The karyotypic evolution in the family Bovidae is based on centric fusions of ancestral acrocentric chromosomes. Here, the frequency and distribution of meiotic recombination was analyzed in pachytene spermatocytes from Bos taurus (2n = 60) and 3 wildebeest species (Connochaetes gnou, C. taurinus taurinus and C. t. albojubatus) (2n = 58) using immunofluorescence and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Significant differences in mean numbers of recombination events per cell were observed between B. taurus and members of the genus Connochaetes (47.2 vs. 43.7, p < 0.001). The number of MLH1 foci was significantly correlated with the length of the autosomal synaptonemal complexes. The average interfocus distance was influenced by interference. The male recombination maps of bovine chromosomes 2 and 25 and of their fused homologues in wildebeests were constructed. A significant reduction of recombination in the fused chromosome BTA25 was observed in wildebeests (p = 0.005). This was probably caused by interference acting across the centromere, which was significantly stronger than the intra-arm interference. This comparative meiotic study showed significant differences among the species from the family Bovidae with the same fundamental number of autosomal arms (FNa = 29) which differ by a single centric fusion.

1.
Anderson LK, Reeves A, Webb LM, Ashley T: Distribution of crossing over on mouse synaptonemal complexes using immunofluorescent localization of MLH1 protein. Genetics 151:1569-1579 (1999).
2.
Arias JA, Keehan M, Fisher P, Coppieters W, Spelman R: A high density linkage map of the bovine genome. BMC Genet 10:18 (2009).
3.
Barlow AL, Hultén MA: Crossing over analysis at pachytene in man. Eur J Hum Genet 6:350-358 (1998).
4.
Basheva EA, Bidau CJ, Borodin PM: General pattern of meiotic recombination in male dogs estimated by MLH1 and RAD51 immunolocalization. Chromosome Res 16:709-719 (2008).
5.
Bidau CJ, Giménez MD, Palmer CL, Searle JB: The effects of Robertsonian fusions on chiasma frequency and distribution in the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus) from a hybrid zone in northern Scotland. Heredity 87:305-313 (2001).
6.
Borodin PM, Karamysheva TV, Belonogova NM, Torgasheva AA, Rubtsov NB, Searle JB: Recombination map of the common shrew, Sorex araneus (Eulipotyphla, Mammalia). Genetics 178:621-632 (2008).
7.
Codina-Pascual M, Oliver-Bonet M, Navarro J, Campillo M, García F, et al: Synapsis and meiotic recombination analyses: MLH1 focus in the XY pair as an indicator. Hum Reprod 20:2133-2139 (2005).
8.
Cohen PE, Pollack SE, Pollard JW: Genetic analysis of chromosome pairing, recombination, and cell cycle control during first meiotic prophase in mammals. Endocr Rev 27:398-426 (2006).
9.
Froenicke L, Anderson LK, Wienberg J, Ashley T: Male mouse recombination maps for each autosome identified by chromosome painting. Am J Hum Genet 71:1353-1368 (2002).
10.
Gallagher DS Jr, Derr JN, Womack JE: Chromosome conservation among the advanced pecorans and determination of the primitive bovid karyotype. J Hered 85:204-210 (1994).
11.
Groves C, Grubb P: Ungulate Taxonomy. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (2011).
12.
Hart EJ, Pinton A, Powell A, Wall R, King WA: Meiotic recombination in normal and clone bulls and their offspring. Cytogenet Genome Res 120:97-101 (2008).
13.
Hassold T, Sherman S, Hunt P: Counting cross-overs: characterizing meiotic recombination in mammals. Hum Mol Genet 9:2409-2419 (2000).
14.
Hassold T, Hansen T, Hunt P, VandeVoort C: Cytological studies of recombination in rhesus males. Cytogenet Genome Res 124:132-138 (2009).
15.
Ihara N, Takasuga A, Mizoshita K, Takeda H, Sugimoto M, et al: A comprehensive genetic map of the cattle genome based on 3802 microsatellites. Genome Res 14:1987-1998 (2004).
16.
Kubickova S, Cernohorska H, Musilova P, Rubes J: The use of laser microdissection for the preparation of chromosome-specific painting probes in farm animals. Chromosome Res 10:571-577 (2002).
17.
Lian J, Yin Y, Oliver-Bonet M, Liehr T, Ko E, et al: Variation in crossover interference levels on individual chromosomes from human males. Hum Mol Genet 17:2583-2594 (2008).
18.
Lynn A, Koehler KE, Judis L, Chan ER, Cherry JP, et al: Covariation of synaptonemal complex length and mammalian meiotic exchange rates. Science 296:2222-2225 (2002).
19.
Modi WS, Gallagher DS, Womack JE: Evolutionary histories of highly repeated DNA families among the Artiodactyla (Mammalia). J Mol Evol 42:337-349 (1996).
20.
Rubes J, Musilova P, Kopecna O, Kubickova S, Cernohorska H, Kulemsina AI: Comparative molecular cytogenetics in Cetartiodactyla. Cytogenet Genome Res 137:194-207 (2012).
21.
Sun F, Oliver-Bonet M, Liehr T, Starke H, Ko E, et al: Human male recombination maps for individual chromosomes. Am J Hum Genet 74:521-531 (2004).
22.
Sun F, Trpkov K, Rademaker A, Ko E, Martin RH: Variation in meiotic recombination frequencies among human males. Hum Genet 116:172-178 (2005).
23.
Sun F, Oliver-Bonet M, Liehr T, Starke H, Turek P, et al: Variation in MLH1 distribution in recombination maps for individual chromosomes from human males. Hum Mol Genet 15:2376-2391 (2006a).
24.
Sun F, Oliver-Bonet M, Liehr T, Starke H, Turek P, et al: Analysis of non-crossover bivalents in pachytene cells from 10 normal men. Hum Reprod 21:2335-2339 (2006b).
25.
Tease C, Hultén MA: Inter-sex variation in synaptonemal complex lengths largely determine the different recombination rates in male and female germ cells. Cytogenet Genome Res 107:208-215 (2004).
26.
Yang Q, Zhang D, Leng M, Yang L, Zhong L, et al: Synapsis and meiotic recombination in male Chinese muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi). PLoS One 6:e19255 (2011).
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.