Advertisement

Animal Probes and ZOO-FISH

  • Fengtang YangEmail author
  • Alexander S. Graphodatsky
Protocol
Part of the Springer Protocols Handbooks book series (SPH)

Abstract

The invention of cross-species chromosome painting (Zoo-FISH) represents the most significant technical breakthrough in animal cytogenetics after the introduction of chromosomal banding techniques in late 1960 and the early 1970s. This made it possible to compare the karyotypes of virtually any two vertebrate species that diverged up to 100 million years ago. With the availability of paint probes for more and more vertebrate species, Zoo-FISH has made a far-reaching impact on animal comparative cytogenetics, leading to the birth of the new cytogenetics—cytogenomics. Here we present two detailed protocols for cross-species chromosome painting.

Keywords

Cross species Chromosome painting Zoo-FISH Cytogenetics Evolution Animal probes Mammalia Insects Fishes Reptiles Amphibia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The development of these protocols has been relying on the continuous efforts of our colleagues, graduate students, and collaborators. We are particularly grateful to Malcolm A. Ferguson-Smith and Nigel P. Carter who introduced us to the field of chromosome painting in the early 1990s. We thank Patricia CM O’Brien for a critical reading of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Scherthan H, Cremer T, Arnason U et al (1994) Comparative chromosome painting discloses homologous segments in distantly related mammals. Nat Genet 6:342–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pinkel D, Landegent J, Collins C et al (1988) Fluorescence in situ hybridization with human chromosome-specific libraries – detection of trisomy-21 and translocations of chromosome-4. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85:9138–9142CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wienberg J, Jauch A, Stanyon R et al (1990) Molecular cytotaxonomy of primates by chromosomal in situ suppression hybridization. Genomics 8:347–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jauch A, Wienberg J, Stanyon R et al (1992) Reconstruction of genomic rearrangements in great apes and gibbons by chromosome painting. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89:8611–8615CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Telenius H, Carter NP, Bebb CE et al (1992) Degenerate oligonucleotide-primed PCR: general amplification of target DNA by a single degenerate primer. Genomics 13:718–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Telenius H, Pelmear AH, Tunnacliffe A et al (1992) Cytogenetic analysis by chromosome painting using DOP-PCR amplified flow-sorted chromosomes. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 4:257–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rabbitts P, Impey H, Heppell-Parton A et al (1995) Chromosome specific paints from a high resolution flow karyotype of the mouse. Nat Genet 9:369–375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yang F, Muller S, Just R et al (1997) Comparative chromosome painting in mammals: human and the Indian muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak vaginalis). Genomics 39:396–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yang F, O’Brien PCM, Milne BS et al (1999) A complete comparative chromosome map for the dog, red fox, and human and its integration with canine genetic maps. Genomics 62:189–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deng W, Tsao SW, Lucas JN et al (2003) A new method for improving metaphase chromosome spreading. Cytometry A 51:46–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henegariu O, Heerema NA, Wright LL et al (2001) Improvements in cytogenetic slide preparation: controlled chromosome spreading, chemical aging and gradual denaturing. Cytometry 43:101–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wellcome Trust Sanger InstituteHinxton, CambridgeUK
  2. 2.Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Russian Academy of SciencesNovosibirskRussia

Personalised recommendations