Abstract
Species across the rodent genus Peromyscus have become prominent models for studying diverse mechanistic and evolutionary processes, including chromosome evolution, infectious disease transmission and human health, ecological adaptation, coat color variation, and parental care. Supporting such diverse research programs has been the development of genetic and genomic resources for species within this genus, including genome data, interspecific chromosome homologies, and a recently developed genetic map. Based on interspecific hybrids between the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii) and the old-field, or beach, mouse (Peromyscus polionotus) and backcross progeny to Peromyscus maniculatus, a linkage map was developed based on 190 genes and 141 microsatellite loci. However, resolution of several linkage groups with respect to chromosome assignment was lacking and four chromosomes (8, 16, 20, and 21) were not clearly delineated with linkage data alone. The recent development of a high-density map for Peromyscus proved ineffective in resolving chromosome linkage for these four chromosomes. Herein we present an updated linkage map for Peromyscus maniculatus, including linkage group-chromosome assignments, using fluorescence in situ hybridization mapping of BACs and whole chromosome paints. We resolve the previously conflicting chromosome assignment of linkage groups to Chromosomes 8, 16, 20, and 21, and confirm the assignment of linkage groups to Chromosomes 18 and 22. This updated linkage map with validated chromosome assignment provides a solid foundation for chromosome nomenclature for this species.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bedford NL, Hoekstra HE (2015) Peromyscus mice as a model for studying natural variation. Elife. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06813
Bendesky A et al (2017) The genetic basis of parental care evolution in monogamous mice. Nature 544:434–439. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22074
Bunikis J, Tsao J, Luke CJ, Luna MG, Fish D, Barbour AG (2004) Borrelia burgdorferi infection in a natural population of Peromyscus leucopus mice: a longitudinal study in an area where lyme borreliosis is highly endemic. J Infect Dis 189:1515–1523. https://doi.org/10.1086/382594
Dawson WD, Lake CE, Schumpert SS (1988) Inheritance of burrow building in Peromyscus. Behav Genet 18:371–382
Dewey MJ, Dawson WD (2001) Deer mice. “The Drosophila of North American mammalogy”. Genesis 29:105–109
Dobzhansky T (1970) Genetics of the evolutionary process. Columbia University Press, New York
Greenbaum IF et al (1994) Cytogenetic nomenclature of deer mice, Peromyscus (Rodentia): revision and review of the standardized karyotype. Cytogenet Genome Res 66:181–195
Hall ER (1981) Mammals of North America vol 2. Wiley, New York
Harris SE, Munshi-South J, Obergfell C, O’Neill R (2013) Signatures of rapid evolution in urban and rural transcriptomes of white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) in the New York metropolitan area. PLoS ONE 8:e74938. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074938
Hjelle B, Krolikowski J, Torrez-Martinez N, Chavez-Giles F, Vanner C, Laposata E (1995) Phylogenetically distinct hantavirus implicated in a case of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome in the northeastern United States. J Med Virol 46:21–27
Jasarevic E et al (2013) Evolution of monogamy, paternal investment, and female life history in Peromyscus. J Comp Psychol 127:91–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027936
Kenney-Hunt J et al (2014) A genetic map of Peromyscus with chromosomal assignment of linkage groups (a Peromyscus genetic map). Mamm Genome 25:160–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00335-014-9500-8
Kirkpatrick M (2010) How and why chromosome inversions evolve. PLoS Biol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000501
Metz HC, Bedford NL, Pan YL, Hoekstra HE (2017) Evolution and genetics of precocious burrowing behavior in Peromyscus mice. Curr Biol https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.10.061
Mlynarski EE et al (2008) Peromyscus maniculatus—Mus musculus chromosome homology map derived from reciprocal cross species chromosome painting. Cytogenet Genome Res 121:288–292. https://doi.org/10.1159/000138900
Mlynarski EE, Obergfell CJ, O’Neill MJ, O’Neill RJ (2010) Divergent patterns of breakpoint reuse in Muroid rodents. Mamm Genome 21:77–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00335-009-9242-1
Munshi-South J, Kharchenko K (2010) Rapid, pervasive genetic differentiation of urban white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) populations in New York City. Mol Ecol 19:4242–4254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04816.x
Musser GG, Carleton MD (2005) Peromyscus. In: Wilson DE, Reeder DM (eds) Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference, 3rd edn. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
O’Neill RJ et al. (2007) White paper proposal for sequencing the genome of Peromyscus
Ramamoorthi N et al (2005) The Lyme disease agent exploits a tick protein to infect the mammalian host. Nature 436:573–577. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03812
Ramsdell CM, Lewandowski AA, Glenn JL, Vrana PB, O’Neill RJ, Dewey MJ (2008) Comparative genome mapping of the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) reveals greater similarity to rat (Rattus norvegicus) than to the lab mouse (Mus musculus). BMC Evol Biol 8:65. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-8-65
Sacher GA, Hart RW (1978) Longevity, aging and comparative cellular and molecular biology of the house mouse, Mus musculus, and the white-footed mouse. Peromyscus leucopus. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser 14:71–96
Schwanz LE, Voordouw MJ, Brisson D, Ostfeld RS (2011) Borrelia burgdorferi has minimal impact on the Lyme disease reservoir host Peromyscus leucopus. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 11:117–124. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2009.0215
Shi Y et al (2013) Reduced mitochondrial ROS, enhanced antioxidant defense, and distinct age-related changes in oxidative damage in muscles of long-lived Peromyscus leucopus. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 304:R343-355. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00139.2012
Shorter KR, Crossland JP, Webb D, Szalai G, Felder MR, Vrana PB (2012) Peromyscus as a mammalian epigenetic model. Genet Res Int 2012:179159. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/179159
Simonsen L et al (1995) Evaluation of the magnitude of the 1993 hantavirus outbreak in the southwestern United States. J Infect Dis 172:729–733
Steiner CC, Weber JN, Hoekstra HE (2007) Adaptive variation in beach mice produced by two interacting pigmentation genes. PLoS Biol 5:e219. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050219
Sturtevant AH (1921) A case of rearrangement of genes in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 7:235–237
Ungvari Z et al (2008) Testing hypotheses of aging in long-lived mice of the genus Peromyscus: association between longevity and mitochondrial stress resistance, ROS detoxification pathways, and DNA repair efficiency. Age 30:121–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-008-9059-y
Vrana PB, Guan XJ, Ingram RS, Tilghman SM (1998) Genomic imprinting is disrupted in interspecific Peromyscus hybrids. Nat Genet 20:362–365. https://doi.org/10.1038/3833
Vrana PB, Fossella JA, Matteson P, del Rio T, O’Neill MJ, Tilghman SM (2000) Genetic and epigenetic incompatibilities underlie hybrid dysgenesis in Peromyscus. Nat Genet 25:120–124. https://doi.org/10.1038/75518
Weber JN, Peterson BK, Hoekstra HE (2013) Discrete genetic modules are responsible for complex burrow evolution in Peromyscus mice. Nature 493:402–405. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11816
Acknowledgements
We thank H. Hoekstra and A. Bendesky for bringing the original inconsistency in linkage group assignments to our attention. We thank Mike Dewey, Mike Felder, and Paul Vrana of the Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center for tissues to establish cell lines, BACs used in the analyses herein, and their continuing support. RJO is supported by NSF 1643825 and 1613806.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brown, J., Crivello, J. & O’Neill, R.J. An updated genetic map of Peromyscus with chromosomal assignment of linkage groups. Mamm Genome 29, 344–352 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00335-018-9754-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00335-018-9754-7