Comparative Analysis of the Karyotypes of the Greater Long-Tailed Hamster and the Chinese Hamster
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
C 1997 The Japan Mendel Society Cytologia 62: 315-321, 1997 Comparative Analysis of the Karyotypes of the Greater Long-Tailed Hamster and the Chinese Hamster Kazunori Fujimoto1, Sen-ichi Oda1,*, Kazuhiro Koyasu2, Masashi Harada3 and Shin-ichi Sonta4 1 Laboratory of Animal Management, School of Agricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-01, Japan 2Department of Anatomy , School of Dentistry, Aichi-Gakuin University, Nagoya 464, Japan 3 Laboratory Animal Center , Osaka City University, Osaka 545, Japan 4 Department of Genetics , Institute for Developmental Research, Aichi Human Service Center, Kasugai 480-03, Japan Accepted July 17, 1997 The subfamily Cricetinae (Rodentia) comprise 5 genera, including the genus Cricetulus of which comprise 11 species (Nowak and Paradiso 1983). The greater long-tailed hamster (Cricetulus trion or Tscherskia triton, abbreviated hereafter as a triton hamster) inhabits north-eastern Asia such as eastern Siberia, north-eastern China and Korea (Ellerman and Morrison-Scott 1951), and its diploid chromosome number is 28 (Tsuchiya and Won 1976). The Chinese hamster (Cricetulus griseus, 2n=22) has been successfully used as a laboratory animal, and its karyotype has been characterized by banding techniques (Ray and Mohandas 1976). In contrast, no cytogenetic analy- ses are available for a triton hamster. There are remarkable morphological differences between the two hamster species. The triton hamster is 5-6 times as weighty as Chinese hamster (Sonta and Semba 1980, Oda et al. 1995), and we are not able to obtain interspecific hybrid in cage. The coat color of the two hamster species also differs. That of the Chinese hamster is brown at back with black line in the center and white at belly, while that of a triton hamster is agouti at back. The triton hamster has a long tail, but Chinese ham- ster has a very short tail. Recently, it has been suggested that the two hamster species do not belong to the same genus Cricetulus, and the Chinese hamster is classified in Cricetulus but the triton hamster in Tscherskia (Musser and Carleton 1993). Cytogenetic data of the two hamster species may allow us the taxo- nomical approach. So, we analyzed the triton hamster karyotype based on the measurement and the banding pattern of chromosomes, in comparison with that of the Chinese hamster, and investigated the chromosome rearrangement that is related to evolutional process. Materials and methods The triton hamster stock was derived from one pair of animals that we captured and then bred in our laboratory (Oda et al. 1995). The Chinese hamster was an inbred strain (CHS/Idr) that we have already established. Fibroblasts from the spleen, lung and tail of the two hamster species ( 5 of each species) were cultured according to the standard techniques. The karyotype was then analyzed using conventional Giemsa staining. The banding pattern analyses were performed using G-band staining according to Sumner et al. (1971), C-band staining according to Sumner (1972) and R- band staining according to Dutrillaux et al. (1973). The chromosomes of the two hamster species were measured and the banding patterns were compared. * Correspondent author. 316 K. Fujimoto, S. Oda, K. Koyasu, M. Harada and S. Sonta Cytologia 62 Results Karyotype analysis of the triton hamster The average size (•} S.D.) of each short arm, long arm and whole chromosome, derived from the measurement of 15 Giemsa-stained cells (Fig. 1), is shown in Table 1. Autosomes of the triton hamster consisted of 11 pairs (nos. 1-11) of acrocentric chromosomes and 2 pairs (nos. 12, 13) of little metacentric ones. The size from chromosome no. 1 to no. 11 decreases gradually, and chromo- some no. 12 and 13 were much smaller than the other autosomes. In sex chromosomes, the X chro- mosome was a middle-sized subtelocentric chromosome and the Y chromosome a small metacen- tric chromosome. The X chromosome was smaller than chromosome no. 6 but slightly larger than chromosome no. 7, and the Y chromosome was between chromosome no. 10 and 11. A schematic diagram, constructed by analysis of 15 G-banded and 15 R-banded cells (Figs. 2, 3), is shown in Fig. 4. Each chromosome showed a characteristic pattern. The C-banding, on the other hand, re- vealed the presence of a large band in the centromeric region of all autosomes. In the X chromo- 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 XY Fig. 1. A karyotype of the greater long-tailed hamster (triton hamster, Cricetulus triton or Tscherskia triton), using conventional Giemsa staining. Table1.Comparative size of each triton hamster chromosome (•} S.D.) The values are calculated on the assumption that the total length of all chromosomes except Y chromosome is 100. 1997 Karyotype Analysis of the Greater Long-Tailed Hamster 317 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 X Y Fig . 2 . A GTG-banded karyotype of the triton hamster. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 X Y Fig. 3 . A RBA-banded karyotype of the triton hamster. some, large dark bands in the short arm and the proximal-centromeric region of the long arm were present, and the whole Y chromosome was stained by C-banding (Fig. 5). Comparison with Chinese hamster chromosomes R-banded chromosomes of the triton hamster (abbreviated hereafter as RT) were compared with those of the Chinese hamster (RC) (Table 2, Fig. 6). Five chromosomes of the triton hamster showed banding patterns identical to five Chinese hamster chromosomes: Chromosome no. 7 of the triton hamster (RT7) was identical to chromosome no. 5 of the Chinese hamster (RC5). Similarly, RT9, RT10, RT12 and RT13 resembled RC6, RC7, RC9 and RC10, respectively. The other six chro- 318 K. Fujimoto, S. Oda, K. Koyasu, M. Harada and S. Sonta Cytologia 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 X Y Fig. 4 . Ideogram of GTG- and RBA-banding pattern of the triton hamster. Each chromosome is identi- fied by GTG-banding pattern. Fig . 5 . A C-banded karyotype of the triton hamster. mosomes of the triton hamster were homologous to the respective arms of three Chinese hamster chromosomes. RT1 was similar to the long arm of RC1. Similarly, RT3, RT6, RT5, RT4 and RT8 corresponded respectively to the short arm of RC1, the long arm of RC2, the short arm of RC2, the long arm of RC3 and the short arm of RC3. When we consider inversion at a certain region of chro- mosomes, the remaining two chromosomes of the triton hamster of RT2 and RT11, were similar to Chinese hamster chromosomes of RC4 and RC8, respectively. In sex chromosomes, the short arm of RCX was homologous to the proximal-telomeric region of the long arm of RTX, and a part of 1997 Karyotype Analysis of the Greater Long-Tailed Hamster 319 Table2.Chromosomal comparison of the Triton hamster the long arm of RCX also corresponded to the with the Chinese hamster RTX. RCY was almost similar to RTY. While large C-bands existed near centromeric region in most autosomes of the triton hamster, small C-bands near centromeric region in most auto- somes and bands in intermediate part of both arms of no. 1 were present in the Chinese ham- ster. Discussion While Musser and Carleton (1993) sug- gested recently that the triton hamster and the Chinese hamster do not belong to the same genus Cricetulus, others also reported that they did (Nowak and Paradiso 1983). Nevertheless, there is a significant difference in the diploid * inv.=pericentric inversion. chromosome number and chromosome mor- ** Xp of the Chinese hamster is homologous to Xq of the triton hamster, but no region homologous to the distal phology between them. However, the banding region of Xq of the Chinese hamster existed in the triton patterns showed clearly the homology of chro- hamster chromosome. mosomes; each chromosome of the triton ham- *** The centromeric region of Y of the Chinese hamster ster corresponded to one arm or one whole is similar to that of the triton hamster, but no segment of Y of the triton hamster corresponding to the distal region of chromosome of the Chinese hamster. Generally Yq of the Chinese hamster. speaking, morphological changes such as peri- T3 T8 T5 TX TY T1 C1 C2 C3 C4 T2 CX CY T6 T4 C5 T7 C6 T9 C7 T10 C8 T11 C9 T12 C10T13 Fig. 6. Comparison of RBA-banded chromosomes of the triton hamster (T) with those of the Chinese hamster (C). The banding pattern of each triton hamster chromosome is similar to that of an arm or a chromosome of the Chinese hamster. On the assumption of T2 and T11 is similar to that of C4 and C8, respectively. 320 K. Fujimoto, S. Oda, K. Koyasu, M. Harada and S. Sonta Cytologia 62 centric inversions, Robertsonian fusions or centromeric fissions play an important role in the process of karyotypical evolution (Fredga 1977, Holmquist and Dancis 1980, Schmid et al. 1986). Thus, the correspondence of chromosomes between two hamster species may serve as a plausible explanation for the karyotypical changes accompanying evolution. On the other hand, there were distinctly C-bands around the centromeric region in the triton hamster chromosomes but such centromeric bands were small or none in Chinese hamster chromo- somes. Data from G- and R-banding indicated that chromosome no. 1 of the Chinese hamster, for example, corresponded to a figure assumed by Robertsonian fusion between chromosome nos. 1 and 3 of the triton hamster, or the reverse case by fission. However, there is no C-band in the cen- tromeric region but pale bands in both intermediate regions of the short arm (1p26) and the long arm (1q17).