The Mus musculus and Rattus norvegicus genomes have been extensively studied, yet despite the emergence of Peromyscus maniculatus as an NIH model for genome sequencing and biomedical research much remains unknown about the genome organization of Peromyscines. Contrary to their phylogenetic relationship, the genomes of Rattus and Peromyscus appear more similar at the gross karyotypic level than either does to Mus. We set out to define the chromosome homologies between Peromyscus, Mus and Rattus. Reciprocal cross-species chromosome painting and G-band homology assignments were used to delineate the conserved chromosome homology map between P. maniculatus and M. musculus. These data show that each species has undergone extensive chromosome rearrangements since they last shared a common ancestor 25 million years ago (mya). This analysis coupled with an inferred homology map with Rattus revealed a high level of chromosome conservation between Rattus and Peromyscus and indicated that the chromosomes of Mus are highly derived.

1.
Bowers KL, Hamilton MJ, Witte SM, Baker RJ: On the origins of heterochromatic repatterning in the white-footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus. J Mammal 79:725–735 (1988).
2.
Brown JD, Strbuncelj M, Giardina C, O’Neill RJ: Interspecific hybridization induced amplification of Mdm2 on double minutes in a Mus hybrid. Cytogenet Genome Res 98:184–188 (2002).
3.
Dewey MJ, Dawson WD: Deer mice: ‘The Drosophila of North American mammalogy’. Genesis 29:105–109 (2001).
4.
Dobigny G, Ducroz JF, Robinson TJ, Volobouev V: Cytogenetics and cladistics. Syst Biol 53:470–484 (2004).
5.
Engelbrecht A, Dobigny G, Robinson TJ: Further insights into the ancestral murine karyotype: the contribution of the Otomys-Mus comparison using chromosome painting. Cytogenet Genome Res 112:126–130 (2006).
6.
Ferguson-Smith MA: Genetic analysis by chromosome sorting and painting: phylogenetic and diagnostic applications. Eur J Hum Genet 5:253–265 (1997).
7.
Ferreri GC, Marzelli M, Rens W, O’Neill RJ: A centromere-specific retroviral element associated with breaks of synteny in macropodine marsupials. Cytogenet Genome Res 107:115–118 (2004).
8.
Greenbaum IF, Baker RJ: Determination of the primitive karyotype for Peromyscus. J Mammal 59:820–834 (1978).
9.
Greenbaum IF, Gunn SJ, Smith SA, McAllister BF, Hale DW, et al: Cytogenetic nomenclature of deer mice, Peromyscus (Rodentia): revision and review of the standardized karyotype. Report of the Committee for the Standardization of Chromosomes of Peromyscus. Cytogenet Cell Genet 66:181–195 (1994).
10.
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).
11.
Hamilton MJ, Hong G, Wichman HA: Intragenomic movement and concerted evolution of satellite DNA in Peromyscus: evidence from in situ hybridization. Cytogenet Cell Genet 60:40–44 (1992).
12.
Hammer MF, Schimenti J, Silver LM: Evolution of mouse chromosome 17 and the origin of inversions associated with t haplotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86:3261–3265 (1989).
13.
Helou K, Walentinsson A, Levan G, Stahl F: Between rat and mouse zoo-FISH reveals 49 chromosomal segments that have been conserved in evolution. Mamm Genome 12:765–771 (2001).
14.
Hjelle B, Krolikowski J, Torrez-Martinez N, Chavez-Giles F, Vanner C, Laposata E: Phylogenetically distinct hantavirus implicated in a case of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome in the northeastern United States. J Med Virol 46:21–27 (1995).
15.
Jansa SA, Weksler M: Phylogeny of muroid rodents: relationships within and among major lineages as determined by IRBP gene sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol 31:256–276 (2004).
16.
Lyon MF: A personal history of the mouse genome. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 3:1–16 (2002).
17.
Metcalfe CJ, Bulazel KV, Ferreri GC, Schroeder- Reiter E, Wanner G, et al: Genomic instability within centromeres of interspecific marsupial hybrids. Genetics 177:2507–2517 (2007).
18.
Murphy WJ, Eizirik E, Johnson WE, Zhang YP, Ryder OA, O’Brien SJ: Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals. Nature 409:614–618 (2001a).
19.
Murphy WJ, Eizirik E, O’Brien SJ, Madsen O, Scally M, et al: Resolution of the early placental mammal radiation using Bayesian phylogenetics. Science 294:2348–2351 (2001b).
20.
Murphy WJ, Larkin DM, Everts-van der Wind A, Bourque G, Tesler G, et al: Dynamics of mammalian chromosome evolution inferred from multispecies comparative maps. Science 309:613–617 (2005).
21.
Nachman MW, Boyer SN, Searle JB, Aquadro CF: Mitochondrial DNA variation and the evolution of Robertsonian chromosomal races of house mice, Mus domesticus. Genetics 136:1105–1120 (1994).
22.
Nichol ST, Spiropoulou CF, Morzunov S, Rollin PE, Ksiazek TG, et al: Genetic identification of a hantavirus associated with an outbreak of acute respiratory illness. Science 262:914–917 (1993).
23.
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).
24.
O’Neill RJ, Eldridge MD, Toder R, Ferguson-Smith MA, O’Brien PC, Graves JA: Chromosome evolution in kangaroos (Marsupialia: Macropodidae): cross species chromosome painting between the tammar wallaby and rock wallaby spp. with the 2n = 22 ancestral macropodid karyotype. Genome 42:525–530 (1999).
25.
Parnell PG, Crossland JP, Beattie RM, Dewey MJ: Frequent Harderian gland adenocarcinomas in inbred white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus). Comp Med 55:382–386 (2005).
26.
Pilder SH, Hammer MF, Silver LM: A novel mouse chromosome 17 hybrid sterility locus: implications for the origin of t haplotypes. Genetics 129:237–246 (1991).
27.
Ramsdell CM, Thames EL, Weston JL, Dewey MJ: Development of a deer mouse whole-genome radiation hybrid panel and comparative mapping of Mus chromosome 11 loci. Mamm Genome 17:37–48 (2006).
28.
Ramsdell CM, Lewandowski AA, Weston-Gelnn JL, Vrana PB, O’Neill RJ, Dewey MJ: 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 (2008).
29.
Robbins LW, Baker RJ: An assessment of the nature of chromosomal rearrangements in 18 species of Peromyscus (Rodentia: Cricetidae). Cytogenet Cell Genet 31:194–202 (1981).
30.
Sarich V: Evolutionary Relationships among Rodents: a Multidisciplinary Analysis (Plenum Press, New York 1985).
31.
Searle AG: Chromosomal variants: numerical variants and structural rearrangements, in Lyon MF, Searle AG (eds): Genetic Variants and Strains of the Laboratory Mouse, pp 582–616 (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1989).
32.
Serov O, Chowdhary BP, Womack JE, Graves JAM: Comparative gene mapping, chromosome painting and the reconstruction of the ancestral karyotype, in Ruvinsky A, Graves JAM (eds): Mammalian Genomics, pp 349–392 (CABI Publishing, Cambridge 2005).
33.
Silver LM: Mouse Genetics (Oxford University Press, New York 1995).
34.
Stanyon R, Yang F, Cavagna P, O’Brien PC, Bagga M, et al: 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).
35.
Steppan S, Adkins R, Anderson J: Phylogeny and divergence-date estimates of rapid radiations in muroid rodents based on multiple nuclear genes. Syst Biol 53:533–553 (2004).
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
2008
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.