We report on the hybridization of mouse chromosomal paints to Apodemus sylvaticus, the long-tailed field mouse. The mouse paints detected 38 conserved segments in the Apodemus karyotype. Together with the species reported here there are now six species of rodents mapped with Mus musculus painting probes. A parsimony analysis indicated that the syntenies of nine M. musculus chromosomes were most likely already formed in the muroid ancestor: 3, 4, 7, 9, 14, 18, 19, X and Y. The widespread occurrence of syntenic segment associations of mouse chromosomes 1/17, 2/13, 7/19, 10/17, 11/16, 12/17 and 13/15 suggests that these associations were ancestral syntenies for muroid rodents. The muroid ancestral karyotype probably had a diploid number of about 2n = 54. It would be desirable to have a richer phylogenetic array of species before any final conclusions are drawn about the Muridae ancestral karyotype. The ancestral karyotype presented here should be considered as a working hypothesis.   

1.
Bernardi G, Olofsson B, Filipski J, Zerial M, Salinas J, Cuny G, Meunier-Rotival M, Rodier F: The mosaic genome of warm-blooded vertebrates. Science 228:953–958 (1985).
2.
Cavagna P, Stone G, Stanyon R: Black rat (Rattus rattus) genomic variability characterized by chromosome painting. Mamm Genome 13:157–163 (2002).
3.
Chowdhary BP, Raudsepp T: Chromosome painting in farm, pet and wild animal species. Methods in Cell Science 23:37–55 (2001).
4.
Contreras LC, Torres-Mura JC, Spotorno AE: The largest known chromosome number for a mammal, in a South American desert rodent. Experientia 46:506–508 (1990).
5.
Dubois JY, Catzeflis FM, Beintema JJ: The phylogenetic position of “Acomyinae” (Rodentia, Mammalia) as sister group of a Murinae + Gerbillinae clade: evidence from the nuclear ribonuclease gene. Mol Phylogenet Evol 13:181–192 (1999).
6.
Fagundes V, Scalzi-Martin JM, Sims K, Hozier J, Yonenaga-Yassuda Y: ZOO-FISH of a microdissection DNA library and G-banding patterns reveal the homeology between the Brazilian rodents Akodon cursor and A. montensis. Cytogenet Cell Genet 78:224–228 (1997).
7.
Ferguson-Smith MA, Yang F, O’Brien PC: Comparative Mapping Using Chromosome Sorting and Painting. ILAR J 39:68–76 (1998).
8.
Frönicke L, Chowdhary BP, Scherthan H, Gustavsson I: A comparative map of the porcine and human genomes demonstrates ZOO-FISH and gene mapping-based chromosomal homologies. Mamm Genome 7:285–290 (1996).
9.
Gallardo MH, Bickham JW, Honeycutt RL, Ojeda RA, Kohler N: Discovery of tetraploidy in a mammal. Nature 401:341 (1999).
10.
Goureau A, Yerle M, Schmitz A, Riquet J, Milan D, Pinton P, Frelat G, Gellin J: Human and porcine correspondence of chromosome segments using bidirectional chromosome painting. Genomics 36:252–262 (1996).
11.
Grutzner F, Himmelbauer H, Paulsen M, Ropers HH, Haaf T: Comparative mapping of mouse and rat chromosomes by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Genomics 55:306–313 (1999).
12.
Guilly MN, Fouchet P, de Chamisso P, Schmitz A, Dutrillaux B: Comparative karyotype of rat and mouse using bidirectional chromosome painting. Chromosome Res 7:213–221 (1999).
13.
Heyman P, Van Mele R, De Jaegere F, Klingstrom J, Vandenvelde C, Lundkvist A, Rozenfeld F, Zizi M: Distribution of hantavirus foci in Belgium. Acta Trop 84:183–188 (2002).
14.
Humair PF, Rais O, Gern L: Transmission of Borrelia afzelii from Apodemus mice and Clethrionomys voles to Ixodes ricinus ticks: differential transmission pattern and overwintering maintenance. Parasitology 118(Pt 1):33–42 (1999).
15.
Kent WJ, Baertsch R, Hinrichs A, Miller W, Haussler D: Evolution’s cauldron: duplication, deletion, and rearrangement in the mouse and human genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:11484–11489 (2003).
16.
Klever M, Grond-Ginsbach C, Scherthan H, Schroeder-Kurth TM: Chromosomal in situ suppression hybridization after Giemsa banding. Hum Genet 86:484–486 (1991).
17.
Korstanje R, O’Brien PC, Yang F, Rens W, Bosma AA, van Lith HA, van Zutphen LF, Ferguson-Smith MA: Complete homology maps of the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and human by reciprocal chromosome painting. Cytogenet Cell Genet 86:317–322 (1999).
18.
Matsubara K, Nishida-Umehara C, Kuroiwa A, Tsuchiya K, Matsuda Y: Identification of chromosome rearrangements between the laboratory mouse (Mus musculus) and the Indian spiny mouse (Mus platythrix) by comparative FISH analysis. Chromosome Res 11:57–64 (2003).
19.
Michaux JR, Filippucci MG, Libois RM, Fons R, Matagne RF: Biogeography and taxonomy of Apodemus sylvaticus (the woodmouse) in the Tyrrhenian region: enzymatic variations and mitochondrial DNA restriction pattern analysis. Heredity 76(Pt 3):267–277 (1996).
20.
Michaux JR, Chevret P, Filippucci MG, Macholan M: Phylogeny of the genus Apodemus with a special emphasis on the subgenus Sylvaemus using the nuclear IRBP gene and two mitochondrial markers: cytochrome b and 12S rRNA. Mol Phylogenet Evol 23:123–136 (2002).
21.
Murphy WJ, Stanyon R, O’Brien SJ: Evolution of mammalian genome organization inferred from comparative gene mapping. Genome Biol 2: REVIEWS0005 (2001).
22.
Nadeau JH, Taylor BA: Lengths of chromosomal segments conserved since divergence of man and mouse. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 81:814–818 (1984).
23.
Nash WG, Wienberg J, Ferguson-Smith MA, Menninger JC, O’Brien SJ: Comparative genomics: tracking chromosome evolution in the family Ursidae using reciprocal chromosome painting. Cytogenet Cell Genet 83:182–192 (1998).
24.
Nilsson S, Helou K, Walentinsson A, Szpirer C, Nerman O, Stahl F: Rat-mouse and rat-human comparative maps based on gene homology and high-resolution zoo-FISH. Genomics 74:287–298 (2001).
25.
O’Brien SJ, Eisenberg JF, Miyamoto M, Hedges SB, Kumar S, Wilson DE, Menotti-Raymond M, Murphy WJ, Nash WG, Lyons LA, Menninger JC, Stanyon R, Wienberg J, Copeland NG, Jenkins NA, Gellin J, Yerle M, Andersson L, Womack J, Broad T, Postlethwait J, Serov O, Bailey E, James MR, Marshall Graves JA, et al.: Genome maps 10. Comparative genomics. Mammalian radiations. Wall chart. Science 286:463–478 (1999).
26.
Rabbitts P, Impey H, Heppell-Parton A, Langford C, Tease C, Lowe N, Bailey D, Ferguson-Smith M, Carter N: Chromosome specific paints from a high resolution flow karyotype of the mouse. Nat Genet 9:369–375 (1995).
27.
Rambau RV, Robinson TJ: Chromosome painting in the African four-striped mouse Rhabdomys pumilio: detection of possible murid specific contiguous segment combinations. Chromosome Res 11:91–98 (2003).
28.
Richard F, Messaoudi C, Bonnet-Garnier A, Lombard M, Dutrillaux B: Highly conserved chromosomes in an Asian squirrel (Menetes berdmorei, Rodentia: Sciuridae) as demonstrated by ZOO-FISH with human probes. Chromosome Res 11:597–603 (2003).
29.
Scherthan H, Cremer T, Arnason U, Weier HU, Lima-de-Faria A, Fronicke L: Comparative chromosome painting discloses homologous segments in distantly related mammals. Nat Genet 6:342–347 (1994).
30.
Silva MJ, Yonenaga-Yassuda Y: Karyotype and chromosomal polymorphism of an undescribed Akodon from Central Brazil, a species with the lowest known diploid chromosome number in rodents. Cytogenet Cell Genet 81:46–50 (1998).
31.
Stanyon R, Yang F, Cavagna P, O’Brien PC, Bagga M, Ferguson-Smith MA, Wienberg J: Reciprocal chromosome painting shows that genomic rearrangement between rat and mouse proceeds ten times faster than between humans and cats. Cytogenet Cell Genet 84:150–155 (1999).
32.
Stanyon R, Stone G, Garcia M, Froenicke L: Reciprocal chromosome painting shows that squirrels, unlike murid rodents, have a highly conserved genome organization. Genomics 82:245–249 (2003).
33.
Telenius H, Carter NP, Bebb CE, Nordenskjold M, Ponder BAJ, Tunnacliffe A: Degenerate Oligonucleotide-Primed PCR: General Amplification of Target DNA by a Single Degenerate Primer. Genomics 13:718–725 (1992).
34.
Volobouev V, Vogt N, Viegas-Pequignot E, Malfoy B, Dutrillaux B: Characterization and chromosomal location of two repeated DNAs in three Gerbillus species. Chromosoma 104:252–259 (1995).
35.
Volobouev VT, Aniskin VM, Lecompte E, Ducroz JF: Patterns of karyotype evolution in complexes of sibling species within three genera of African murid rodents inferred from the comparison of cytogenetic and molecular data. Cytogenet Genome Res 96:261–275 (2002).
36.
Wienberg J, Stanyon R, Nash WG, O’Brien PC, Yang F, O’Brien SJ, Ferguson-Smith MA: Conservation of human vs. feline genome organization revealed by reciprocal chromosome painting. Cytogenet Cell Genet 77:211–217 (1997).
37.
Yang F, O’Brien PC, Milne BS, Graphodatsky AS, Solanky N, Trifonov V, Rens W, Sargan D, Ferguson-Smith MA: A complete comparative chromosome map for the dog, red fox, and human and its integration with canine genetic maps. Genomics 62:189–202 (1999).
38.
Yang F, Graphodatsky AS, O’Brien PC, Colabella A, Solanky N, Squire M, Sargan DR, Ferguson-Smith MA: Reciprocal chromosome painting illuminates the history of genome evolution of the domestic cat, dog and human. Chromosome Res 8:393–404 (2000a).
39.
Yang F, O’Brien PC, Ferguson-Smith MA: Comparative chromosome map of the laboratory mouse and Chinese hamster defined by reciprocal chromosome painting. Chromosome Res 8:219–227 (2000b).
40.
Yang F, Alkalaeva EZ, Perelman PL, Pardini AT, Harrison WR, O’Brien PC, Fu B, Graphodatsky AS, Ferguson-Smith MA, Robinson TJ: Reciprocal chromosome painting among human, aardvark, and elephant (superorder Afrotheria) reveals the likely eutherian ancestral karyotype. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:1062–1066 (2003).
© 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
2004
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.