Analysis of multiple chromosomal rearrangements in the genome of Willisornis vidua using BAC-FISH and chromosome painting on a supposed conserved karyotype.
Antbirds
BAC clones
Chromosome painting
Cytogenetics
Rearrangements
Journal
BMC ecology and evolution
ISSN: 2730-7182
Titre abrégé: BMC Ecol Evol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101775613
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 03 2021
02 03 2021
Historique:
received:
09
03
2020
accepted:
16
02
2021
entrez:
3
3
2021
pubmed:
4
3
2021
medline:
24
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Thamnophilidae birds are the result of a monophyletic radiation of insectivorous Passeriformes. They are a diverse group of 225 species and 45 genera and occur in lowlands and lower montane forests of Neotropics. Despite the large degree of diversity seen in this family, just four species of Thamnophilidae have been karyotyped with a diploid number ranging from 76 to 82 chromosomes. The karyotypic relationships within and between Thamnophilidae and another Passeriformes therefore remain poorly understood. Recent studies have identified the occurrence of intrachromosomal rearrangements in Passeriformes using in silico data and molecular cytogenetic tools. These results demonstrate that intrachromosomal rearrangements are more common in birds than previously thought and are likely to contribute to speciation events. With this in mind, we investigate the apparently conserved karyotype of Willisornis vidua, the Xingu Scale-backed Antbird, using a combination of molecular cytogenetic techniques including chromosome painting with probes derived from Gallus gallus (chicken) and Burhinus oedicnemus (stone curlew), combined with Bacterial Artificial Chromosome (BAC) probes derived from the same species. The goal was to investigate the occurrence of rearrangements in an apparently conserved karyotype in order to understand the evolutionary history and taxonomy of this species. In total, 78 BAC probes from the Gallus gallus and Taeniopygia guttata (the Zebra Finch) BAC libraries were tested, of which 40 were derived from Gallus gallus macrochromosomes 1-8, and 38 from microchromosomes 9-28. The karyotype is similar to typical Passeriformes karyotypes, with a diploid number of 2n = 80. Our chromosome painting results show that most of the Gallus gallus chromosomes are conserved, except GGA-1, 2 and 4, with some rearrangements identified among macro- and microchromosomes. BAC mapping revealed many intrachromosomal rearrangements, mainly inversions, when comparing Willisornis vidua karyotype with Gallus gallus, and corroborates the fissions revealed by chromosome painting. Willisornis vidua presents multiple chromosomal rearrangements despite having a supposed conservative karyotype, demonstrating that our approach using a combination of FISH tools provides a higher resolution than previously obtained by chromosome painting alone. We also show that populations of Willisornis vidua appear conserved from a cytogenetic perspective, despite significant phylogeographic structure.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Thamnophilidae birds are the result of a monophyletic radiation of insectivorous Passeriformes. They are a diverse group of 225 species and 45 genera and occur in lowlands and lower montane forests of Neotropics. Despite the large degree of diversity seen in this family, just four species of Thamnophilidae have been karyotyped with a diploid number ranging from 76 to 82 chromosomes. The karyotypic relationships within and between Thamnophilidae and another Passeriformes therefore remain poorly understood. Recent studies have identified the occurrence of intrachromosomal rearrangements in Passeriformes using in silico data and molecular cytogenetic tools. These results demonstrate that intrachromosomal rearrangements are more common in birds than previously thought and are likely to contribute to speciation events. With this in mind, we investigate the apparently conserved karyotype of Willisornis vidua, the Xingu Scale-backed Antbird, using a combination of molecular cytogenetic techniques including chromosome painting with probes derived from Gallus gallus (chicken) and Burhinus oedicnemus (stone curlew), combined with Bacterial Artificial Chromosome (BAC) probes derived from the same species. The goal was to investigate the occurrence of rearrangements in an apparently conserved karyotype in order to understand the evolutionary history and taxonomy of this species. In total, 78 BAC probes from the Gallus gallus and Taeniopygia guttata (the Zebra Finch) BAC libraries were tested, of which 40 were derived from Gallus gallus macrochromosomes 1-8, and 38 from microchromosomes 9-28.
RESULTS
The karyotype is similar to typical Passeriformes karyotypes, with a diploid number of 2n = 80. Our chromosome painting results show that most of the Gallus gallus chromosomes are conserved, except GGA-1, 2 and 4, with some rearrangements identified among macro- and microchromosomes. BAC mapping revealed many intrachromosomal rearrangements, mainly inversions, when comparing Willisornis vidua karyotype with Gallus gallus, and corroborates the fissions revealed by chromosome painting.
CONCLUSIONS
Willisornis vidua presents multiple chromosomal rearrangements despite having a supposed conservative karyotype, demonstrating that our approach using a combination of FISH tools provides a higher resolution than previously obtained by chromosome painting alone. We also show that populations of Willisornis vidua appear conserved from a cytogenetic perspective, despite significant phylogeographic structure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33653261
doi: 10.1186/s12862-021-01768-y
pii: 10.1186/s12862-021-01768-y
pmc: PMC7927240
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
34Subventions
Organisme : Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
ID : G19438/2
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
ID : BB/K008161/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Chromosome Res. 2010 Apr;18(3):349-55
pubmed: 20198417
Trends Ecol Evol. 2010 May;25(5):283-91
pubmed: 20363047
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2015 Jul;88:1-15
pubmed: 25837731
Nature. 2015 Oct 22;526(7574):569-73
pubmed: 26444237
BMC Genet. 2010 Apr 27;11:28
pubmed: 20420709
Genome Biol. 2018 Oct 24;19(1):171
pubmed: 30355328
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2009;126(3):281-304
pubmed: 20068299
Evolution. 1988 May;42(3):603-620
pubmed: 28563998
BMC Evol Biol. 2004 Jul 30;4:23
pubmed: 15283860
Proc Biol Sci. 2018 Mar 14;285(1874):
pubmed: 29514967
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2013 Sep;68(3):410-24
pubmed: 23643970
Chromosoma. 2019 Mar;128(1):21-29
pubmed: 30448925
BMC Evol Biol. 2015 Sep 26;15:205
pubmed: 26409465
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 18;10(6):e0130157
pubmed: 26087053
Nat Commun. 2018 May 21;9(1):1883
pubmed: 29784931
Chromosome Res. 2007;15(6):721-34
pubmed: 17605112
Nature. 2010 Apr 1;464(7289):757-62
pubmed: 20360741
Evolution. 2015 Jul;69(7):1823-34
pubmed: 26095719
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2008;122(2):157-62
pubmed: 19096211
Genet Mol Biol. 2018 Oct-Dec;41(4):799-805
pubmed: 30534855
Cytogenet Cell Genet. 1999;87(3-4):278-81
pubmed: 10702695
Genes (Basel). 2018 Mar 27;9(4):
pubmed: 29584697
Sci Adv. 2019 Jul 03;5(7):eaat5752
pubmed: 31281878
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2003;103(1-2):173-84
pubmed: 15004483
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 24;9(7):e103338
pubmed: 25058578
Rev Bras Pesqui Med Biol. 1977 Apr;10(2):97-105
pubmed: 877326
Chromosome Res. 2009;17(1):99-113
pubmed: 19172404
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2013 Jan;66(1):270-82
pubmed: 23063588
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2008;122(2):150-6
pubmed: 19096210
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2007;117(1-4):64-77
pubmed: 17675846
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2015 Jan;82 Pt A:95-110
pubmed: 25291073
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2017;153(4):205-212
pubmed: 29462803
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2008 Sep;48(3):858-76
pubmed: 18619860
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2009 Nov;53(2):450-62
pubmed: 19632344
Comp Cytogenet. 2018 Mar 13;12(1):97-110
pubmed: 29675139
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Jul 27;101(30):11040-5
pubmed: 15263073
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2006;112(3-4):286-95
pubmed: 16484785
Genetica. 2015 Oct;143(5):535-43
pubmed: 26092368
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2014;142(3):179-89
pubmed: 24513810
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 23;13(8):e0202040
pubmed: 30138388
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2016;148(2-3):199-210
pubmed: 27255109
Am Nat. 1992 Sep;140(3):531-7
pubmed: 19426056
Heredity (Edinb). 2012 Jan;108(1):37-41
pubmed: 22045382
Chromosome Res. 2005;13(1):47-56
pubmed: 15791411
J Evol Biol. 2013 May;26(5):1090-107
pubmed: 23442128
Chromosome Res. 2004;12(7):715-23
pubmed: 15505406
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2011;132(3):165-81
pubmed: 21099208
Genome Res. 2017 May;27(5):875-884
pubmed: 27903645
Chromosoma. 2005 Nov;114(5):338-43
pubmed: 16163545
Chromosome Res. 2018 Sep;26(3):211-223
pubmed: 29882066
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2004 Jul;32(1):11-24
pubmed: 15186793