The species-specific profile and centromeric heterochromatin localization of satellite DNA in mammalian genomes imply that satellite DNA may play an important role in mammalian karyotype evolution and speciation. A satellite III DNA family, CCsatIII was thought to be specific to roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). In this study, however, this satellite DNA family was found also to exist in Chinese water deer (Hydropotes inermis) by PCR-Southern screening. A satellite III DNA element of this species was then generated from PCR-cloning by amplifying this satellite element using primer sequences from the roe deer satellite III clone (CCsatIII). The newly generated satellite III DNA along with previously obtained satellite I and II DNA clones were used as probes for FISH studies to investigate the genomic distribution and organization of these three satellite DNA families in centromeric heterochromatin regions of Chinese water deer chromosomes. Satellite I and II DNA were observed in the pericentric/centric regions of all chromosomes, whereas satellite III was distributed on 38 out of 70 chromosomes. The distribution and orientation of satellite DNAs I, II and III in the centromeric heterochromatin regions of the genome were further classified into four different types. The existence of a Capreolus-like satellite III in Chinese water deer implies that satellite III is not specific to the genus Capreolus (Buntjer et al., 1998) and supports the molecular phylogeny classification of Randi et al. (1998) which suggests that Chinese water deer and roe deer are closely related.

1.
Bogenberger JM, Neitzel H, Fittler F: A highly repetitive DNA component common to all Cervidae: its organization and chromosomal distribution during evolution. Chromosoma 95:154–161 (1987).
2.
Bouvrain G, Geraads D, Jehenne Y: New data relating to the classification of the Cervidae (Artiodactyla, Mammalia). Zool Anz 223:82–90 (1989).
3.
Buckland RA: Sequence and evolution of related bovine and caprine satellite DNAs. Identification of a short DNA sequence potentially involved in satellite DNA amplification. J Mol Biol 186:25–30 (1985).
4.
Buntjer JB, Nijman IJ, Zijlstra C, Lenstra JA: A satellite DNA element specific for roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Chromosoma 107:1–5 (1998).
5.
Charlesworth B, Sniegowski P, Stephan W: The evolutionary dynamics of repetitive DNA in eukaryotes. Nature 371:215–220 (1994).
6.
Denome R, O’Callaghan B, Luitjens C, Harper E, Bianco R: Characterization of a satellite DNA from Antilocapra americana. Gene 145:257–259 (1994).
7.
Douzery E, Randi E: The mitochondrial control region of Cervidae: evolutionary patterns and phylogenetic content. Mol Bio Evol 14:1154–1166 (1997).
8.
Dracopoli NC, Haines JL, Korf B, Moir DT, Morton CC, Seidman CE, Seidman JG, Smith DR: Chromosome banding techniques: Centromeric heterochromain staining (C-banding), in: Current Protocols in Human Genetics. Volume 1 unit 4.2. pp 25–28 (John Willey & Sons, Hoboken 2001).
9.
Elder FFB, Hsu TC: Tandem fusion in the evolution of mammalian chromosomes, in: Sandberg AA (ed): The Cytogenetics of Mammalian Autochromosomal Rearrangements, pp 481–506 (Alan R. Liss, New York 1988).
10.
Fontana F, Rubini M: Chromosomal evolution in Cervidae. Biosystems 24:157–174 (1990).
11.
Garrido-Ramos MA, de la Herran R, Jamilena R, Lozano R, Ruiz Rejon C, Ruiz Rejon M: Evolution of centromeric satellite DNA and its use in phylogenetic studies of the Sparidae family (Pisces, Perciformes). Mol Phylogenet Evol 12:200–204(1999).
12.
Groves GP, Grubb P: Relationships of living deer, in Wemmer CM (ed): Biology and Management of the Cervidae, pp 21–59 (Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC 1987).
13.
Kraus F, Miyamoto MM: Rapid cladogenesis among the pecoran ruminants: evidence from mitochrondrial DNA sequences. Syst Zool 40:117–130 (1991).
14.
Laursen HB, Jorgensen AL, Jones C, Bak AL: Higher rate of evolution of X chromosome alpha-repeat DNA in human than in the great apes. EMBO J 11:2367–2372 (1992).
15.
Lee C, Lin CC: Conservation of a 31-bp bovine subrepeat in centromeric satellite DNA monomers of Cervus elaphus and other cervid species. Chromosome Res 4:427–435 (1996).
16.
Lee C, Ritchie DBC, Lin CC: A tandemly repetitive, centromeric DNA sequence from the Canadian woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou): its conservation and evolution in several deer species. Chromosome Res 2:293–306 (1994).
17.
Lee C, Court DR, Cho C, Halett JL, Lin CC: Higher-order organization of subrepeats and the evolution of cervid satellite I DNA. J Mol Evol 44:327–335 (1997).
18.
Levinson G, Gutman GA: Slipped-strand mispairing: a major mechanism for DNA sequence evolution. Mol Biol Evol 4:203–221 (1987).
19.
Li YC, Lee C, Hseu TH, Li SY, Lin CC: Direct visualization of the genomic distribution and organization of two cervid centromeric satellite DNA families. Cytogenet Cell Genet 89:192–198 (2000a).
20.
Li YC, Lee C, Sanoudou D, Hseu TH, Li SY, Lin CC: Interstitial colocalization of two cervid satellites DNAs involved in the genesis of the Indian muntjac karyotype. Chromosome Res 8:363–373 (2000b).
21.
Li YC, Lee C, Chang WS, Li SY, Lin CC: Isolation and identification of a novel satellite DNA family highly conserved in several Cervidae species. Chromosoma 111:176–183 (2002).
22.
Li YC, Cheng YM, Hsieh LJ, Ryder OA, Fang F, Liao SJ, Hsiao KM, Tsai FJ, Tsai CH, Lin CC: Karyotypic evolution of a novel cervid satellite DNA family isolated by microdissection from the Indian muntjac Y-chromosome. Chromosoma 114:28–38 (2005).
23.
Lima-de-Faria A: Classification of genes, rearrangements and chromosomes according to the chromosome field. Hereditas 93:1–46 (1980).
24.
Lin CC, Sasi R, Fan YS, Chen ZQ: New evidence for tandem chromosome fusions in the karyotypic evolution of Asian muntjacs. Chromosoma 101:19–24 (1991).
25.
Lin CC, Chiang PY, Hsieh LJ, Liao SJ, Chao MC, Li YC: Cloning, characterization and physical mapping of three cervid satellite DNA families in the genome of the Formosan muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi micrurus). Cytogenet Genome Res 105:100–106 (2004).
26.
Meštrović N, Plohl M, Mravinac B, Ugarković D: Evolution of satellite DNAs from the genus Palorus – experimental evidence for the ‘library’ hypothesis. Mol Biol Evol 15:1062–1068 (1998).
27.
Miyamoto MM, Kraus F, Ryder OA: Phylogeny and evolution of antlered deer determined from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:6127–6131 (1990).
28.
Neitzel H: Chromosome evolution of Cervidae: karyotypic and molecular aspects, in Obeg G, Basler A (eds): Cytogenetics, pp 90–112 (Springer, Berlin 1987).
29.
Nijman IJ, Lenstra JA: Mutation and recombination in cattle satellite DNA: a feedback model for the evolution of satellite DNA repeats. J Mol Evol 52:361–371 (2001).
30.
Novak U: Structure and properties of a highly repetitive DNA sequence in sheep. Nucleic Acids Res 12:2343–2350 (1984).
31.
Nowak RM: Walker’s Mammals of the World. Fifth Edition, pp 1365 (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1991).
32.
Plucienniczak A, Skowronski J, Jaworski J: Nucleotide sequence of bovine 1.715 satellite DNA and its relation to other bovine satellite sequences. J Mol Biol 158:293–304 (1982).
33.
Qureshi SA, Blake RD: Sequence characteristics of a cervid DNA repeat family. J Mol Evol 40:400–404 (1995).
34.
Randi E, Mucci N, Pierpaoli M, Douzery E: New phylogenetic perspectives on the Cervidae (Artiodactyla) are provided by the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:793–801 (1998).
35.
Reisner AH, Bucholtz CA: Apparent relatedness of the main component of bovine 1.714 satellite DNA to bovine 1.715 satellite DNA. EMBO J 2:1145–1149 (1983).
36.
Salser W, Bowen S, Browne D, el-Adli F, Fedoroff N, Fry K, Heindell H, Paddock G, Poon R, Wallace B, Whitcome P: Investigation of the organization of mammalian chromosomes at the DNA sequence level. Fed Proc Fed Am Soc Exp Biol 35:23–35 (1976).
37.
Scherthan H: Characterization of a tandem repetitive sequence cloned from the deer Capreolus capreolus and its chromosomal localization in two muntjac species. Hereditas 115:43–49 (1991).
38.
Scherthan H: Chromosome evolution in muntjac revealed by centromere, telomere and whole chromosome paint probes. Kew chromosome Conf IV:267–280 (1995).
39.
Slamovits CH, Rossi MS: Satellite DNA: agent of chromosomal evolution in mammals. A review. J Neotrop Mammal 9:297–308 (2002).
40.
Ugarković D, Plohl M: Variation in satellite DNA profiles-cause and effects. EMBO J 21:5955–5959 (2002).
41.
Vafa O, Shelby RD, Sullivan KF: CENP-A associated complex satellite DNA in the kinetochore of the Indian muntjac. Chromosoma 108:367–374 (1999).
42.
Walsh JB: Persistence of tandem arrays: implications for satellite and simple-sequence DNA. Genetics 115:553–567 (1987).
43.
Wang W, Lan H: Rapid and parallel chromosomal number reductions in muntjac deer inferred from mitochondrial DNA phylogeny. Mol Biol Evol 17:1326–1333 (2000).
44.
Wichman HA, Payne CT, Ryder OA, Hamilton J, Maltbie M, Baker RJ: Genomic distribution of heterochromatic sequences in equids: Implications to rapid chromosomal evolution. J Hered 82:369–377 (1991).
45.
Yang F, O’Brien PCM, Wienberg J, Ferguson-Smith MA: A reappraisal of the tandem fusion theory of karyotype evolution in the Indian muntjac using chromosome painting. Chromosome Res 5:109–117 (1997).
© 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel
2006
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.