Reciprocal chromosome painting illuminates the history of genome evolution of the domestic cat, dog and human
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
81.7% of the cat genome covered by synteny blocks agrees with the assignment of homologous chromosomes obtained by chromosomal painting.
“while 81.7% of that agrees with the assignment of homologous chromosomes obtained by the chromosomal painting approach [20]”
From halSynteny: a fast, easy-to-use conserved synteny block construction method for multiple whole-genome alignments (2020) · cites this paper as [20]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gomes, N. M. V., Ryder, O. A., Houck, M. L., Charter, S. J., Walker, W., Forsyth, N. R., Austad, S. N., Venditti, C., Pagel, M., Shay, J. W., et al. (2011) · Aging Cell · doi:10.1111/j.1474-9726.2011.00718.x · Cited by 464 · see citing works
Krasheninnikova, K., Diekhans, M., Armstrong, J., Dievskii, A., Paten, B., & O'Brien, S. (2020) · GigaScience · doi:10.1093/gigascience/giaa047 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- 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
- Licence
- Locations
- Chromosome Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › 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