Cited by 42Chromosomal and Genetic VariationsGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesGenome Rearrangement Algorithms

Chromosome rearrangements between chicken and guinea fowl defined by comparative chromosome painting and FISH mapping of DNA clones

Shibusawa, M., Nishida-Umehara, C., Masabanda, J., Griffin, D.K., Isobe, T., Matsuda, Y.·2002·Cytogenetic and Genome Research

Abstract

Chromosome homology between chicken (Gallus gallus) and guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) was investigated by comparative chromosome painting with chicken whole chromosome paints for chromosomes 1-9 and Z and by comparative mapping of 38 macrochromosome-specific (chromosomes 1-8 and Z) and 30 microchromosome-specific chicken cosmid DNA clones. The comparative chromosome analysis revealed that the homology of macrochromosomes is highly conserved between the two species except for two inter-chromosomal rearrangements. Guinea fowl chromosome 4 represented the centric fusion of chicken chromosome 9 with the q arm of chicken chromosome 4. Guinea fowl chromosome 5 resulted from the fusion of chicken chromosomes 6 and 7. A pericentric inversion was found in guinea fowl chromosome 7, which corresponded to chicken chromosome 8. All the chicken microchromosome-specific DNA clones were also localized to microchromosomes of guinea fowl except for several clones localized to the short arm of chromosome 4. These results suggest that the cytogenetic genome organization is highly conserved between chicken and guinea fowl.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000069813

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shibusawa, M., Nishida-Umehara, C., Masabanda, J., Griffin, D. K., Isobe, T., & Matsuda, Y.
Affiliations
  • Hokkaido University (JP)
  • Brunel University of London (GB)
Venue
Cytogenetic and Genome Research
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2002
Volume
98
Issue
2-3
Pages
225-230
ISSN
  • 1424-859X (ISSN-L)
  • 1424-8581
OpenAlex
W2027674592
Cited by
42
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cytogenetic and Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • 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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
Keywords
chickens, guinea fowl, comparative chromosome painting, chromosome homology, chromosomal rearrangements, Robertsonian translocation, pericentric inversion, microchromosomes, macrochromosomes, Gallus gallus
MeSH terms
Animals, Chickens, Chromosome Mapping, Cloning, Molecular, DNA, Karyotyping, Poultry, Gene Rearrangement, In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence, Evolution, Molecular, Chromosome Painting, Chromosomes, Mammalian

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