Cited by 112Genome Rearrangement AlgorithmsChromosomal and Genetic VariationsGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Reciprocal chromosome painting illuminates the history of genome evolution of the domestic cat, dog and human

Yang, Fengtang, Graphodatsky, Alexander S., O'Brien, Patricia C. M., Colabella, Amanda, Solanky, Nita, Squire, Michael, Sargan, David R., Ferguson-Smith, Malcolm A.·2000·Chromosome Research

Abstract

Domestic cats and dogs are important companion animals and model animals in biomedical research. The cat has a highly conserved karyotype, closely resembling the ancestral karyotype of mammals, while the dog has one of the most extensively rearranged mammalian karyotypes investigated so far. We have constructed the first detailed comparative chromosome map of the domestic dog and cat by reciprocal chromosome painting. Dog paints specific for the 38 autosomes and the X chromosomes delineated 68 conserved chromosomal segments in the cat, while reverse painting of cat probes onto red fox and dog chromosomes revealed 65 conserved segments. Most conserved segments on cat chromosomes also show a high degree of conservation in G-banding patterns compared with their canine counterparts. At least 47 chromosomal fissions (breaks), 25 fusions and one inversion are needed to convert the cat karyotype to that of the dog, confirming that extensive chromosome rearrangements differentiate the karyotypes of the cat and dog. Comparative analysis of the distribution patterns of conserved segments defined by dog paints on cat and human chromosomes has refined the human/cat comparative genome map and, most importantly, has revealed 15 cryptic inversions in seven large chromosomal regions of conserved synteny between humans and cats.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1009210803123

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Breen M, Thomas R, Binns MM, Carter NP, Langford CF (1999) Reciprocal chromosome painting revealed detailed regions of conserved synteny between the karyotypes of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) and human. Genomics 61: 145–155. · DOI
  2. Dutrillaux B, Couturier (1983) The ancestral karyotype of Carnivora: comparison with that of platyrrhine monkeys. Cytogenet Cell Genet 35: 200–208. · DOI
  3. Ferguson-Smith MA, Yang F, O'Brien PCM (1998) Comparative mapping using chromosome sorting and painting. ILAR J 39: 68–76. · DOI
  4. Graphodatsky AS, Yang F, O'Brien PCM et al. (2000) A comparative chromosome map of the Arctic fox, red fox and dog defined by chromosome painting and G-banding. Chromosome Res 8: 253–263. · DOI
  5. Lyons LA, Laughlin TF, Copeland NG, Jenkins NA, Womack JE, O'Brien SJ (1997) Comparative anchor tagged sequences (CATS) for integrative mapping of mammalian genomes. Nature Genet 15: 47–56. · DOI
  6. Murphy WJ, Menotti-Raymond M, Lyons LA, Thompson MA, O'Brien SJ (1999) Development of a feline whole genome radiation hybrid panel and comparative mapping of human chromosome 12 and 22 loci. Genomics 57: 1–8. · DOI
  7. Nadeau JH, Sankoff D (1998) Counting on comparative maps. Trends Genet 14: 495–501. · DOI
  8. Nash WG, O'Brien SJ (1982) Conserved regions of homologous G-banding chromosomes between orders in mammalian evolution: Carnivore and primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 79: 6631–6635. · DOI
  9. O'Brien SJ, Wienberg J, Lyons LA (1997) Comparative genomics: lessons from cats. Trends Genet 13: 393–399. · DOI
  10. O'Brien SJ, Menotti-Raymond M, Murphy WJ et al. (1999) The promise of comparative genomics in mammals. Science 286: 458–481 · DOI
  11. Ostrander EA, Galibert F, Patterson DF (2000) Canine genetics comes of age. Trends Genet 16: 117–124. · DOI
  12. Priat C, Jiang ZH, Renier C, André C, Galibert F (1999) Characterization of 463 type 1 markers suitable for dog genome mapping. Mamm Genome 10: 803–813. · DOI
  13. Rettenberger G, Klett C, Zechner U (1995) ZOO-FISH analysis: cat and human karyotypes closely resemble the putative ancestral mammalian karyotype. Chromosome Res 3: 479–486. · DOI
  14. Scherthan H, Cremer T, Arnason U, Weier HU, Lima-de-Faria A, Frönicke L (1994) Comparative chromosome painting discloses homologous segments in distantly related mammals. Nature Genet 6: 342–347. · DOI
  15. Wayne RK, Nash WG, O'Brien SJ (1987) Chromosome evolution of the Canidae II: Divergence from the primitive carnivore karyotype. Cytogenet Cell Genet 44: 134–141. · DOI
  16. Wienberg J, Stanyon R (1997) Comparative painting of mammalian chromosomes. Curr Opin Genet Dev 7: 784–791. · DOI
  17. Wienberg J, Stanyon R, Nash WG et al. (1997) Conservation of human vs. feline genome organization revealed by reciprocal chromosome painting. Cytogenet Cell Genet 77: 211–217. · DOI
  18. Wurster-Hill DH, Centerwall WR (1982) The interrelationships of chromosome-banding patterns in canids, mustelids, hyena, and felids. Cytogenet Cell Genet 34: 178–192. · DOI
  19. Yang F, Carter NP, Shi L, Ferguson-Smith MA (1995) A comparative study of karyotypes of muntjacs by chromosome painting. Chromosoma 103: 642–652. · DOI
  20. Yang F, MÏller S, Just R, Ferguson-Smith MA, Wienberg J (1997) Comparative chromosome painting in mammals: human and the Indian muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak vaginalis). Genomics 39: 396–401. · DOI
  21. 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: 189–202. · DOI
  22. Yang F, Milne BS, Schelling C et al. (2000) Chromosome identification and assignment of dog DNA clones in the dog using a red fox and dog comparative map. Chromosome Res 8: 93–100. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Yang, F., Graphodatsky, A. S., O'Brien, P. C. M., Colabella, A., Solanky, N., Squire, M., Sargan, D. R., & Ferguson-Smith, M. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Institute of Cytology and Genetics (RU)
Corresponding author
Ferguson-Smith, Malcolm A.
Venue
Chromosome Research
Published
2000-07
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
393-404
ISSN
  • 0967-3849 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6849
OpenAlex
W1514254435
Cited by
112
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Chromosome Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Keywords
comparative chromosome mapping, cats, dogs, karyotype evolution, chromosomal rearrangements, conserved synteny, G-banding, red fox
MeSH terms
Animals, Cats, Chromosome Banding, Chromosome Mapping, Chromosomes, Dogs, Humans, Chromosome Inversion, Karyotyping, Models, Genetic, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Evolution, Molecular, Chromosome Painting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review