Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
You have access

Phylogenetic relationships and the primitive X chromosome inferred from chromosomal and satellite DNA analysis in Bovidae

Raquel Chaves

Raquel Chaves

Department of Genetics and Biotechnology, Centre of Genetics and Biotechnology—CGB, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro—UTADP-5000-911 Vila Real, Portugal

[email protected]

Google Scholar

Find this author on PubMed

,
Henrique Guedes-Pinto

Henrique Guedes-Pinto

Department of Genetics and Biotechnology, Centre of Genetics and Biotechnology—CGB, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro—UTADP-5000-911 Vila Real, Portugal

Google Scholar

Find this author on PubMed

and
John S Heslop-Harrison

John S Heslop-Harrison

Department of Biology, University of LeicesterLeicester LE1 7RH, UK

Google Scholar

Find this author on PubMed

    Abstract

    The early phylogeny of the 137 species in the Bovidae family is difficult to resolve; knowledge of the evolution and relationships of the tribes would facilitate comparative mapping, understanding chromosomal evolution patterns and perhaps assist breeding and domestication strategies. We found that the study of the presence and organization of two repetitive DNA satellite sequences (the clone pOaKB9 from sheep, a member of the 1.714 satellite I family and the pBtKB5, a 1.715 satellite I clone from cattle) on the X and autosomal chromosomes by in situ hybridization to chromosomes from 15 species of seven tribes, was informative. The results support a consistent phylogeny, suggesting that the primitive form of the X chromosome is acrocentric, and has satellite I sequences at its centromere. Because of the distribution of the ancient satellite I sequence, the X chromosome from the extant Tragelaphini (e.g. oryx), rather than Caprini (sheep), line is most primitive. The Bovini (cow) and Tragelaphini tribes lack the 1.714 satellite present in the other tribes, and this satellite is evolutionarily younger than the 1.715 sequence, with absence of the 1.714 sequence being a marker for the Bovini and Tragelaphini tribes (the Bovinae subfamily). In the other tribes, three (Reduncini, Hippotragini and Aepycerotini) have both 1.714 and 1.715 satellite sequences present on both autosomes and the X chromosome. We suggest a parallel event in two lineages, leading to X chromosomes with the loss of 1.715 satellite from the Bovini, and the loss of both 1.714 and 1.715 satellites in a monophyletic Caprini and Alcelaphini lineage. The presence and X chromosome distribution of these satellite sequences allow the seven tribes to be distributed to four groups, which are consistent with current diversity estimates, and support one model to resolve points of separation of the tribes.

    1. Introduction

    The Bovidae family is the most diverse family in the order Artiodactyla, with some 137 extant species (Wilson & Reeder 1983) in 13 tribes (Gentry 1992). It is difficult to systematize because of the rapid radiation and appearance of tribes and species in the fossil record, the morphological convergence and controversy surrounding its monophyletic origin (Allard et al. 1992; Gatesy et al. 1992; Franklin 1997). Domestic cattle with 58 acrocentric autosomes, X and Y (2n=60) are thought to retain the ancestral autosomal complement, although the diploid chromosome number (2n) of the Bovidae ranges from 30 to 60. The number of autosomal arms is almost constant at 58 for most karyotyped species (Gallagher & Womack 1992), with the occurrence of multiple centric fusion events (Wurster & Benirschke 1968; Buckland & Evans 1978a,b). The ancestral conditions of the Bovidae X and Y chromosomes remain to be determined (Gallagher et al. 1994, 1999) and there is only poor resolution in the phylogeny of Bovidae tribes because radiation was relatively rapid with little differentiation in the geological record. Outgroup comparisons to the Cervidae family indicate that the Bovinae subfamily (tribes Bovini, Boselaphini and Tragelaphini) acrocentric X chromosome is nearer to the ancestral Bovidae condition than is the sheep (Caprinae subfamily) acrocentric X chromosome, even although the sheep condition is more common (Gallagher et al. 1999).

    Satellite DNAs that reside in the pericentromeric regions of chromosomes are rapidly evolving and are valuable evolutionary markers (Saffery et al. 1999; Chaves et al. 2000a,b). The satellite I sequence has been studied in goat and sheep (the 1.714 family) and cattle (1.715 family) and caprine sequences have been compared (Buckland 1983, 1985; Chaves et al. 2000a). The presence of the 1.715 family satellite I DNA is considered a primitive condition for Bovidae species (Modi et al. 1993; Gallagher et al. 1999), found normally only at autosomal pericentromeric regions of chromosomes (excepting the X chromosome of river buffalo (Bubalus bubalis); Modi et al. 1993). Sika (Cervus nippon) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the Cervidae family also carry 1.715-like satellite I sequences on the X chromosome (cited as unpublished observation by Gallagher et al. (1999)) and these authors suggest that an acrocentric X chromosome with heterochromatin (and the 1.715 satellite I sequence) at the centromeres is the primitive condition. Modi et al. (1996) hybridized a sequence representative of satellite I from Bos taurus (1.715 family) to different artiodactyl metaphases, and they found that this sequence was present in all pecoran animals analysed.

    Both Modi et al. (1993, 1996) and Chaves et al. (2000a) observed different satellite DNA in situ hybridization patterns within a small number of tribes in the Bovidae family, and we considered that the sequences had potential as phylogenetic markers to increase the resolution of the evolutionary tree at the base of the Artiodactyla (Chaves et al. 2000a). Here we aimed to analyse the presence and distribution of satellites to address evolutionary and phylogenetic questions with respect to the X chromosome (and its primitive state), karyotype, species and tribal evolution.

    2. Material and methods

    Chromosomes were harvested from stimulated lymphocytes of 15 species (table 1) and male fibroblasts of Damaliscus hunteri using standard protocols. For G-banding, chromosomes were obtained only with late synchronization using bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU, Sigma) and Hoechst (H33258, Sigma) before treatment with colcemid in the last 10 min. Sheep extended chromatin fibres were prepared from lymphocytes following routine procedures (Schwarzacher & Heslop-Harrison 2000). Air-dried slides were aged at 65 °C for 5 h or overnight and then were submitted to standard procedures of G-banding with trypsin. The chromosomes stained with Giemsa (GTG-banding) were photographed, fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and sequentially C-banded. The chromosomes used for in situ hybridization were not stained at this stage but were refixed with paraformaldehyde (Chaves et al. 2002) before in situ hybridization, detection and staining with DAPI (the inverse image revealed the G-banding, GTD-banding). Karyotyping followed the standardization of the domestic bovids karyotypes (ISCNDB 2000). CBP-banding (by barium hydroxide treatment) followed the standard procedure of Sumner (1972) with minor modifications (50% time; propidium iodide as a counterstain).

    Table 1In situ hybridization patterns with probes sheep satellite I DNA (pOaKB9) and cattle satellite I DNA (pBtKB5) in all chromosome preparations of the 15 Bovidae species analysed.

    tribespecies name2nfigureXYacrocentric autosomesbiarmed autosomes
    1.714 (Ovis aries satellite I DNA)
    BoviniBos taurus60,XYno hyb.000
    TragelaphiniTaurotragus oryx31,X1X2Yno hyb.0000
    Tragelaphus strepsiceros32,X1X1X2X2no hyb.000
    CapriniOvis aries54,XYfigures 4 and 500++
    Ovis ammon54,XXfigure 1a0++
    Capra hircus60,XYfigure 400+
    Ammotragus lervia58,XXhyb.0++
    RedunciniKobus leche48,XYfigures 1b and 4+0++
    HippotraginiOryx dammah58,XYfigure 4+0++
    Oryx leucoryx58,XYfigure 4+0++
    Addax nasomaculatus58,XXfigures 1c and 4+++
    Hippotragus niger60,XYfigure 4+0+
    AlcelaphiniConnochaetes taurinus58,XYfigures 1d and 400+0
    Damaliscus hunteri44,XYfigures 1e and 400++
    AepycerotiniAepyceros melampus60,XXfigures 1f and 4++
    1.715 (B. taurus satellite I DNA)
    BoviniB. taurus60,XYfigures 2a and 400+
    TragelaphiniT. oryx31,X1X2Yfigures 2b and 4+++
    T. strepsiceros32,X1X1X2X2figures 2c and 4+++
    CapriniO. aries54,XYfigure 500++
    O. ammon54,XXhyb.0++
    C. hircus60,XYhyb.00+
    A. lervia58,XXhyb.0++
    RedunciniK. leche48,XYhyb.+0++
    O. dammah58,XYfigure 2d+0++
    HippotraginiO. leucoryx58,XYhyb.+0++
    A. nasomaculatus58,XXfigure 2e+++
    H. niger60,XYhyb.+0+
    AlcelaphiniC. taurinus58,XYfigure 2f00+0
    D. hunteri44,XYhyb.00++
    AepycerotiniA. melampus60,XXhyb.++

    (Hyb.) in situ hybridization detected in chromosome preparations, (No Hyb.) apparent absence of in situ hybridization in chromosome preparations, (+) positive in situ hybridization signal, (0) apparent absence of in situ hybridization signals, (♀) no Y chromosome analysed as female; (†) Y chromosome not identified; note 2n=60 species have no biarmed autosomes.

    For in situ hybridization on chromosomes and extended chromatin fibres, a satellite I sheep clone pOaKB9 (Chaves et al. 2000a, 2003b) and a satellite I cattle clone, (pBtKB5, GenBank AJ293510, Chaves et al. 2000b, 2003a) labelled with biotin-16-dUTP (Sigma) or digoxigenin-11-dUTP (Roche) were used with standard protocols (Schwarzacher & Heslop-Harrison 2000). The most stringent post-hybridization washes were at 42°C in a 2×SSC and 50% (v/v) formamide. Labels were detected by FITC conjugated with avidin (Vector) and anti-digoxigenin-rhodamine (Roche). Chromosomes were counterstained with DAPI and mounted in Vectashield (Vector).

    Metaphases were analysed with a Zeiss Axioplan 2 Imaging and Axiocam camera. Adobe Photoshop was used for image processing and analysis, using only contrast, overlaying and colour manipulation functions that affected the whole of the image equally; colours were chosen to maximize clarity. Variation within groups or tribes of the species analysed was low: for B. taurus, Taurotragus oryx, Ovis aries, Capra hircus, Kobus leche, Oryx dammah, Oryx leucoryx, Hippotragus niger, Connochaetes taurinus and D. hunteri both male and female individuals were investigated, with no differences in hybridization parameters analysed here (data not shown); indeed, no differences in hybridization patterns were notable between species belonging to the same genus (e.g. O. aries and O. ammon).

    3. Results

    (a) In situ hybridization with 1.714 and 1.715 satellite DNA clones

    The sheep satellite I clone (pOaKB9) (a member of the 1.714 sheep DNA satellite family) (figure 1) and the cattle satellite I clone (pBtKB5) (1.715 satellite DNA family, Chaves et al. 2000b) (figure 2), were hybridized in situ to metaphase chromosomes from the 15 Bovidae species; simultaneously, the constitutive heterochromatin was analysed with C-banding (figure 3) to correlate with the satellite DNA localization. Generally, it was possible to correlate the centromeric bands of the chromosomes in each species with the strength of hybridization of the 1.714 and 1.715 sequences, consistent with the suggestion that the heterochromatic bands consist largely of satellite I DNA. Where C-banding results have been reported previously, these were similar, although additional small bands were detected, many of which were significant for satellite DNA evolution (arrows only, figure 3). However, C. taurinus (tribe Alcelaphini; figures 1d, 2f and 3b) was unusual in showing no correlation of C-bands and satellite hybridization pattern: the large C-band and no satellite hybridization on chromosome one may reflect the presence of another satellite I variant without homology at the 80% hybridization stringency used here.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1 In situ hybridization of the sheep (Ovis aries) centromeric DNA satellite I-clone pOaKB9 (green-FITC) to metaphase chromosomes (chromosomal DNA stained with DAPI, presented in red pseudocolour) of the: (a) tribe Caprini, Ovis ammon (female, 2n=54,XX), (b) tribe Reduncini, Kobus leche (male, 2n=48,XY), (c) tribe Hippotragini, Addax nasomaculatus (female, 2n=58,XX), (d) tribe Alcelaphini, Connochaetes taurinus (male, 2n=58,XY), (e) tribe Alcelaphini, Damaliscus hunteri (male, 2n=44,XY), (f) tribe Aepycerotini, Aepyceros melampus (female, 2n=60,XX).

    Figure 2

    Figure 2 In situ hybridization of the cattle (Bos taurus) centromeric DNA satellite I-clone pBtKB5 (blue pseudocolour-rhodamine) to metaphase chromosomes (chromosomal DNA stained with DAPI, presented in red pseudocolour) of the: (a) tribe Bovini, B. taurus (male, 2n=60,XY), (b) tribe Tragelaphini, Taurotragus oryx (male, 2n=31,X1X2Y), (c) tribe Tragelaphini, Tragelaphus strepsiceros (female, 2n=32,X1X1X2X2), (d) tribe Hippotragini, Oryx dammah (male, 2n=58,XY), (e) tribe Hippotragini, Addax nasomaculatus (female, 2n=58,XX), (f) tribe Alcelaphini, Connochaetes taurinus (male, 2n=58,XY).

    Figure 3

    Figure 3 C-banded metaphases of: (a) tribe Hippotragini, Addax nasomaculatus (female, 2n=58,XX), (b) tribe Alcelaphini, Connochaetes taurinus (male, 2n=58,XY), (c) tribe Tragelaphini, Tragelaphus strepsiceros (female, 2n=32,X1X1X2X2).

    The 1.715 family showed hybridization to most autosomal chromosomes of the 15 species analysed (figure 2). The 1.714 DNA satellite family was not detected in the Bovini and Tragelaphini genomes, as expected (Chaves et al. 2000a). The 1.714 sequences showed centromeric or pericentromeric localization on acrocentric and, when present, on some biarmed chromosomes from the species belonging to Caprini (figure 1a) and Alcelaphini (figure 1d,e), but no hybridization was seen to the X or Y chromosome. In the Hippotragini (figure 1c), Reduncini (figure 1b) and Aepycerotini (figure 1f) tribes, the satellite hybridized to both autosomes and the X chromosome. The chromosomal localization of the two probes (1.714 and 1.715) was similar in all these species, although there were differences in detail and hybridization strength. In particular, the hybridization signal on the autosomal acrocentrics was always terminal on the chromosomes as defined by DAPI-staining. On the autosomal biarmed chromosomes, the in situ hybridization signal was absent (e.g. Connochaetes), flanked the centromeric constriction (e.g. Damaliscus, Kobus) or overlayed the constriction (e.g. Damaliscus, Tragelaphus). Figure 2a–c shows hybridization of the 1.715 sequence in Bovinae metaphases of B. taurus, T. oryx and Tragelaphus strepsiceros. In B. taurus (figure 2a), only with acrocentric autosomes, the probe hybridized to the centromeric regions of all autosomes, but not to X and Y chromosomes. In contrast, the Tragelaphini X chromosomes (figure 2b,c) showed most hybridization at the terminal centromeric regions. The Tragelaphini autosomes showed weak hybridization signal at the centromeres of the mostly biarmed chromosomes.

    Table 1 summarizes the in situ hybridization patterns with probes 1.714 O. aries satellite I DNA (pOaKB9) and 1.715 B. taurus satellite I DNA (pBtKB5) to the different chromosome groups in the 15 Bovidae species analysed. Individual chromosome types showed signals with characteristic strengths (figures 1 and 2) and there were significant differences between genera, reflecting variation in both copy number and sequence within each satellite family.

    Figure 4 gives examples of satellite hybridization (where detected; 1.715 upper, 1.714 lower) and C-banding pattern of X chromosomes from species representing each tribe. As well as large C-bands correlating with parts of the hybridization sites of the satellite I sequences, C-bands along chromosomes arms were found, which did not correlate with hybridization sites (e.g. arrows in figure 4). X chromosomes from the tribes Tragelaphini, Reduncini, Hippotragini and Aepycerotini (figure 4) showed satellite DNA hybridization at (peri)centromeric sites, but this hybridization was not seen in the Bovini, Alcelaphini or Caprini tribes (figure 4). In contrast to the autosomal acrocentric chromosomes, the hybridization signal did not extend to the end of the chromosomes as defined by DAPI staining, except in the two Tragelaphini species.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4 Figure that summarizes the C-banded X chromosome's pattern and the in situ hybridizations with the sheep (clone pOaKB9) and cattle (pBtKB5) DNA satellite I probes to the X chromosome of most representative species listen in table 1. The Bovinae subfamily shows only hybridization with the cattle satellite I and only in the X chromosome's centromeric regions of the tribe Tragelaphini was it possible to observe signal from the cattle satellite I. The metaphase preparations from the subfamilies Hippotraginae, Alcelaphinae and Caprinae show positive in situ hybridization signals with both sheep and cattle satellite I probes (cf. figures 1 and 2). However, only the X chromosome centromeric regions of the Tribes Reduncini, Hippotragini and Aepycerotini show positive in situ hybridization signals with both satellite probes. Finally, the constitutive heterochromatin characterized by C-bands is extremely heterogeneous; nevertheless all X chromosomes shows C-bands in the (peri)centromeric regions.

    In situ hybridization on sheep extended chromatin fibres with 1.714 and 1.715 satellite DNA clones let us examine organization of the sheep and bovine origin probes along chromosomes. Simultaneous in situ hybridization of the two satellite probes to fibres from sheep nuclei revealed an interspersed organization of the two satellites (figure 5), in agreement with the hybridization pattern seen on metaphase chromosomes where the two signals were colocalized.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5 In situ hybridization of the two satellite I probes to extended chromatin fibres of sheep (blue, cattle probe pBtKB5, less abundant; green sheep probe pOaKB9, more abundant). Three different regions of the slide have been imaged and brought together in the figure. No arrays of exclusively blue or exclusively green hybridization sites were detected, indicating that the two variants of the satellite I sequence were interspersed. Assuming the DNA is extended to its full molecular length, the width of the picture represents about 8 kb of sequence (some seven copies of the satellite I repeat unit). Scale bar, 2 μm.

    4. Discussion

    The two related satellite I probes show less than 70% sequence similarity and are distinguished clearly by in situ hybridization with a stringent wash in 2×SSC, 50% formamide at 42°C. The 1.715 satellite from B. taurus and the 1.714 satellite from O. aries proved to be informative markers (Modi et al. 1996; Chaves et al. 2000a) for studying the nature and amplification of the satellite DNA families on the autosomes and the X chromosome of the Bovidae family (figures 1,2,4 and 5; table 1) and allowed phylogeny to be inferred. Where we investigated several genera within a tribe, hybridization patterns were similar with the exception of the biarmed chromosomes, where satellite DNA reshuffling occurs (Chaves et al. 2000b, 2003b).

    In striking contrast to the morphological conservation of autosomal chromosome arms evident in the Bovidae family, the X chromosome shows considerable variation between tribes (Buckland & Evans 1978a,b; Gallagher et al. 1999; Robinson et al. 1996) in both sequence composition and arrangement, as has been shown using bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) hybridization (Robinson et al. 1996; Piumi et al. 1998) to find regions of conserved synteny. The complex changes in satellite composition are also illustrated by constitutive heterochromatin analysis by C-banding (figure 4), where X chromosomes from the species we analysed show (peri)centromeric bands with different sizes, not entirely reflected by the in situ hybridization signals (e.g Aepyceros) and polymorphisms in size and position between interstitial bands (arrows).

    We found the 1.715 satellite hybridized to chromosomes of all tribes. The tribe Caprini is considered only distantly related to the Bovini and Tragelaphini tribes (i.e. the Bovinae subfamily; Buckland 1985) and, consistent with this, the latter tribes showed no hybridization of the 1.714 satellite family, while the remaining tribes we sampled all showed presence of the satellite (figure 6, inset left). This suggests that the 1.715 satellite is evolutionarily older. Modi et al. (1996) dated the origin of 1.715 satellite family to 20–40 Mya, when the tragulinas and pecorans last shared a common ancestor. We infer that the 1.714 satellite DNA family dates from at least 15 Mya, when the radiation of the Bovidae tribes began with the separation of the Bovini/Tragelaphini from the other tribes.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6 Evolutionary diagrams of the Bovidae tribes that assemble the data presented in the current paper: presence or absence (and suggested origin) of 1.714 satellite I DNA family in the genome of the different species analysed; presence and origin of 1.715 satellite I DNA family in the genome of all Bovidae species; X chromosomes with (X+) and without detectable (X−) satellite I DNA; and the diploid chromosome number of each species. Divergence times at the tribal level are from Vrba (1985), Gentry (1992) and, for the Bovini Tribe, Groves (1981). Inset left highlights a model for the origin of the 1.714 and 1.715 DNA satellite I families, while the tree shows how extant X chromosomes may be derived from inferred primitive forms.

    While the cattle satellite sequence (1.715 family) is more ancestral than the equivalent sheep sequence (1.714 family), it is maintained in sheep genome during evolution. The sheep fibre-FISH (figure 5), with both satellite DNA families, shows the presence of both satellites with an interspersed organization. It has been suggested that the 1.714 family (sheep satellite) originated from 1.715 family (cattle satellite), but our results (figure 5) suggest that 1.715 satellite was maintained on this genome, with evolutionarily older variants of cattle satellite I being preserved during the origin of sheep satellite I; that is, they have been amplified, deleted or taken part of unequal exchange process with the new satellite I from sheep. These results provide support for one of the evolutionary mechanisms of satellite DNA proposed in cattle (Nijman & Lenstra 2001).

    What was the structure of the X chromosome at the time of origin of the Bovidae family? Many have considered the acrocentric X chromosome with satellite I DNA as the primitive condition for the Bovidae (Modi et al. 1993; Gallagher et al. 1999). Our results show both satellite I sequences on X chromosomes from the tribes Reduncini, Hippotragini and Aepycerotini (figure 4), in contrast to the situation in the autosomal acrocentrics. Notably, the signal was (sub-)terminal only in Tragelaphini (with the 1.715 satellite only and in mostly biarmed autosomal chromosomes), suggesting a different structural organization of the satellite sequence in the X chromosomes in this branch and adding further evidence that this was the earliest branch of the Bovidae. The sheep acrocentric X differs from Bovinae acrocentric chromosomes in centromere placement and locus order (Piumi et al. 1998; Iannuzzi et al. 2000). Robinson et al. (1998) demonstrated that the sheep X chromosome morphology is probably present in the 10 Bovidae tribes but not the Bovinae subfamily, although there is variation in the amount and position of X chromosome heterochromatin.

    In both branches, some tribes have lost the satellite I sequences, a loss reflected in the much smaller C-bands which interestingly indicates there is no replacement by related repetitive sequences (figures 4 and 6). During evolution of karyotypes in the Bovidae, chromosome fusion events have occurred and these are frequently associated with loss and reshuffling of the centromeric satellites, suggesting that there are mechanisms for altering the repetitive sequence composition (Chaves et al. 2003a). Therefore, the multiple occurrence of satellite I loss or gain during evolution of the X chromosomes, which involves morphological rearrangement, is not surprising (figure 6). The analysis of satellite DNA sequence, organization and chromosomal distribution, which elucidates aspects of both genome and repetitive sequence evolution, is a valuable tool to reconstruct tribal phylogenies and the order of divergence where that is not found or is ambiguous in the fossil record or other data. Finally, this work suggested the existence of two major subfamilial clades in Bovidae (Bovinae and Caprinae/Alcelaphinae/Hippotraginae clades), consistent with other molecular investigations based on ribosomal (Gatesy et al. 1997) or cyt b (Hassanin & Douzery 1999a,b; Matthee & Robinson 1999) mitochondrial sequences.

    We thank to the Lisbon Zoo for the supply of samples from wild species. This work was supported by the project POCTI/BIA/11285/98 of the Science and Technology Foundation from Portugal.

    Footnotes

    References

    • Allard M.W, Miyamoto M.M, Jarecki L, Kraus F& Tennant M.R. 1992 DNA systematics and evolution of the artiodactyl family Bovidae. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 89, 3972–3976. Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Buckland R.A. 1983 Comparative structure and evolution of goat and sheep satellite I DNAs. Nucl. Acid. Res. 11, 1349–1360. Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Buckland R.A. 1985 Sequence and evolution of related bovine and caprine satellite DNAs. Identification of a short DNA sequence potentially involved in satellite DNA amplification. J. Mol. Biol. 186, 25–30.doi:10.1016/0022-2836(85)90253-0. . Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Buckland R.A& Evans H.J Cytogenetic aspects of phylogeny in the Bovidae I. G-banding. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 21, 1978a 42–63. Crossref, PubMedGoogle Scholar
    • Buckland R.A& Evans H.J Cytogenetic aspects of phylogeny in the Bovidae II. C-banding. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 21, 1978b 64–71. Crossref, PubMedGoogle Scholar
    • Chaves R, Guedes-Pinto H, Heslop-Harrison J.S& Schwarzacher T The species and chromosomal distribution of the centromeric α-satellite I sequence from sheep in the tribe Caprini and other Bovidae. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 91, 2000a 62–66.doi:10.1159/000056820. . Crossref, PubMedGoogle Scholar
    • Chaves R, Heslop-Harrison J.S& Guedes-Pinto H Centromeric heterochromatin in the cattle rob (1;29) translocation: α-satellite sequences, in situ MspI digestion patterns, chromomycin staining and C-bands. Chromosome Res. 8, 2000b 621–626.doi:10.1023/A:1009290125305. . Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Chaves R, Adega F, Santos S, Heslop-Harrison J.S& Guedes-Pinto H. 2002 In situ hybridization and chromosome banding in mammalian species. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 96, 113–116.doi:10.1159/000063020. . Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Chaves R, Adega F, Heslop-Harrison J.S, Guedes-Pinto H& Wienberg J Complex satellite DNA reshuffling in the polymorphic t(1;29) Robertsonian translocation and evolutionarily derived chromosomes in cattle. Chromosome Res. 11, 2003a 641–648.doi:10.1023/A:1025952507959. . Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Chaves R, Adega F, Wienberg J, Guedes-Pinto H& Heslop-Harrison J.S Molecular cytogenetic analysis and centromeric satellite organization of a novel 8;11 translocation in sheep: a possible intermediate in biarmed chromosome evolution. Mamm. Genome. 14, 2003b 706–710.doi:10.1007/s00335-003-3004-2. . Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Franklin I.R Systematics and phylogeny of the sheep. The genetics of sheep , Piper L& Ruvinsky A. 1997pp. 5–11. Eds. Cambridge:CAB International University Press. Google Scholar
    • Gallagher D.S& Womack J.E. 1992 Chromosome conservation in the Bovidae. J. Hered. 82, 287–298. Crossref, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Gallagher D.S, Derr J.N& Womack J.E. 1994 Chromosome conservation among the advanced pecorans and determination of the primitive bovid karyorype. J. Hered. 85, 204–210. Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Gallagher D.S, Davis S.K, De Donato M, Burzlaff J.D, Womack J.E, Taylor J.F& Kumamoto A.T. 1999 A molecular cytogenetic analysis of the tribe Bovini (Artiodactyla: Bovidae: Bovinae) with an emphasis on sex chromosome morphology and NOR distribution. Chromosome Res. 7, 481–492.doi:10.1023/A:1009254014526. . Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Gatesy J, Yelon D, DeSalle R& Vrba E.S. 1992 Phylogeny of the Bovidae (Artiodactyla, Mammalia), based on Mitochondrial Ribosomal DNA sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 9, 433–446. PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Gatesy J, Amato G, Vrba E, Schaller G& DeSalle R. 1997 A cladistic analysis of mitochondrial ribosomal DNA from the Bovidae. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 7, 303–319.doi:10.1006/mpev.1997.0402. . Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Gentry A.W. 1992 The subfamilies and tribes of the family Bovidae. Mammal. Rev. 22, 1–32. Crossref, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Groves C.P. 1981 Systematic relationships in the Bovini (Artiodactyla: Bovidae). Z. Zool. Systematik Evolutionsforschung. 4, 264–278. Google Scholar
    • Hassanin A& Douzery E.J.P Evolutionary affinities of the enigmatic saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis) in the context of the molecular phylogeny of Bovidae. Proc. R. Soc. B. 266, 1999a 893–900.doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0720. . Link, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Hassanin A& Douzery E.J.P The tribal radiation of the family Bovidae (Artiodactyla) and the evolution of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 13, 1999b 227–243.doi:10.1006/mpev.1999.0619. . Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Iannuzzi L, Di Meo G.P, Perucatti A, Incarnato D, Schibler L& Cribiu E.P. 2000 Comparative FISH mapping of bovid X chromosomes reveals homologies and divergences between the subfamilies Bovinae and Caprinae. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 89, 171–176.doi:10.1159/000015607. . Crossref, PubMedGoogle Scholar
    • ISCNDB. 2000 International System for Chromosome Nomenclature of Domestic Bovids 2001. Di Berardino, D., Di Meo, G. P., Gallagher, D. S., Hayes, H. & Iannuzzi, L. (coordinator), (eds) Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 92, 283–299. Google Scholar
    • Matthee C.A& Robinson T.J. 1999 Cytochrome b phylogeny of the family Bovidae: resolution within the Alcelaphini, Antilopini, Neotragni and Tragelaphini. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 12, 31–46.doi:10.1006/mpev.1998.0573. . Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Modi W.S, Gallagher D.S& Womack J.E. 1993 Molecular organization and chromosomal location of six highly repeated DNA families in the bovine genome. Anim. Biotechnol. 4, 143–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Modi W.S, Gallagher D.S& Womack J.E. 1996 Evolutionary histories of highly repeated DNA families among the Artiodactyla (Mammalia). J. Mol. Evol. 42, 337–349. Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Nijman I.J& Lenstra J.A. 2001 Mutation and recombination in cattle satellite DNA: a feedback model for the evolution of satellite DNA repeats. J. Mol. Evol. 52, 361–371. Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Piumi F, Schibler L, Vaiman D, Oustry A& Cribiu E.P. 1998 Comparative cytogenetic mapping reveals chromosome rearrangements between the X chromosomes of two closely related mammalian species (cattle and goats). Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 81, 36–41.doi:10.1159/000015004. . Crossref, PubMedGoogle Scholar
    • Robinson T.J, Wilson V, Gallagher D.S, Taylor J.F, Davis S.K, Harrison W.R& Elder F.F.B. 1996 Chromosomal evolution in duiker antelope (Cephalophinae: Bovidae): karyotype comparisons, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and rampant X chromosome variation. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 73, 116–122. Crossref, PubMedGoogle Scholar
    • Robinson T.J, Harrison W.R, Ponce de León A, Davis S.K& Elder F.F.B. 1998 A molecular cytogenetic analysis of X chromosome repatterning in the Bovidae: transpositions, inversions, and phylogenetic inference. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 80, 179–184.doi:10.1159/000014976. . Crossref, PubMedGoogle Scholar
    • Saffery R, Earle E, Irvine D.V, Kalitsis P& Choo K.H.A. 1999 Conservation of centromere proteins in vertebrates. Chromosome Res. 7, 261–265.doi:10.1023/A:1009222729850. . Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Schwarzacher T& Heslop-Harrison J.S Practical in situ hybridization. 2000 Oxford:Bios. Google Scholar
    • Sumner A.T. 1972 A simple technique for demonstrating centromeric heterochromatin. Exp. Cell Res. 75, 304–306.doi:10.1016/0014-4827(72)90558-7. . Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Vrba E.S. 1985 African Bovidae: evolutionary events since the Miocene. S. Afr. J. Sci. 81, 263–266. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Wilson D.E& Reeder D.M Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. 1983 Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press. Google Scholar
    • Wurster D.H& Benirschke K. 1968 Chromosome studies in the superfamily Bovidae. Chromosoma. 25, 152–171.doi:10.1007/BF00327175. . Crossref, PubMed, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar