cytochem 27:65–71Google Scholar
  22. Maniatis T, Fritsch EF, Sambrook J (1982) Molecular cloning. A laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory, NY, p 466Google Scholar
  23. Manuelidis L (1981) Consensus sequence of mouse satellite DNA indicates it is derived from base pair repeats. FEBS Lett 129:25–28Google Scholar
  24. Marshall JT, Sage RD (1981) Taxonomy of the house mouse. In: Berry RJ (ed) Biology of the house mouse. Academic Press, London, New York, pp 15–25Google Scholar
  25. Mayfield JE, Ellison JR (1976) The fluorescence localization of mouse satellite DNA in interphase nuclei. Chromosoma 54:27–31Google Scholar
  26. Mazrimas JA, Balhorn R, Hatch FT (1979) Separation of satellite DNA chromatin and main band DNA chromatin from mouse brain. Nucleic Acids Res 7:935–946Google Scholar
  27. Moriwaki K, Yonekawa H, Gotoh O, Minezawa M, Winking H, Gropp A (1984) Implications of the genetic divergence between European wild mice with Robertsonian translocations from the viewpoint of mitochondrial DNA. Genet Res 43:277–287Google Scholar
  28. Nishioka Y (1987) Y-chromosomal DNA polymorphism in mouse inbred strains. Genet Res 50:69–72Google Scholar
  29. Pardue ML (1985) In situ hybridization. In: Hames BD, Higgins SJ (eds) Nucleic acid hybridization. IRL Press, Oxford, pp 179–202Google Scholar
  30. Pardue ML, Gall JG (1970) Chromosomal localization of mouse satellite DNA. Science 168:1356–1358Google Scholar
  31. Pietras DF, Bennet KL, Siracusa LD, Woodworth-Gutai M, Chapman VM, Gross KW, Kane-Haas C, Hastie ND (1983) Construction of a small Mus musculus repetitive DNA library: identification of a new satellite sequence in Mus musculus. Nucleic Acids Res 11:6965–6983Google Scholar
  32. Redi CA, Capanna E (1988) Robertsonian heterozygotes in the house mouse and the fate of their germ cells. In: Daniel A (ed) The cytogenetics of mammalian autosomal rearrangements. Alan R Liss, New York, pp 315–358Google Scholar
  33. Redi CA, Garagna S, Mazzini G, Winking H (1986) Pericentromeric heterochromatin and A—T contents during Robertsonian fusion in the house mouse. Chromosoma 94:31–35Google Scholar
  34. Reed Rice N, Straus NA (1973) Relatedness of mouse satellite deoxyribonucleic acid to deoxyribonucleic acid of various Mus species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 70:3546–3550Google Scholar
  35. Schiller PW (1975) The measurement of intramolecular distances by energy transfer. In: Chen RF, Edelhoch H (eds) Biochemical fluorescence: Concepts. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 285–303Google Scholar
  36. Schmidtke J, Brennecke H, Schmid M, Neitzel H, Sperling K (1981) Evolution of muntjac DNA. Chromosoma 84:187–193Google Scholar
  37. Selander RK, Yang SY (1969) Protein polymorphism and genic heterozygosity. Genetics 63:653–667Google Scholar
  38. Selander RK, Hunt WG, Yang SY (1969) Protein polymorphism and genic heterozygosity in two European subspecies of the house mouse. Evolution 23:379–390Google Scholar
  39. Southern EM (1975) Long range periodicities in mouse satellite DNA. J Mol Biol 94:51–69Google Scholar
  40. Sparrow AH, Price HJ, Underbrink AG (1972) A survey of DNA content per cell and per chromosome of prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms: some evolutionary considerations. In: Smith HH (ed) Evolution of genetic systems. Brookhaven symposia in biology, N. 23. Gordon and Breach, New York, pp 451–494Google Scholar
  41. Sumner AT (1972) A simple technique for demonstrating centromeric heterochromatin. Exp Cell Res 75:304–306Google Scholar
  42. Sutton WD, McCallum M (1972) Related satellite DNA's in the genus Mus. J Mol Biol 71:633–656Google Scholar
  43. Thaler L, Bonhomme F, Britton Davidian J (1981) Processes of speciation and semi-speciation in the house mouse. In: Berry RJ (ed) Biology of the house mouse. Academic Press, New York, pp 27–39Google Scholar
  44. Wahl GM, Stern M, Stark GR (1979) Efficient transfer of large DNA fragments from agarose gels to diazobenzyloxymethyl paper and rapid hybridization by using dextransulphate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 76:3683–3687Google Scholar
  45. Waring M, Britten RJ (1966) Nucleotide sequence repetition: a rapidly reassociating fraction of mouse DNA. Science 154:791–794Google Scholar
  46. Wigler M, Sweet R, Sim GK, Wold B, Pellicer A, Lacy E, Maniatis T, Silvestein S, Axel R (1979) Transformation of mammalian cells with genes from procaryotes and eucaryotes. Cell 16:777–785Google Scholar
  47. Yonekawa H, Moriwaki K, Gotoh O, Miyashita N, Migita S, Bonhomme F, Hjorth JP, Petras ML, Tagashira Y (1982) Origins of laboratory mice deduced from restriction patterns of mitochondrial DNA. Differentiation 22:222–226Google Scholar
  48. Yunis G, Yasmineh WG (1971) Heterochromatin, satellite DNA and cell function. Science 174:1200–1209Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. A. Redi
    • 1
  • S. Garagna
    • 1
  • G. Della Valle
    • 2
  • G. Bottiroli
    • 1
  • P. Dell'Orto
    • 3
  • G. Viale
    • 3
  • F. A. Peverali
    • 4
  • E. Raimondi
    • 4
  • J. Forejt
    • 5
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Biologia Animale and Centro di Studio per l'Istochimica del CNRUniversita' di PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Biologia AnimaleUniversita' di CataniaCataniaItaly
  3. 3.Istituto di Anatomia e Istologia Patologica IIUniversita' di Milano, Ospedale San PaoloMilanoItaly
  4. 4.Dipartimento di Genetica e MicrobiologiaUniversita' di PaviaPaviaItaly
  5. 5.Institute of Molecular GeneticsCzechoslovak Academy of SciencesPrague 4Czechoslovakia

Personalised recommendations