4.5 Article

Avian genome evolution: insights from a linkage map of the blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus)

期刊

HEREDITY
卷 104, 期 1, 页码 67-78

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2009.107

关键词

intronic single nucleotide polymorphisms; linkage; microsatellite; passerine; recombination; synteny

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council
  2. Nils-Olof Berggren's foundation
  3. Lunds Djurskyddsfond
  4. Natural Environment Research Council, UK
  5. NERC [NBAF010001] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Natural Environment Research Council [NBAF010001] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We provide a first-generation linkage map of the blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus), a passerine within the previously genetically uncharacterized family Paridae, which includes 91 orthologous loci with a single anchored position in the chicken (Gallus gallus) sequence assembly. The map consists of 18 linkage groups and covers 935 cM. There was highly conserved synteny between blue tit and chicken with the exception of a split on chromosome 1, potential splits on chromosome 4 and the translocation of two markers from chromosome 2 and 3, respectively, to chromosome 5. Gene order was very well conserved for the majority of chromosomes, an exception being chromosome 1 where multiple rearrangements were detected. Similar results were obtained in a comparison to the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata) genome assembly. The recombination rate in females was slightly higher than in males, implying a moderate degree of heterochiasmy in the blue tit. The map distance of the blue tit was similar to 78% of that of the Wageningen chicken broiler population, and very similar to the Uppsala chicken mapping population, over homologous genome regions. Apart from providing insights into avian recombination and genome evolution, our blue tit linkage map forms a valuable genetic resource for ecological and evolutionary research in Paridae. Heredity (2010) 104, 67-78; doi:10.1038/hdy.2009.107; published online 26 August 2009

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据