Next Article in Journal
Effect of Maternal Gradient Nutritional Restriction during Pregnancy on Mammary Gland Development in Offspring
Previous Article in Journal
In Vitro Viral Recovery Yields under Different Re-Suspension Buffers in Iron Flocculation to Concentrate Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus Genotype IVa in Seawater
Previous Article in Special Issue
Supernumerary Marker Chromosome Identified in Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 5
10.3390/ani13050944
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Molecular Cytogenetics in Domestic Bovids: A Review

by
Alessandra Iannuzzi
1,
Leopoldo Iannuzzi
1 and
Pietro Parma
2,*
1
Institute for Animal Production System in Mediterranean Environment, National Research Council, 80055 Portici, Italy
2
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(5), 944; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13050944
Submission received: 31 January 2023 / Revised: 28 February 2023 / Accepted: 2 March 2023 / Published: 6 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cytogenetics of Domestic Animals: Clinical, Molecular and Evolutionary Aspects)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Molecular cytogenetics, and particularly the use of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), has allowed deeper investigation of the chromosomes of domestic animals in order to: (a) create physical maps of specific DNA sequences on chromosome regions; (b) use specific chromosome markers to confirm the identification of chromosomes or chromosome regions involved in chromosome abnormalities, especially when poor banding patterns are produced; (c) better anchor radiation hybrid and genetic maps to specific chromosome regions; (d) better compare related and unrelated species by comparative FISH mapping and/or Zoo-FISH techniques; (e) study meiotic segregation, especially by sperm-FISH, in some chromosome abnormalities; (f) better show conserved or lost DNA sequences in chromosome abnormalities; (g) use informatic and genomic reconstructions, in addition to CGH arrays in related species, to predict conserved or lost chromosome regions; and (h) study some chromosome abnormalities and genomic stability using PCR applications. This review summarizes the most important applications of molecular cytogenetics in domestic bovids, with an emphasis on FISH mapping applications.

Abstract

The discovery of the Robertsonian translocation (rob) involving cattle chromosomes 1 and 29 and the demonstration of its deleterious effects on fertility focused the interest of many scientific groups on using chromosome banding techniques to reveal chromosome abnormalities and verify their effects on fertility in domestic animals. At the same time, comparative banding studies among various species of domestic or wild animals were found useful for delineating chromosome evolution among species. The advent of molecular cytogenetics, particularly the use of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), has allowed a deeper investigation of the chromosomes of domestic animals through: (a) the physical mapping of specific DNA sequences on chromosome regions; (b) the use of specific chromosome markers for the identification of the chromosomes or chromosome regions involved in chromosome abnormalities, especially when poor banding patterns are produced; (c) better anchoring of radiation hybrid and genetic maps to specific chromosome regions; (d) better comparisons of related and unrelated species by comparative FISH mapping and/or Zoo-FISH techniques; (e) the study of meiotic segregation, especially by sperm-FISH, in some chromosome abnormalities; (f) better demonstration of conserved or lost DNA sequences in chromosome abnormalities; (g) the use of informatic and genomic reconstructions, in addition to CGH arrays, to predict conserved or lost chromosome regions in related species; and (h) the study of some chromosome abnormalities and genomic stability using PCR applications. This review summarizes the most important applications of molecular cytogenetics in domestic bovids, with an emphasis on FISH mapping applications.

1. Introduction

The application of cytogenetics to domestic animals emerged about 60 years ago with the study of normal stained chromosome preparations from some cases of domestic animals with reproductive defects [1,2,3]. However, the discovery of the Robertsonian translocation (rob) involving cattle chromosomes 1 and 29 [4,5] and the demonstration of its deleterious effects on fertility [6,7] was what piqued the interest of many scientific groups and focused their attention on studying the chromosomes of domestic animals. This approach was particularly useful for selecting bulls to be used for artificial insemination, as it could avoid the transmission of chromosome abnormalities (i.e., rob1;29) from bull carriers to their progeny. Evolutionary studies also benefitted from advancements beyond normal chromosome staining. Among the various studies, the most important was the study of the Bovidae family by Wurster and Benirske [8], who looked at the diploid number and shape of chromosomes. They concluded that while the diploid number varies from 38 to 60 among all bovid species, the number of chromosome arms (Fundamental Number = NF) varies only between 58 and 62, with three exceptions; therefore, they hypothesized a high degree of autosome arm conservation among all bovid species. This hypothesis was later confirmed with the application of chromosome banding techniques [9], which ushered in a new era of chromosome studies in various domestic animal species, allowing (a) the establishment of standard karyotypes of the most important domestic species as a point of reference for various applications; (b) better characterization and identification of the chromosomes involved in chromosome abnormalities of domestic animals [10], particularly domestic bovids [11], pigs [12], horses [13], and dogs [14]; (c) the study of the chromosome homologies between related and unrelated species [15,16,17]; and (d) the study of chromosome fragility in animals exposed in vivo or in vitro to particular mutagens [18,19]. The molecular cytogenetics, particularly the introduction of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), offered a deeper investigation of the chromosomes of domestic animals through: (a) the physical mapping of specific DNA sequences on chromosome regions; (b) the use of specific chromosome markers for the identification of chromosomes or chromosome regions involved in chromosome abnormalities, especially when poor banding patterns are produced; (c) better anchoring of radiation hybrid (RH) and genetic maps to specific chromosome regions; (d) better comparisons of related and unrelated species by comparative FISH mapping and/or Zoo-FISH techniques; (e) the study of meiotic segregation, especially by sperm-FISH, in some chromosome abnormalities or aneuploidies in both oocytes and embryos; (f) better demonstration of conserved or lost DNA sequences in chromosome abnormalities by CGH (comparative genomic hybridization) or SNP (single-nucleotide polymorphism) arrays; (g) the use of informatic and genomic reconstructions, in addition to CGH arrays, for the prediction of conserved or lost chromosome regions in related species; and (h) the study of chromosome abnormalities and genomic stability using PCR (polymerase chain reaction).
This review summarizes the most important applications of molecular cytogenetics in domestic bovids, with particular emphasis on FISH mapping applications.

2. The Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) Technique

The FISH mapping technique is based on two main principles: the target and the probe. The target can be a whole chromosome (or chromosome arms) or a specific chromosome region. The probe is prepared according to the size of the target and is typically: (a) cDNA (generally applied when the target gene is a multi-copy); (b) cosmids with DNA insert sizes of 20–40 kb; (c) bacterial artificial chromosomes (BACs) with DNA insert sizes of 100–300 kb; (d) yeast artificial chromosome (YAC) clones (these are actually not used because they have a low cloning efficiency and show a high level of chimerism); (e) chromosome painting probes (obtained by cell sorter or chromosome microdissection techniques) that can visualize parts of or entire chromosomes; and (f) CGH arrays to check for genomic gains or losses. The probes are labeled directly with fluorochromes or indirectly with molecules that bind to the probe via fluorochrome-conjugated antibodies. The probe is specific for the target, based on complementary DNA base pairing, which allows the fluorescence-labeled probes to hybridize and form specific fluorescent signals on specific chromosome regions.
The advent of the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technique, initially applied to human chromosomes [20,21], noticeably expanded cytogenetics research and investigations applied to domestic animals due to the possibility of revealing specific chromosome regions, entire chromosomes, or chromosome arms according to the choice of probe. One of the great advantages of the FISH technique is that it can be applied to interphase cell nuclei, meiotic preparations (sperm and oocytes), embryos, and elongated chromatin fibers, in addition to metaphase chromosomes, thereby allowing more complete cytogenetic investigations of animal cells. The following sections describe the main uses of FISH in domestic bovids.

2.1. FISH and Chromosome Abnormalities

The first study to apply FISH for the precise identification of the chromosomes involved in a chromosome abnormality was published by Gallagher et al. [22], who discovered an X-autosome translocation (X;23) using both Q-banding and a BoLA Class I cDNA probe. The probe shows hybridization signals to the normal chromosome 23 and to the translocated autosomal material present on the X chromosome, allowing a more precise localization of MHC (major histocompatibility complex) in cattle than was achieved earlier by genetic mapping. Several subsequent studies also applied FISH to obtain better confirmation of the chromosome(s) involved in abnormalities (especially when banding was poor) and identification of the break points, especially in reciprocal translocations. Table 1 shows the main studies that applied FISH mapping, either alone or in combination with other classical cytogenetic techniques (e.g., C-banding, G-banding, R-banding, and Ag-NORs), to study the chromosome abnormalities of domestic bovids in somatic cells at the metaphase (Figure 1) or interphase nuclei of germinal cells, such as sperm and oocytes, or embryos at different cell stages.
A more complete classification of all chromosome abnormalities studied by classical cytogenetic techniques alone or (in some cases) with other molecular cytogenetic techniques is provided by Iannuzzi et al. [11].
Two examples of the importance of the use of FISH for the correct identification of the chromosomes involved in chromosome abnormalities of cattle were a case of autosome trisomy and two types of Robertsonian translocations. A case of autosome trisomy 28 in an abnormal calf, revealed by both R-banding and FISH mapping with a specific molecular marker [33], was identified, and the same abnormality was reported earlier as trisomy 22 using only the banding technique [86]. Two robs earlier reported as rob (4;8) [87] and rob (25;27) [88] in cattle were later corrected as rob (6;8) and rob (26;29), respectively, using C-, G-, and R-banding and FISH mapping with specific molecular markers and the use of HSA painting probes [28].
Table 1 shows that FISH mapping applications were used for the diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities in both metaphase (the majority) and interphase cells, the latter applied to lymphocyte nuclei (Figure 2), sperm (Figure 3), oocytes, and embryos.
Concerning the studies on meiotic preparations, those performed on the synaptonemal complexes (SCs), especially in spermatocytes, were particularly important for establishing the regularity of the pairing processes during the pachytene substage of meiotic prophase in animals carrying chromosome abnormalities (reviewed in [89]). Recent analyses of meiotic preparations have been performed using immune fluorescence approaches and have provided more detailed information on SCs [90,91,92]. Other studies have addressed the fragile sites in the chromosomes of domestic animals (reviewed by [93]), and limited studies have used CGH and SNP arrays to establish possible genomic losses occurring during chromosome rearrangements (Table 1).
FISH mapping was also very important for the definitive establishment of the agreement between various chromosome nomenclatures due to some discrepancies found during the Reading conference [94] and the subsequent ISCNDA1989 [95] (the inverted position between BTA4 and BTA6, as well as the correct position of BTA25, BTA27, and BTA29). This aspect was vital for the clinical cytogenetics of domestic bovids, as it allowed a correct identification of the chromosomes involved in chromosome abnormalities. During the Texas conference [96], specific molecular markers (only type I loci) were selected for each bovine syntenic group and each cattle chromosome based on previous standard chromosome nomenclatures.
The next advance was the application of FISH mapping by two labs that used 31 selected BAC clones (from the Texas Conference) on RBG- and QBH-banded cattle preparations [97]. The chromosome-banding homologies among bovids (cattle, sheep, goats, and river buffalo) were then used to establish a definitive standard chromosome nomenclature for the main domestic bovid species [98]. Subsequent studies using FISH mapping and the same Texas markers on river buffalo, sheep, and goat R-banded chromosomes [99,100] definitively confirmed the chromosome homologies among domestic bovids, as established at the ISCNDB2000 [98].

2.2. FISH in Physical Mapping

The identification of the DNA structure [101] paved the way for the development of in situ hybridization technology. In the early stages of its development, this technology allowed the localization of genes using radioactive probes [102]. It was also used in studies of domestic animals [103,104], but the greatest diffusion of the physical mapping of genes awaited the development of fluorescent probes [105]. At that moment, we entered the golden years of gene mapping, and domestic animals were not excluded. One of the first examples was the localization of bovine alpha and beta interferon genes [106], and this localization was rapidly replicated in buffalos, goats, and sheep [107,108]. Subsequently, many other localizations were obtained using this technology (Figure 4).
Considering the practical impossibility of compiling a complete list of all gene localizations obtained using this technology, some significant examples are listed in Table 2.
Localization sometimes involved a single gene [124,129] or a family of genes [132]. Other reports, however, mapped many genomic markers [100,141]. A point to remember is that FISH technology has significantly benefited from the availability of BAC genomic libraries—elements that represent the ideal source for the construction of the probes. Among these, the INRA library [144] and the CHORI-240 have played relevant roles. The publication of genomes [145,146,147,148] has since inevitably diminished interest in using this technology for mapping genetic factors, although genetic factor mapping continued for species whose genomes were sequenced later, such as the water buffalo [149]. However, this technology has proved useful in several aspects, including: a) the identification of errors in genomic assembly [150]; b) the refinement of genome assembly [151]; and c) the mapping of sequences not included in genomic assemblages [152]. Clearly, the interest today is very limited in locating a genetic factor in a species whose genomic sequence is available, but this does not mean that FISH technology is no longer indispensable for solving other problems related to the organization of genomes.
The mapping of genomic elements by FISH has also been used successfully for the physical mapping of data obtained by other technologies. The first examples concerned the physical anchoring of a genetic map to a chromosome [153,154,155] and the mapping of a synteny group to a specific chromosome [114]. Subsequent examples of the combined use of FISH and genetic maps followed [127,156].

2.3. Comparative FISH Mapping

Two main methods have been applied thus far to obtain a FISH mapping comparison between related and unrelated species: Zoo-FISH, which uses chromosome painting probes, and FISH mapping, which uses specific molecular markers of both type I and type II. Zoo-FISH is a molecular technique that provides an easier comparison between related and unrelated species from a macro point of view. The term was first reported by [157], based on earlier studies that used genomic chromosome painting probes, obtained by cell sorter chromosomes, to compare related species [158,159,160].
Zoo-FISH was first applied in domestic animals when human chromosome painting probes became commercially available. This approach demonstrated the conservation of several human chromosome segments in both domestic bovids (Table 3) and other domestic species (reviewed in [161]).
The use of human-chromosome painting probes allowed the identification of a substantial number of human chromosome segments (around 50) in bovid chromosomes [175,176,217,218,219]. Zoo-FISH has also been applied to correctly identify some chromosomes involved in the chromosome abnormalities shown in Table 1. The availability of specific painting probes obtained by both cell sorting and/or by the microdissection of specific chromosomes (or chromosome arms) from domestic animals extended these studies to investigations between related species (Table 3). For example, in cattle, Zoo-FISH was applied to study X-Y aneuploidy in sperm [55] and in oocytes [58] (Table 1). An interesting approach was demonstrated in two studies characterizing two cases of goat/sheep [220] and donkey/zebra [221] hybrids using multicolor FISH (M-FISH), starting from painting probes obtained from microdissected river buffalo chromosomes (or chromosome arms) and from flow-sorted donkey chromosomes, respectively.
Chromosome painting probes allow the delineation of large, conserved chromosome regions between related and unrelated species, as reported above. The use of comparative FISH mapping using several chromosome markers to map a single type I or type II locus along the chromosomes allows a more accurate establishment of the gene order within chromosome regions, thereby confirming that chromosome rearrangements occurred to differentiate related or unrelated species in key evolutionary studies (Table 3). These detailed comparisons have confirmed a high degree of autosome (or chromosome arm) conservation among all bovid species. The main autosome difference found thus far in bovids was a chromosome translocation of a proximal chromosome region from Bovinae chromosome 9 to Caprinae chromosome 14, as demonstrated by both chromosome banding and, in particular, by a molecular marker (COL9A1) mapping proximal to Bovinae chromosome 9 and proximal to Caprinae chromosome 14 (reviewed in [9]). This translocation involved a genome region of about 13 MB and was followed by an inversion in Caprinae chromosome 14, as demonstrated earlier [213]. This chromosome event was common to all remaining Bovidae subfamilies, leading to the conclusion that the Bovinae subfamily is an ancestor to the remaining Bovidae subfamilies (reviewed in [9]).
In contrast to autosomes, sex chromosomes are differentiated by more complex chromosome rearrangements. Indeed, the Caprinae X chromosome (as for all remaining X chromosomes of the other Bovidae subfamilies) is differentiated from the ancestor Bovinae X (very probably a large acrocentric chromosome, such as that of the water buffalo) by at least three chromosome transpositions and one inversion (reviewed in [9]). Detailed FISH mapping data are also useful for better anchoring of both genetic and RH maps [203,222,223,224]. The availability of detailed cytogenetic maps in bovid species allowed a better comparison of the bovid and human chromosomes, especially using type I loci. These comparisons facilitated the translation of genomic information from the human genome to the genomes of domestic animals, especially in those with no genome sequencing available. These comparisons also revealed a very high number of chromosome rearrangements that differentiate bovid species from humans. Indeed, the conservation of entire chromosomes or large regions of them between bovid and human chromosomes, as revealed by Zoo-FISH, was the result of complex chromosome rearrangements that differentiated human and bovid species according to their gene order. An example is presented in Figure 5 which illustrates the comparison of FISH mapping between HSA2q and BTA2. As seen, when utilizing the Zoo-FISH technique with the HSA2q painting probe, almost all BTA2 is painted [217], indicating a high degree of chromosome conservation between the chromosomes of the two species. By conducting the same comparison using comparative FISH mapping and examining the gene order along the chromosomes of the two species, we observe a distinct gene order between the two species, thus revealing complex chromosome rearrangements that differentiated the chromosomes of the two species during their evolution.

2.4. Fiber-FISH

The various FISH mapping techniques developed for human cytogenetics (reviewed by [225]) include SKY-FISH (spectral karyotyping FISH), Q-FISH (quantitative FISH), M-FISH (multicolor FISH), heterochromatin-M-FISH, COBRA-FISH (combined binary ratio labeling FISH), cenM-FISH (centromere-specific M-FISH), and fiber-FISH. Among these techniques, only fiber-FISH and M-FISH have been applied to domestic bovids. The use of fiber-FISH yields high-resolution maps of chromosomal regions and related genes on a single DNA fiber. This approach establishes the physical location of DNA probes with a resolution of 1000 bp. It is particularly useful for detecting gene duplications, gaps, and variations in the nuclear genome. The DNA fibers are obtained from nucleated cells by releasing the DNA fibers from the nucleus, stretching them mechanically, and then fixing them on slides [226] (Figure 6). Table 4 summarizes the studies that have used this technique in domestic bovids.

2.5. CGH Arrays

The CGH array technology, an evolution of in situ comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), is a method of cytogenetic investigation that emerged in the 1990s to overcome the limitations of common banding cytogenetic analyses, especially those involving the presence of genomic imbalances, such as duplications or deletions [231,232]. In situ CGH technology has many similarities to FISH: the support used is the same, i.e., denatured metaphases fixed on slides and the approaches to label the probes are identical. However, in this case, the probes are produced using complete genomic DNA deriving from two subjects: typically, one healthy and one relating to the subject being investigated. The two DNAs are labeled with two different fluorochromes and then hybridized simultaneously on the slide. In the hybridization phase, a competition is therefore created between the probes, and in the presence of a normal chromosomal segment, an intermediate color is obtained, while in the presence of chromosomal alterations, a fluorescence closer to one of the two colors used is obtained. Although this technology has been widely used and has provided important results, its major limitation lies in the resolution. CGH array technology follows the same principle, but the support is no longer represented by slides but by synthetic DNA fixed on slides. Initially, the chips for CGH array analyses contained DNA extracted from BAC to provide as uniform a representation of the genome as possible [233]. Current CGH array analyses are performed using devices containing oligonucleotides chosen that uniformly cover the whole genome and achieve resolutions of 5–10 kb [234,235]. More information about this technology and its use is provided by [236]. In species of zootechnical interest, CGH array analyses (Figure 7) became common following the appearance of the first commercial arrays, and these analyses are conducted essentially for two purposes: the identification of copy number variation (CNV) polymorphisms and the characterization of chromosome anomalies. CNVs are polymorphic variations present very frequently in the genomes of higher organisms [237,238,239]. In humans, approximately 4.8–9.7% of the genome contains CNVs [240]. The introduction of commercial arrays has allowed the use of this technology to obtain a great amount of information about the distribution of CNVs in species differences and how these variations are related to phenotypic traits. The transfer of this technology to the animal field and the availability of commercial arrays has led to the publication of several reports (Table 5).

3. Combined Informatic and Genomic Information

The publication of animal genomes [145,146,147,148,149,250] has made available a very large series of data that required the development of sophisticated analysis techniques and often required the use of computers with large processing capacities. The first bio-informatic analyses were used to assemble thousands of short genomic sequences, produced by modern high-throughput sequencing technologies, into genomes. Today, most of these programs are available free of charge through web pages that function as interfaces between the user and calculation tools [251]. Currently, dozens of bio-informatics programs are available to analyze the data contained in genomic assemblies, and many of these are accessible through various web platforms. Making a complete list is very complicated, in part because this is a rapidly evolving discipline that introduces, almost daily, new analytical tools.

3.1. Visualization of Genomes

The genomic sequences produced by the various assemblies can be visualized using one of the available websites available, including Genome Data viewer [252], UCSC Genome Browser [253], and Ensembl [254]. Currently, these websites provide the ability to view and process data relating to several genome assemblies (Table 6).
These genome viewers are constantly evolving and contain several tools within them that allow the user to obtain highly relevant genetic data and information. This includes, but is not limited to, the possibility of: (a) identifying the structure of genetic factors (in terms of exon–intron boundaries); (b) identifying SNP polymorphisms in a particular region of the genome; (c) identifying the position of BACs by mapping the BES (Bac Ends Sequences, particularly useful when the user wants to choose the BACs to use in FISH analysis); (d) observing the genomic regions expressed in particular types of tissues; (e) analyzing the relationships between different assemblies of the same species; (f) visualizing the relationships between similar regions in different species (comparative genomics); and (g) viewing the repeating regions. In this review, we do not specify a best genome viewer, as this will often depend on personal needs and experience. However, as each genome viewer has its own specific analysis tools, sometimes the best solution is to use all three to obtain more complete information.

3.2. Use of Genomic Assemblies

The availability of genomic assemblages has, on the one hand, limited the interest in the physical mapping of genomic elements, but has, on the other hand, allowed the evolution of a very large number of genetic and genomic analyses. Probably one of the most common uses (even if not directly related to cytogenetics) is to design primers for use in PCR amplifications. This operation can be performed using different software, both available for free and for a fee. Among those available free of charge, the most frequently used is Primer3 [255]. The availability of genomic assemblages also makes rapid evolutionary investigation possible (i.e., visualizing, in a simple and rapid way, the similarities that exist between the various genomic regions of different species). The publication of genomes has certainly had a great impact on cytogenetics (both negatively and positively). If the golden era of gene mapping has ended, the possibility of rapidly identifying BACs for use as probes in FISH experiments has certainly provided great benefits to cytogenetics, as it avoids long and tedious testing of BAC libraries. This aspect has allowed the rapid characterization of some chromosomal anomalies, such as a centromere repositioning event in cattle [66], a reciprocal translocation, also in cattle [62], and cryptic evolutionary rearrangements between cattle and sheep [213]. Finally, the rapid localization of BACs on genomes has allowed the development of complex approaches for the identification of chromosomal abnormalities, which are also difficult to identify [71]. Obviously, these are not all the possible uses of genomic assemblies, but they represent the best examples in relation to cytogenetics. Each genomic assembly contains substantial information that can be used for very specific purposes and avoids the need for probes that would be complex to synthesize. The continuous evolution of these data analysis tools creates difficulty in any attempt to compile their possible uses.

3.3. Tools for Genomic Data Analyses

Simultaneously with the publication of the genomes, bio-informatics tools were developed for the analysis of the vast amount of data generated—data that are characterized by both their great variety and their large quantity. One of the main repositories of tools for analyzing genomic data is Galaxy [251]. This repository provides access to bio-informatic analysis tools, which are constantly updated. SNP variations represent the major source of variation in genomes, and the genomes of the species covered in this review are no exception. Currently, identifying these sources of variation is quite simple (through modern high-throughput sequencing techniques at ever-lower cost), but this does not characterize the effect that these variations can cause. For this scenario, the variant effect predictor (VEP available on the Ensembl website) software is helpful [256].
Without a doubt, BACs represent one of the most useful tools for molecular cytogenetics, and, as previously mentioned, their identification in genomes is currently greatly facilitated. However, the current situation would not be possible without the existence of two important institutions that have dedicated part of their activities to the construction, maintenance, and distribution of BAC libraries: the BACPAC Resources Center (BPRC, https://bacpacresources.org/ (accessed on 2 March 2023)) and INRA (http://abridge.inra.fr/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=item&cid=17&id=61&Itemid=202&lang=fr (accessed on 2 March 2023)). Through these two institutes, BACs belonging to different libraries can be obtained.

3.4. Whole-Genome Sequencing

In recent years, the decreasing costs of sequencing have made it possible to analyze many subjects. The purposes of these sequencings are different; in many cases, the aim is the identification of signatures of selection [257,258,259], but other purposes are represented, such as: (a) the identification of genetic variants in specific genes [260]; (b) the verification of data obtained regarding the identification of SNPs with chip arrays [261]; (c) the identification of the run of homozygosity in breeds intended for different productions [262]; (d) prediction and QTL mapping [263]; and (e) the identification of copy number variants [264] and transcriptome characterization [265]. Similar analyses were performed on sheep [266,267] and goats [268,269]. Additionally, in this case, the water buffalo seems to be slightly behind, as there are very few papers available on it [265].

4. PCR-Based Methods and Molecular Cytogenetics

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [270] is a method largely used to make millions of copies of a specific DNA sample in a fast and economical way for the detection, quantification, and typing of infectious diseases and genetic changes. Current PCR-based methods are distinguished as: (a) first-generation PCR, (b) second-generation quantitative PCR (qPCR), and (c) third-generation droplet-based digital PCR (dPCR). PCR detects endpoint, qualitative, or semi-quantitative assays by gel electrophoresis, separating DNA fragments according to size. The qPCR measures DNA/RNA in real time using PCR methods, fluorescent dyes, and fluorometry for relative quantification and quantitative assays with standard curves. The dPCR splits a PCR sample labeled with fluorescent dye into millions of microsamples to digitize the pool of DNA molecules with a single or no copy in each droplet. It quantifies the DNA/RNA copy number faster than qPCR based on standard curves [271].
In recent years, PCR-based methods have replaced the classic cytogenetic techniques for detecting chromosome abnormalities and aneuploidy due to greater precision, lower cost, and faster data than are possible with cytogenetic methods, because of the small quantities of DNA (30 ng) required from any stored or fresh biological samples. PCR-based approaches are most commonly used in bovid studies to examine sex chromosomes in early-sex-determination assays to detect aberrations (Table 7).
Telomere assessment is another critical goal of cytogenetics research due to the central roles of telomeres in chromosome stability, aging, cancer development, apoptosis, and senescence. The telomeres consist of thousands of noncoding repetitive sequences of DNA composed of six nucleotide motifs (TTAGGG)n localized at the ends of chromosomes and are responsible for maintaining DNA integrity during each cell division. They are associated with several proteins, with the most abundant being the shelterin complex, which is made up of six different polypeptides. Telomeres also contain other genomic structures, such as T-loops, D-loops, G-quadruplexes (G4), R-loops, and long noncoding RNA (TERRA) [286].
In farm animals, telomere length (TL) did not receive much interest initially due to the difficulty in determining the natural limits of their lifespans. However, a recent study related TL to health, genome stability, and aging in cattle aged between 2 and 13 years and transformed TL into a sensitive biomarker for longevity and wellness (critical traits of selective breeding), responding to the “One Health” approach (improving animal welfare) [287]. TL is not often used as a unique marker of aging in humans because of its poor predictive accuracy due to increased telomere shortening in elderly humans as a consequence of age-related diseases (e.g., cancer, atherosclerosis, autoimmune disorders, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hematological disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases) [288]. By contrast, TL proved to be a relevant biomarker of the general state of farm animals due to their lack of age-related pathologies [289,290].
Approaches for measuring TL include: (a) telomere restriction fragment (TRF) length [291]; (b) length analysis by Southern blotting; (c) fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) by flow cytometry (flow-FISH) or in metaphase cells (Q-FISH) [292,293]; and (d) PCR-based methods. Most of these methods have several limitations. For example, TRF and flow-FISH are labor-intensive and expensive; Southern blot analysis requires large amounts of genomic DNA, and Q-FISH works only on chromosomes (metaphase stage). Of the available methods, the PCR-based ones are the fastest, most recent, and least costly and require only small quantities of DNA (30 ng) from stored or fresh biological samples [294]. The qPCR method amplifies telomere repeats relative to a single-copy gene (reference gene) according to a method described by Cawthon et al. [295] and follows the MIQE guidelines [296]. One limitation of qPCR is the inconsistent repeatability and reproducibility of different TL measurement methods, producing a high variation in results [297]. Several studies on humans and animals indicated that the DNA extraction method might affect TL measurements using q-PCR, as DNA yields were higher using the non-silica membrane kit (salting-out method), and DNA integrity on electrophoresis gels varied [298,299]. A recent study showed comparable results for DNA quality and purity (tested using a NanoDrop instrument and electrophoresis gels) in cattle blood and milk samples using two different extraction kits (a salting-out kit for blood and a silica membrane kit for milk samples) due to the difficulty of extracting DNA from milk matrices. The DNA quality results were similar in both matrices, demonstrating a synchronous trend between them for the first time [287].

5. Current Developments and Knowledge Gaps

Molecular cytogenetics is approaching its first 30 years of history and during this period, it performed important functions that evolved over time. It therefore seems normal that in the coming years, we will witness further developments; however, some approaches will always be current and irreplaceable. The FISH technology represents, and will represent, the main methodology for the verification of chromosomal anomalies eventually identified with other approaches, just as the CGH array technology that will be increasingly used for the identification of genomic variants linked to a particular phenotype. Molecular cytogenetics could be very useful for the study of those species which have not yet benefited from the genomic revolution, or which are still in its early stages: in this sense, the water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) is the main example. Despite possessing a great economic importance, its genome has been decrypted and made available only recently, and the application of other technologies is very late. A further gap that can be filled is the development of a technological approach that can allow the identification of all chromosomal types identifiable by cytogenetic analyses. A similar approach has already been published [71], but only the transfer of SKY-FISH technologies [300] from humans to bovids will bridge this gap. Finally, the certain decrease in costs will mean that even the species considered in this review will be able to benefit from long-read genomic sequencing, such as PacBio [301] and Oxford Nanopore [302].

6. Conclusions

The study of the chromosomes of domestic bovids is about to enter its seventh decade, and, as expected, it has undergone a notable evolution along the way. This evolutionary process for this discipline is mainly a result of the appearance of technologies that have significantly increased the potential of applied cytogenetics. Banding techniques, FISH, CGH arrays, and PCR have radically changed animal cytogenetics, making them irreplaceable tools for understanding the genetics of bred animals. Therefore, considering the history of cytogenetics, a quite easy prediction is that even the next evolutions will be dictated by technological advances. Predicting the next technological leap is difficult, but if we were to make a prediction, it would be that long-read genomic sequencing technologies will have important impacts on cytogenetics. Cytogenetics will likely retain its functionality, particularly in the confirmation of genomic results and the characterization of cytogenetic anomalies, as well as in evolutionary studies. This is because the most significant genetic mutations have accumulated at the chromosome level during the evolution of species. Finally, the implication and progresses from animal cytogenetics can be summarized as follows:
  • In the pre-genomic era, FISH technology represented the almost exclusive technology available for the localization of genes in genomes.
  • Prior to the availability of low-cost genomic sequencing, molecular cytogenetics was the only approach for identifying similarities between karyotypes of different species.
  • The technologies of molecular cytogenetics represent the best approach for the characterization of chromosomal abnormalities.
  • Despite scientific progress in similar disciplines, molecular cytogenetics will always find its place and represent an inescapable investigation methodology.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.P, L.I. and A.I.; writing—original draft preparation, P.P, L.I. and A.I.; writing—review and editing, P.P. and L.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was supported by the project PON1_486 GENOBU.

Institutional Review Board Statement

An Institutional Review Board statement was not required.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

aCGHarray Comparative Genomic Hybridization
BACBacterial Artificial Chromosome
BBUBubalus bubalis Chromosome, 2 n = 50
BESBac Ends Sequences
BINBos indicus Chromosomes, 2 n = 60
BTABos taurus Chromosome, 2 n = 60
CAChromosome Abnormalities (chromosome breaks)
CBAC-banding by Acrine Orange Staining
CHICapra hircus Chromosomes, 2 n = 60
Fiber-FISHExtended Chromatin Fiber-FISH
FISHFluorescence In Situ Hybridization
GBGG-banding by Early BrdU-Incorporation and Giemsa Staining
HSAHuman sapiens Chromosome, 2 n = 46
IVPIn Vitro Production
MHCMajor Histocompatibility Complex
MIMitotic Index
MNMicronuclei
OAROvis aries Chromosomes, 2 n = 54
PCRPolymerase Chain Reaction
PNAPeptide Nucleic Acids
QBHQ-banding by Early BrdU-Incorporation and Hoescht Staining
RBAR-banding by Late BrdU-Incorporation and Acridine Orange Staining
RBGR-banding by Late BrdU-Incorporation and Giemsa Staining
RHRadiation Hybrids
SCASynaptonemal Complex Analysis
SCESister Chromatid Exchange
SKY-FISHSpectral Karyotyping
SNPSingle Nucleotide Polymorphism
YACYeast Artificial Chromosome

References

  1. Kanagawa, H.; Kawata, K.; Ishikawa, T.; Odajima, T.; Inoue, T. Chromosome studies on heterosexual twins in cattle. 3. Sex chromosome chimerism (XX/XY) in bone marrow specimens. Jpn. J. Vet. Res. 1966, 14, 123–126. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mcfeely, R.; Hare, W.; Biggers, J.; Diggers, J. Chromosome Studies in 14 Cases of Intersex in Domestic Mammals. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 1967, 6, 242–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mcfeely, R.A. Chromosome abnormalities in early embryos of the pig. J. Reprod. Fertil. 1967, 13, 579–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gustavsson, I.; Rockborn, G. Chromosome abnormality in three cases of lymphatic leukemia in cattle. Nature 1964, 203, 990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gustavsson, I. Distribution of the 1/29 translocation in the A.I. Bull population of Swedish Red and White cattle. Hereditas 1971, 69, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Gustavsson, I. Cytogenetics, distribution and phenotypic effects of a translocation in swedish cattle. Hereditas 1979, 63, 68–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dyrendahl, I.; Gustavsson, I. Sexual functions, semen characteristics and fertility of bulls carrying the 1/29 chromosome translocation. Hereditas 1979, 90, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wurster, D.H.; Benirschke, K. Chromosome studies in the superfamily Bovoidea. Chromosoma 1968, 25, 152–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Iannuzzi, L.; King, W.A.; Di Berardino, D. Chromosome evolution in domestic bovids as revealed by chromosome banding and FISH-mapping techniques. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2009, 126, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ducos, A.; Revay, T.; Kovacs, A.; Hidas, A.; Pinton, A.; Bonnet-Garnier, A.; Molteni, L.; Slota, E.; Switonski, M.; Arruga, M.V.; et al. Cytogenetic screening of livestock populations in Europe: An overview. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2008, 120, 26–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Iannuzzi, A.; Parma, P.; Iannuzzi, L. Chromosome Abnormalities and Fertility in Domestic Bovids: A Review. Animals 2021, 11, 802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Donaldson, B.; Villagomez, D.; King, W.A. Classical, Molecular, and Genomic Cytogenetics of the Pig, a Clinical Perspective. Animals 2021, 11, 1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bugno-Poniewierska, M.; Raudsepp, T. Horse Clinical Cytogenetics: Recurrent Themes and Novel Findings. Animals 2021, 11, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Szczerbal, I.; Switonski, M. Clinical Cytogenetics of the Dog: A Review. Animals 2021, 11, 947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hayes, H.; Petit, E.; Dutrillaux, B. Comparison of RBG-banded karyotypes of cattle, sheep, and goats. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1991, 57, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Gallagher, D.S.; Womack, J.E. Chromosome conservation in the Bovidae. J. Hered. 1992, 83, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P. Chromosomal evolution in bovids: A comparison of cattle, sheep and goat G- and R-banded chromosomes and cytogenetic divergences among cattle, goat and river buffalo sex chromosomes. Chromosome Res. 1995, 3, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Perucatti, A.; Genualdo, V.; Pauciullo, A.; Iorio, C.; Incarnato, D.; Rossetti, C.; Vizzarri, F.; Palazzo, M.; Casamassima, D.; Iannuzzi, L.; et al. Cytogenetic tests reveal no toxicity in lymphocytes of rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus, 2n=44) feed in presence of verbascoside and/or lycopene. Food. Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 114, 311–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Iannuzzi, A.; Perucatti, A.; Genualdo, V.; Pauciullo, A.; Melis, R.; Porqueddu, C.; Marchetti, M.; Usai, M.; Iannuzzi, L. Sister chromatid exchange test in river buffalo lymphocytes treated in vitro with furocoumarin extracts. Mutagenesis 2016, 31, 547–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pinkel, D.; Gray, J.W.; Trask, B.; Van Den Engh, G.; Fuscoe, J.; Van Dekken, H. Cytogenetic analysis by in situ hybridization with fluorescently labeled nucleic acid probes. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 1986, 51, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Trask, B.; Pinkel, D. Fluorescence in situ hybridization with DNA probes. Methods Cell Biol. 1990, 33, 383–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Gallagher, D.S.; Basrur, P.K.; Womack, J.E. Identification of an autosome to X chromosome translocation in the domestic cow. J. Hered. 1992, 83, 451–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Miyake, Y.I.; Kawakura, K.; Murakami, R.K.; Kaneda, Y. Minute fragment observed in a bovine pedigree with Robertsonian translocation. J. Hered. 1994, 85, 488–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Schmitz, A.; Oustry, A.; Chaput, B.; Bahri-Darwich, I.; Yerle, M.; Millan, D.; Frelat, G.; Cribiu, E.P. The bovine bivariate flow karyotype and peak identification by chromosome painting with PCR-generated probes. Mamm. Genome 1995, 6, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kawakura, K.; Miyake, Y.; Murakami, R.K.; Kondoh, S.; Hirata, T.I.; Kaneda, Y. Abnormal structure of the Y chromosome detected in bovine gonadal hypoplasia (XY female) by FISH. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1997, 76, 36–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gallagher, D.S.; Lewis, B.C.; De Donato, M.; Davis, S.K.; Taylor, J.F.; Edwards, J.F. Autosomal trisomy 20 (61,XX,+20) in a malformed bovine foetus. Vet. Pathol. 1999, 36, 448–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Tanaka, K.; Yamamoto, Y.; Amano, T.; Yamagata, T.; Dang, V.B.; Matsuda, Y.; Namikawa, T. A Robertsonian translocation, rob(2;28), found in Vietnamese cattle. Hereditas 2000, 133, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Di Meo, G.P.; Molteni, L.; Perucatti, A.; De Giovanni, A.; Incarnato, D.; Succi, G.; Schibler, L.; Cribiu, E.P.; Iannuzzi, L. Chromosomal characterization of three centric fusion translocations in cattle using G-, R- and C-banding and FISH technique. Caryologia 2000, 53, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hyttel, P.; Viuff, D.; Laurincik, J.; Schmidt, M.; Thomsen, P.D.; Avery, B.; Callesen, H.; Rath, D.; Niemann, H.; Rosenkranz, C.; et al. Risks of in-vitro production of cattle and swine embryos: Aberrations in chromosome numbers, ribosomal RNA gene activation and perinatal physiology. Hum. Reprod. 2000, 5, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Viuff, D.; Greve, T.; Avery, B.; Hyttel, P.; Brockhoff, P.B.; Thomsen, P.D. Chromosome aberrations in in vitro-produced bovine embryos at days 2-5 post-insemination. Biol. Reprod. 2000, 63, 1143–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Iannuzzi, L.; Molteni, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Lorenzi, L.; Incarnato, D.; De Giovanni, A.; Succi, G.; Gustavsson, I. A new balanced autosomal reciprocal translocation in cattle revealed by banding techniques and human-painting probes. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 2000, 94, 225–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Eggen, A.; Incarnato, D.; Sarubbi, F.; Cribiu, E. A pericentric inversion in the cattle Y chromosome. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 2001, 94, 202–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Leifsson, P.S.; Eggen, A.; Christensen, K. A case of trisomy 28 in cattle revealed by both banding and FISH-mapping techniques. Hereditas 2001, 134, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Basrur, P.K.; Reyes, E.R.; Farazmand, A.; King, W.A.; Popescu, P.C. X-autosome translocation and low fertility in a family of crossbred cattle. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2001, 67, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Iannuzzi, L.; Molteni, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; De Giovanni, A.; Perucatti, A.; Succi, G.; Incarnato, D.; Eggen, A.; Cribiu, E.P. A case of azoospermia in a bull carrying a Y-autosome reciprocal translocation. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 2001, 95, 225–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Viuff, D.; Palsgaard, A.; Rickords, L.; Lawson, L.G.; Greve, T.; Schmidt, M.; Avery, B.; Hyttel, P.; Thomsen, P.D. Bovine embryos contain a higher proportion of polyploid cells in the trophectoderm than in the embryonic disc. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2002, 62, 483–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. 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. 2003, 11, 641–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pinton, A.; Ducos, A.; Yerle, M. Chromosomal rearrangements in cattle and pigs revealed by chromosome microdissection and chromosome painting. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2003, 35, 685–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Słota, E.; Kozubska-Sobocińska, A.; Kościelny, M.; Danielak-Czech, B.; Rejduch, B. Detection of the XXY trisomy in a bull by using sex chromosome painting probes. J. Appl. Genet. 2003, 44, 379–382. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bureau, W.S.; Bordignon, V.; Léveillée, C.; Smith, L.C.; King, W.A. Assessment of chromosomal abnormalities in bovine nuclear transfer embryos and in their donor cells. Cloning Stem Cells 2003, 5, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mastromonaco, G.F.; Coppola, G.; Crawshaw, G.; Di Berardino, D.; King, W.A. Identification of the homologue of the bovine Rob(1;29) in a captive gaur (Bos gaurus). Chromosome Res. 2004, 12, 725–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Chaves, R.; Adega, F.; De Lorenzi, L.; Molteni, L.; De Giovanni, A.; Incarnato, D.; Guedes-Pinto, H.; Eggen, A.; et al. Cattle rob(1;29) originating from complex chromosome rearrangements as revealed by both banding and FISH-mapping techniques. Chromosome Res. 2006, 14, 649–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bonnet-Garnier, A.; Pinton, A.; Berland, H.M.; Khireddine, B.; Eggen, A.; Yerle, M.; Darré, R.; Ducos, A. Sperm nuclei analysis of 1/29 Robertsonian translocation carrier bulls using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2006, 12, 241–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. De Lorenzi, L.; De Giovanni, A.; Molteni, L.; Denis, C.; Eggen, A.; Parma, P. Characterization of a balanced reciprocal translocation, rcp(9;11)(q27;q11) in cattle. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2007, 19, 231–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sohn, S.H.; Cho, E.J.; Son, W.J.; Lee, C.Y. Diagnosis of bovine freemartinism by fluorescence in situ hybridization on interphase nuclei using a bovine Y chromosome-specific DNA probe. Theriogenology 2007, 68, 1003–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Molteni, L.; Perucatti, A.; Iannuzzi, A.; Di Meo, G.P.; De Lorenzi, L.; De Giovanni, A.; Incarnato, D.; Succi, G.; Cribiu, E.; Eggen, A.; et al. A new case of reciprocal translocation in a young bull: Rcp(11;21)(q28;q12). Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2007, 116, 80–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Vozdova, M.; Kubickova, S.; Cernohorska, H.; Rubes, J. Detection of translocation rob(1;29) in bull sperm using a specific DNA probe. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2008, 120, 102–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Switonski, M.; Andersson, M.; Nowacka-Woszuk, J.; Szczerbal, I.; Sosnowski, J.; Kopp, C.; Cernohorska, H.; Rubes, J. Identification of a new reciprocal translocation in an AI bull by synaptonemal complex analysis, followed by chromosome painting. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2008, 121, 245–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Nicodemo, D.; Pauciullo, A.; Castello, A.; Roldan, E.; Gomendio, M.; Cosenza, G.; Peretti, V.; Perucatti, A.; Di Meo, G.P.; Ramunno, L.; et al. X-Y sperm aneuploidy in 2 cattle (Bos taurus) breeds as determined by dual color fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2009, 126, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. De Lorenzi, L.; Kopecna, O.; Gimelli, S.; Cernohorska, H.; Zannotti, M.; Béna, F.; Molteni, L.; Rubes, J.; Parma, P. Reciprocal translocation t(4;7)(q14;q28) in cattle: Molecular characterization. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2010, 129, 298–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Nicodemo, D.; Pauciullo, A.; Cosenza, G.; Peretti, V.; Perucatti, A.; Di Meo, G.P.; Ramunno, L.; Iannuzzi, L.; Rubes, J.; Di Berardino, D. Frequency of aneuploidy in in vitro-matured MII oocytes and corresponding first polar bodies in two dairy cattle (Bos taurus) breeds as determined by dual-color fluorescent in situ hybridization. Theriogenology 2010, 73, 523–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Rybar, R.; Kopecka, V.; Prinosilova, P.; Kubickova, S.; Veznik, Z.; Rubes, J. Fertile bull sperm aneuploidy and chromatin integrity in relationship to fertility. Int. J. Androl. 2010, 33, 613–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Switonski, M.; Szczerbal, I.; Krumrych, W.; Nowacka-Woszuk, J. A case of Y-autosome reciprocal translocation in a Holstein-Friesian bull. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2011, 132, 22–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Perucatti, A.; Genualdo, V.; Iannuzzi, A.; De Lorenzi, L.; Matassino, D.; Parma, P.; Di Berardino, D.; Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P. A new and unusual reciprocal translocation in cattle: Rcp(11;25)(q11;q14-21). Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2011, 134, 96–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Pauciullo, A.; Cosenza, G.; Peretti, V.; Iannuzzi, A.; Di Meo, G.P.; Ramunno, L.; Iannuzzi, L.; Rubes, J.; Di Berardino, D. Incidence of X-Y aneuploidy in sperm of two indigenous cattle breeds by using dual color fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Theriogenology 2011, 76, 328–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. De Lorenzi, L.; Genualdo, V.; Gimelli, S.; Rossi, E.; Perucatti, A.; Iannuzzi, A.; Zannotti, M.; Malagutti, L.; Molteni, L.; Iannuzzi, L.; et al. Genomic analysis of cattle rob(1;29). Chromosome Res. 2012, 20, 815–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. De Lorenzi, L.; Rossi, E.; Genualdo, V.; Gimelli, S.; Lasagna, E.; Perucatti, A.; Iannuzzi, A.; Parma, P. Molecular characterization of Xp chromosome deletion in a fertile cow. Sex Dev. 2012, 6, 298–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pauciullo, A.; Nicodemo, D.; Peretti, V.; Marino, G.; Iannuzzi, A.; Cosenza, G.; Di Meo, G.P.; Ramunno, L.; Iannuzzi, L.; Rubes, J.; et al. X-Y aneuploidy rate in sperm of two “minor” breeds of cattle (Bos taurus) by using dual color fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Theriogenology 2012, 78, 688–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Pauciullo, A.; Nicodemo, D.; Cosenza, G.; Peretti, V.; Iannuzzi, A.; Di Meo, G.P.; Ramunno, L.; Iannuzzi, L.; Rubes, J.; Di Berardino, D. Similar rates of chromosomal aberrant secondary oocytes in two indigenous cattle (Bos taurus) breeds as determined by dual-color FISH. Theriogenology 2012, 77, 675–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Pers-Kamczyc, E.; Pawlak, P.; Rubes, J.; Lechniak, D. Early cleaved bovine embryos show reduced incidence of chromosomal aberrations and higher developmental potential on day 4.5 post-insemination. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2012, 47, 899–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Šiviková, K.; Dianovský, J.; Holečková, B.; Galdíková, M.; Kolesárová, V. Assessment of cytogenetic damage in bovine peripheral lymphocytes exposed to in vitro tebuconazole-based fungicide. Chemosphere 2013, 92, 555–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. De Lorenzi, L.; Rossi, E.; Gimelli, S.; Parma, P. De novo reciprocal translocation t(5;6)(q13;q34) in cattle: Cytogenetic and molecular characterization. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2014, 142, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Biltueva, L.; Kulemzina, A.; Vorobieva, N.; Perelman, P.; Kochneva, M.; Zhidenova, A.; Graphodatsky, A. A new case of an inherited reciprocal translocation in cattle: Rcp(13;26) (q24;q11). Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2014, 144, 208–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Iannuzzi, A.; Genualdo, V.; Perucatti, A.; Pauciullo, A.; Varricchio, G.; Incarnato, D.; Matassino, D.; Iannuzzi, L. Fatal outcome in a newborn calf associated with partial trisomy 25q and partial monosomy 11q, 60,XX,der(11)t(11;25)(q11;q14∼21). Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2015, 146, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Galdíková, M.; Šiviková, K.; Holečková, B.; Dianovský, J.; Drážovská, M.; Schwarzbacherová, V. The effect of thiacloprid formulation on DNA/chromosome damage and changes in GST activity in bovine peripheral lymphocytes. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 2015, 50, 698–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. De Lorenzi, L.; Iannuzzi, A.; Rossi, E.; Bonacina, S.; Parma, P. Centromere repositioning in cattle (Bos taurus) chromosome 17. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2017, 151, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Berry, D.P.; Wolfe, A.; O’Donovan, J.; Byrne, N.; Sayers, R.G.; Dodds, K.G.; McEwan, J.C.; O’Connor, R.E.; McClure, M.; Purfield, D.C. Characterization of an X-chromosomal non-mosaic monosomy (59, X0) dairy heifer detected using routinely available single nucleotide polymorphism genotype data. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 95, 1042–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Barasc, H.; Mouney-Bonnet, N.; Peigney, C.; Calgaro, A.; Revel, C.; Mary, N.; Ducos, A.; Pinton, A. Analysis of meiotic segregation pattern and interchromosomal effects in a bull heterozygous for a 3/16 robertsonian translocation. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2018, 156, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Häfliger, I.M.; Agerholm, J.S.; Drögemüller, C. Constitutional trisomy 20 in an aborted Holstein fetus with pulmonary hypoplasia and anasarca syndrome. Anim. Genet. 2020, 51, 988–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Häfliger, I.M.; Seefried, F.; Drögemüller, C. Trisomy 29 in a stillborn swiss original braunvieh calf. Anim. Genet. 2020, 51, 483–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Jennings, R.L.; Griffin, D.K.; O’Connor, R.E. A new approach for accurate detection of chromosome rearrangements that affect fertility in cattle. Animals 2020, 10, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Iannuzzi, A.; Braun, M.; Genualdo, V.; Perucatti, A.; Reinartz, S.; Proios, I.; Heppelmann, M.; Rehage, J.; Hülskötter, K.; Beineke, A.; et al. Clinical, cytogenetic and molecular genetic characterization of a tandem fusion translocation in a male Holstein cattle with congenital hypospadias and a ventricular septal defect. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0227117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Zicarelli, L. Sex chromosome monosomy (2n=49,X) in a river buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). Vet. Rec. 2000, 147, 690–691. [Google Scholar]
  74. Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Genualdo, V.; Iannuzzi, A.; Sarubbi, F.; Caputi-Jambrenghi, A.; Incarnato, D.; Peretti, V.; Vonghia, G.; Iannuzzi, L. A rare case of centric fission and fusion in a river buffalo (Bubalus bubalis, 2n = 50) cow with reduced fertility. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2011, 132, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Albarella, S.; Ciotola, F.; Coletta, A.; Genualdo, V.; Iannuzzi, L.; Peretti, V. A new translocation t(1p;18) in an Italian Mediterranean river buffalo (Bubalus bubalis, 2n = 50) bull: Cytogenetic, fertility and inheritance studies. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2013, 139, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Pauciullo, A.; Perucatti, A.; Iannuzzi, A.; Incarnato, D.; Genualdo, V.; Di Berardino, D.; Iannuzzi, L. Development of a sequential multicolor-FISH approach with 13 chromosome-specific painting probes for the rapid identification of river buffalo (Bubalus bubalis, 2n = 50) chromosomes. J. Appl. Genet. 2014, 55, 397–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Di Dio, C.; Longobardi, V.; Zullo, G.; Parma, P.; Pauciullo, A.; Perucatti, A.; Higgins, J.; Iannuzzi, A. Analysis of meiotic segregation by triple-color fish on both total and motile sperm fractions in a t(1p;18) river buffalo bull. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0232592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Pauciullo, A.; Versace, C.; Perucatti, A.; Gaspa, G.; Li, L.Y.; Yang, C.Y.; Zheng, H.Y.; Liu, Q.; Shang, J.H. Oocyte aneuploidy rates in river and swamp buffalo types (Bubalus bubalis) determined by Multi-color Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (M-FISH). Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 8440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Burkin, D.J.; O’Brien, P.C.; Broad, T.E.; Hill, D.F.; Jones, C.A.; Wienberg, J.; Ferguson-Smith, M.A. Isolation of chromosome-specific paints from high-resolution flow karyotypes of the sheep (Ovis aries). Chromosome Res. 1997, 5, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. 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 2003, 14, 706–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Coppola, G.; Alexander, B.; Di Berardino, D.; St John, E.; Basrur, P.K.; King, W.A. Use of cross-species in-situ hybridization (ZOO-FISH) to assess chromosome abnormalities in day-6 in-vivo- or in-vitro-produced sheep embryos. Chromosome Res. 2007, 15, 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Lühken, G.; Fleck, K.; Pauciullo, A.; Huisinga, M.; Erhardt, G. Familiar hypopigmentation syndrome in sheep associated with homozygous deletion of the entire endothelin type-B receptor gene. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e53020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Iannuzzi, A.; Perucatti, A.; Genualdo, V.; De Lorenzi, L.; Di Berardino, D.; Parma, P.; Iannuzzi, L. Cytogenetic elaboration of a novel reciprocal translocation in sheep. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2013, 139, 97–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Iannuzzi, A.; Perucatti, A.; Genualdo, V.; Pauciullo, A.; Incarnato, D.; Musilova, P.; Rubes, J.; Iannuzzi, C. The utility of chromosome microdissection in clinical cytogenetics: A new reciprocal translocation in sheep. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2014, 142, 174–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Pauciullo, A.; Perucatti, A.; Cosenza, G.; Iannuzzi, A.; Incarnato, D.; Genualdo, V.; Di Berardino, D.; Iannuzzi, L. Sequential cross-species chromosome painting among river buffalo, cattle, sheep and goat: A useful tool for chromosome abnormalities diagnosis within the family Bovidae. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e110297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Christensen, K.; Juul, L. A case of trisomy 22 in a live hereford calf. Acta Vet. Scand. 1999, 40, 85–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. De Giovanni, A.; Molteni, L.; Succi, G.; Galliani, C.; Bocher, J.; Popescu, C.P. A new type of Robertsonian translocation in cattle. In Proceedings of the 8th European Colloquium on Cytogenetics of Domestic Animals, Bristol, UK, 19–22 July 1988; pp. 53–59. [Google Scholar]
  88. De Giovanni, A.; Succi, G.; Molteni, L.; Castiglioni, M. A new autosomal translocation in “Alpine grey cattle”. Ann. Genet. Sel. Anim. 1979, 11, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Switoński, M.; Stranzinger, G. Studies of synaptonemal complexes in farm mammals- a review. J. Hered. 1998, 89, 473–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Hart, E.J.; Pinton, A.; Powell, A.; Wall, R.; King, W.A. Meiotic recombination in normal and clone bulls and their offspring. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2008, 120, 97–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sebestova, H.; Vozdova, M.; Kubickova, S.; Cernohorska, H.; Kotrba, R.; Rubes, J. Effect of species-specific differences in chromosome morphology on chromatin compaction and the frequency and distribution of RAD51 and MLH1 foci in two bovid species: Cattle (Bos taurus) and the common eland (Taurotragus oryx). Chromosoma 2016, 125, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Villagómez, D.A.; Pinton, A. Chromosomal abnormalities, meiotic behaviour and fertility in domestic animals. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2008, 120, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Riggs, P.K.; Rønne, M. Fragile sites in domestic animal chromosomes: Molecular insights and challenges. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2009, 126, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Ford, C.E.; Pollock, D.L.; Gustavsson, I. Proceedings of the First International Conference for the Standardisation of Banded Karyotypes of Domestic Animals. University of Reading, Reading, England. 2nd–6th August 1976. Hereditas 1980, 92, 145–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Di Berardino, D.; Hayes, H.; Fries, R.; Long, S. ISCNDA1989: International System for Cytogenetic Nomenclature of Domestic Animals. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1990, 53, 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Popescu, C.P.; Long, S.; Riggs, P.; Womack, J.; Schmutz, S.; Fries, R.; Gallagher, D.S. Standardization of cattle karyotype nomenclature: Report of the committee for the standardization of the cattle karyotype. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1996, 74, 259–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Hayes, H.; Di Meo, G.P.; Gautier, M.; Laurent, P.; Eggen, A.; Iannuzzi, L. Localization by FISH of the 31 Texas nomenclature type I markers to both Q- and R-banded bovine chromosomes. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 2000, 90, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Cribiu, E.P.; Di Berardino, D.; Di Meo, G.P.; Gallagher, D.S.; Hayes, H.; Iannuzzi, L.; Popescu, C.P.; Rubes, J.; Schmutz, S.; Stranzinger, G.; et al. International System for Chromosome Nomenclature of Domestic Bovids (ISCNDB 2000). Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 2001, 92, 283–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Hayes, H.; Perucatti, A.; Incarnato, D.; Gautier, M.; Eggen, A. FISH-mapping of 31 type I loci (Texas markers) to river buffalo chromosomes. Chromosome Res. 2001, 9, 339–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Gautier, M.; Hayes, H.; Incarnato, D.; Eggen, A.; Iannuzzi, L. Chromosome localization of the 31 type I Texas bovine markers in sheep and goat chromosomes by comparative FISH-mapping and R-banding. Anim. Genet. 2003, 34, 294–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Watson, J.D.; Crick, F.H. Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 1953, 171, 737–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Pardue, M.L.; Gall, J.G. Molecular hybridization of radioactive DNA to the DNA of cytological preparations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1969, 64, 600–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  103. Fries, R.; Hediger, R.; Stranzinger, G. Tentative chromosomal localization of the bovine major histocompatibility complex by in situ hybridization. Anim. Genet. 1986, 17, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Yerle, M.; Gellin, J.; Echard, G.; Lefevre, F.; Gillois, M. Chromosomal localization of leukocyte interferon gene in the pig (Sus scrofa domestica L.) by in situ hybridization. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1986, 42, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Rudkin, G.T.; Stollar, B.D. High resolution detection of DNA-RNA hybrids in situ by indirect immunofluorescence. Nature 1977, 265, 472–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ryan, A.M.; Gallagher, D.S.; Womack, J.E. Syntenic mapping and chromosomal localization of bovine alpha and beta interferon genes. Mamm. Genome 1992, 3, 575–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Iannuzzi, L.; Gallagher, D.S.; Ryan, A.M.; Di Meo, G.P.; Womack, J.E. Chromosomal localization of omega and trophoblast interferon genes in cattle and river buffalo by sequential R-banding and fluorescent in situ hybridization. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1993, 62, 224–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Gallagher, D.S.; Ryan, A.M.; Ferrara, L.; Womack, J.E. Chromosomal localization of omega and trophoblast interferon genes in goat and sheep by fluorescent in situ hybridization. J. Hered. 1993, 84, 301–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Schibler, L.; Incarnato, D.; Gallagher, D.; Eggen, A.; Ferretti, L.; Cribiu, E.P.; Womack, J. The river buffalo (Bubalus bubalis, 2n = 50) cytogenetic map: Assignment of 64 loci by fluorescence in situ hybridization and R-banding. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2003, 102, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Iannuzzi, L.; Gallagher, D.S.; Di Meo, G.P.; Ryan, A.M.; Perucatti, A.; Ferrara, L.; Irwin, D.M.; Womack, J.E. Chromosomal localization of the lysozyme gene cluster in river buffalo (Bubalus bubalis L.). Chromosome Res. 1993, 1, 253–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Friedl, R.; Rottmann, O.J. Assignment of the bovine uridine monophosphate synthase gene to the bovine chromosome region 1q34-36 by FISH. Mamm. Genome 1994, 5, 38–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Ryan, A.M.; Gallagher, D.S.; Ferrara, L.; Womack, J.E. Localization of uridine monophosphate synthase (UMPS) gene to river buffalo chromosomes by FISH. Chromosome Res. 1994, 2, 255–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Solinas-Toldo, S.; Mezzelani, A.; Hawkins, G.A.; Bishop, M.D.; Olsaker, I.; Mackinlay, A.; Ferretti, L.; Fries, R. Combined Q-banding and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the identification of bovine chromosomes 1 to 7. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1995, 69, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Hawkins, G.A.; Toldo, S.S.; Bishop, M.D.; Kappes, S.M.; Fries, R.; Beattie, C.W. Physical and linkage mapping of the bovine genome with cosmids. Mamm Genome 1995, 6, 249–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Mezzelani, A.; Zhang, Y.; Redaelli, L.; Castiglioni, B.; Leone, P.; Williams, J.L.; Toldo, S.S.; Wigger, G.; Fries, R.; Ferretti, L. Chromosomal localization and molecular characterization of 53 cosmid-derived bovine microsatellites. Mamm. Genome 1995, 6, 629–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Iannuzzi, L.; Gallagher, D.S.; Di Meo, G.P.; Diamond, G.; Bevins, C.L.; Womack, J.E. High-resolution FISH mapping of beta-defensin genes to river buffalo and sheep chromosomes suggests a chromosome discrepancy in ffttle standard karyotypes. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1996, 75, 10–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Iannuzzi, L.; Gallagher, D.S.; Womack, J.E.; Meo, G.P.; Shelling, C.P.; Groenen, M.A. FISH mapping of the alpha-S2 casein gene on river buffalo and cattle chromosomes identifies a nomenclature discrepancy in the bovine karyotype. Chromosome Res. 1996, 4, 159–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Yoo, J.; Stone, R.T.; Kappes, S.M.; Toldo, S.S.; Fries, R.; Beattie, C.W. Genomic organization and chromosomal mapping of the bovine Fas/APO-1 gene. DNA Cell Biol. 1996, 15, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Goldammer, T.; Brunner, R.M.; Schmidt, P.; Schwerin, M. Mapping of the interferon gamma gene (IFNG) to chromosomes 3 in sheep and 5 in goat by FISH. Mamm. Genome 1996, 7, 470–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Yoo, J.; Stone, R.T.; Solinas-Toldo, S.; Fries, R.; Beattie, C.W. Cloning and chromosomal mapping of bovine interleukin-2 receptor gamma gene. DNA Cell Biol. 1996, 15, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Folch, J.M.; Coll, A.; Hayes, H.C.; Sànchez, A. Characterization of a caprine beta-lactoglobulin pseudogene, identification and chromosomal localization by in situ hybridization in goat, sheep and cow. Gene 1996, 177, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Martín-Burriel, I.; Goldammer, T.; Elduque, C.; Lundin, M.; Barendse, W.; Zaragoza, P.; Olsaker, I. Physical and linkage mapping of the bovine bone morphogenetic protein 1 on the evolutionary break region of BTA 8. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1997, 79, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Vogel, T.; Borgmann, S.; Dechend, F.; Hecht, W.; Schmidtke, J. Conserved Y-chromosomal location of TSPY in Bovidae. Chromosome Res. 1997, 5, 182–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Iannuzzi, L.; Skow, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Gallagher, D.S.; Womack, J.E. Comparative FISH-mapping of villin (VIL) gene in river buffalo, sheep and goat chromosomes. Chromosome Res. 1997, 5, 199–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Gallagher, D.S.; Yang, Y.P.; Burzlaff, J.D.; Womack, J.E.; Stelly, D.M.; Davis, S.K.; Taylor, J.F. Physical assignment of six type I anchor loci to bovine chromosome 19 by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Anim. Genet. 1998, 29, 130–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Iannuzzi, L.; Palomba, R.; Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Ferrara, L. Comparative FISH-mapping of the prion protein gene (PRNP) on cattle, river buffalo, sheep and goat chromosomes. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1998, 81, 202–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Gallagher, D.S.; Schläpfer, J.; Burzlaff, J.D.; Womack, J.E.; Stelly, D.M.; Davis, S.K.; Taylor, J.F. Cytogenetic alignment of the bovine chromosome 13 genome map by fluorescence in-situ hybridization of human chromosome 10 and 20 comparative markers. Chromosome Res. 1999, 7, 115–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Iannuzzi, L.; Gallagher, D.S.; Di Meo, G.P.; Yang, Y.; Womack, J.E.; Davis, S.K.; Taylor, J.F. Comparative FISH-mapping of six expressed gene loci to river buffalo and sheep. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1999, 84, 161–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Lòpez-Corrales, N.L.; Sonstegard, T.S.; Smith, T.P. Physical mapping of the bovine, caprine and ovine homologues of the paired box gene PAX8. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1999, 84, 179–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Minoshima, Y.; Taniguchi, Y.; Tanaka, K.; Yamada, T.; Sasaki, Y. Molecular cloning, expression analysis, promoter characterization, and chromosomal localization of the bovine PREF1 gene. Anim. Genet. 2001, 32, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. De Donato, M.; Gallagher, D.S.; Davis, S.K.; Stelly, D.M.; Taylor, J.F. The assignment of PRKCI to bovine chromosome 1q34-->q36 by FISH suggests a new assignment to human chromosome 3. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 2001, 95, 79–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. McShane, R.D.; Gallagher, D.S., Jr.; Newkirk, H.; Taylor, J.F.; Burzlaff, J.D.; Davis, S.K.; Skow, L.C. Physical localization and order of genes in the class I region of the bovine MHC. Anim. Genet. 2001, 32, 235–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Buitkamp, J.; Ewald, D.; Masabanda, J.; Bishop, M.D.; Fries, R. FISH and RH mapping of the bovine alpha (2)/delta calcium channel subunit gene (CACNA2D1). Anim. Genet. 2003, 34, 309–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Brenig, B.; Baumgartner, B.G.; Kriegesmann, B.; Habermann, F.; Fries, R.; Swalve, H.H. Molecular cloning, mapping, and functional analysis of the bovine sulfate transporter SLC26a2 gene. Gene 2003, 319, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Rullo, R.; Incarnato, D.; Longeri, M.; Bongioni, G.; Molteni, L.; Galli, A.; Zanotti, M.; et al. Comparative FISH-mapping of the survival of motor neuron gene (SMN) in domestic bovids. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2003, 102, 39–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Iannuzzi, L.; Perucatti, A.; Di Meo, G.P.; Schibler, L.; Incarnato, D.; Cribiu, E.P. Chromosomal localization of sixty autosomal loci in sheep (Ovis aries, 2n = 54) by fluorescence in situ hybridization and R-banding. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2003, 103, 135–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Mömke, S.; Kuiper, H.; Spötter, A.; Drögemüller, C.; Williams, J.L.; Distl, O. Assignment of the PRPH gene to bovine chromosome 5q1.4 by FISH and confirmation by RH mapping. Anim. Genet. 2004, 35, 477–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Kaupe, B.; Kollers, S.; Fries, R.; Erhardt, G. Mapping of CYP11B and a putative CYHR1 paralogous gene to bovine chromosome 14 by FISH. Anim. Genet. 2004, 35, 478–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Liu, W.S.; de León, F.A. Assignment of SRY, ANT3, and CSF2RA to the bovine Y chromosome by FISH and RH mapping. Anim. Biotechnol. 2004, 15, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Di Meo, G.P.; Gallagher, D.; Perucatti, A.; Wu, X.; Incarnato, D.; Mohammadi, G.; Taylor, J.F.; Iannuzzi, L. Mapping of 11 genes by FISH to BTA2, BBU2q, OAR2q and CHI2, and comparison with HSA2q. Anim. Genet. 2006, 37, 299–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Floriot, S.; Hayes, H.; Schibler, L.; Rullo, R.; Incarnato, D.; Ferretti, L.; Cockett, N.; Cribiu, E.; et al. An advanced sheep (Ovis aries, 2n = 54) cytogenetic map and assignment of 88 new autosomal loci by fluorescence in situ hybridization and R-banding. Anim. Genet. 2007, 38, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Floriot, S.; Hayes, H.; Schibler, L.; Incarnato, D.; Di Berardino, D.; Williams, J.; Cribiu, E.; Eggen, A.; et al. An extended river buffalo (Bubalus bubalis, 2n = 50) cytogenetic map: Assignment of 68 autosomal loci by FISH-mapping and R-banding and comparison with human chromosomes. Chromosome Res. 2008, 16, 827–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  143. Farhadi, A.; Genualdo, V.; Perucatti, A.; Hafezian, S.H.; Rahimi-Mianji, G.; De Lorenzi, L.; Parma, P.; Iannuzzi, L.; Iannuzzi, A. Comparative FISH mapping of BMPR1B, BMP15 and GDF9 fecundity genes on cattle, river buffalo, sheep and goat chromosomes. J. Genet. 2013, 92, 595–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Eggen, A.; Gautier, M.; Billaut, A.; Petit, E.; Hayes, H.; Laurent, P.; Urban, C.; Pfister-Genskow, M.; Eilertsen, K.; Bishop, M.D. Construction and characterization of a bovine BAC library with four genome-equivalent coverage. Genetics, selection, evolution. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2001, 33, 543–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Bovine Genome Sequencing and Analysis Consortium; Elsik, C.G.; Tellam, R.L.; Worley, K.C.; Gibbs, R.A.; Muzny, D.M.; Weinstock, G.M.; Adelson, D.L.; Eichler, E.E.; Elnitski, L.; et al. The genome sequence of taurine cattle: A window to ruminant biology and evolution. Science 2009, 324, 522–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Zimin, A.V.; Delcher, A.L.; Florea, L.; Kelley, D.R.; Schatz, M.C.; Puiu, D.; Hanrahan, F.; Pertea, G.; Van Tassell, C.P.; Sonstegard, T.S.; et al. A whole-genome assembly of the domestic cow, Bos taurus. Genome Biol. 2009, 10, R42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Dong, Y.; Xie, M.; Jiang, Y.; Xiao, N.; Du, X.; Zhang, W.; Tosser-Klopp, G.; Wang, J.; Yang, S.; Liang, J.; et al. Sequencing and automated whole-genome optical mapping of the genome of a domestic goat (Capra hircus). Nat. Biotechnol. 2013, 31, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. International Sheep Genomics Consortium; Archibald, A.L.; Cockett, N.E.; Dalrymple, B.P.; Faraut, T.; Kijas, J.W.; Maddox, J.F.; McEwan, J.C.; Hutton Oddy, V.; Raadsma, H.W.; et al. The sheep genome reference sequence: A work in progress. Anim. Genet. 2010, 41, 449–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Mintoo, A.A.; Zhang, H.; Chen, C.; Moniruzzaman, M.; Deng, T.; Anam, M.; Emdadul Huque, Q.M.; Guang, X.; Wang, P.; Zhong, Z.; et al. Draft genome of the river water buffalo. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 9, 3378–3388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. De Lorenzi, L.; Molteni, L.; Parma, P. FISH mapping in cattle (Bos taurus L.) is not yet out of fashion. J. Appl. Genet. 2010, 51, 497–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Partipilo, G.; D’Addabbo, P.; Lacalandra, G.M.; Liu, G.E.; Rocchi, M. Refinement of Bos taurus sequence assembly based on BAC-FISH experiments. BMC Genom. 2011, 12, 639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  152. De Lorenzi, L.; Genualdo, V.; Perucatti, A.; Iannuzzi, A.; Iannuzzi, L.; Parma, P. Physical mapping of 20 unmapped fragments of the btau_4.0 genome assembly in cattle, sheep and river buffalo. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2013, 140, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Toldo, S.S.; Fries, R.; Steffen, P.; Neibergs, H.L.; Barendse, W.; Womack, J.E.; Hetzel, D.J.; Stranzinger, G. Physically mapped, cosmid-derived microsatellite markers as anchor loci on bovine chromosomes. Mamm. Genome 1993, 4, 720–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Vaiman, D.; Mercier, D.; Eggen, A.; Bahri-Darwich, I.; Grohs, C.; Cribiu, E.P.; Dolf, G.; Oustry, A.; Guérin, G.; Levéziel, H. A genetic and physical map of bovine chromosome 11. Mamm. Genome 1994, 5, 553–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Drögemüller, C.; Bader, A.; Wöhlke, A.; Kuiper, H.; Leeb, T.; Distl, O. A high-resolution comparative RH map of the proximal part of bovine chromosome 1. Anim. Genet. 2002, 33, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Smith, T.P.; Lopez-Corrales, N.; Grosz, M.D.; Beattie, C.W.; Kappes, S.M. Anchoring of bovine chromosomes 4, 6, 7, 10, and 14 linkage group telomeric ends via FISH analysis of lambda clones. Mamm. Genome 1997, 8, 333–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Scherthan, H.; Cremer, T.; Arnason, U.; Weier, H.U.; Lima-de-Faria, A.; Frönicke, L. Comparative chromosome painting discloses homologous segments in distantly related mammals. Nat. Genet. 1994, 6, 342–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  158. Jauch, A.; Wienberg, J.; Stanyon, R.; Arnold, N.; Tofanelli, S.; Ishida, T.; Cremer, T. Reconstruction of genomic rearrangements in great apes and gibbons by chromosome painting. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1992, 89, 8611–8615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Lengauer, C.; Wienberg, J.; Cremer, T.; Lüdecke, H.J.; Horstehmke, B. Comparative chromosome band mapping in primates by in situ suppression hybridization of band specific DNA microlibraries. Hum. Evol. 1991, 6, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  160. Wienberg, J.; Stanyon, R.; Jauch, A.; Cremer, T. Homologies in human and Macaca fuscata chromosomes revealed by in situ suppression hybridization with human chromosome specific DNA libraries. Chromosoma 1992, 101, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Chowdhary, B.P.; Raudsepp, T.; Frönicke, L.; Scherthan, H. Emerging patterns of comparative genome organization in some mammalian species as revealed by Zoo-FISH. Genome Res. 1998, 8, 577–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  162. Hayes, H.C.; Popescu, P.; Dutrillaux, B. Comparative gene mapping of lactoperoxidase, retinoblastoma, and alpha-lactalbumin genes in cattle, sheep, and goats. Mamm. Genome 1993, 4, 593–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Hayes, H.C.; Petit, E.J. Mapping of the beta-lactoglobulin gene and of an immunoglobulin M heavy chain-like sequence to homoeologous cattle, sheep, and goat chromosomes. Mamm. Genome 1993, 4, 207–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Hayes, H.; Petit, E.; Bouniol, C.; Popescu, P. Localization of the alpha-S2-casein gene (CASAS2) to the homoeologous cattle, sheep, and goat chromosomes 4 by in situ hybridization. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1993, 64, 281–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Iannuzzi, L.; Gallagher, D.S.; Womack, J.E.; Di Meo, G.P.; Skow, L.C.; Ferrara, L. Chromosomal localization of the major histocompatibility complex in cattle and river buffalo by fluorescent in situ hybridization. Hereditas 1993, 118, 187–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Brunner, R.M.; Goldammer, T.; Hiendleder, S.; Jäger, C.; Schwerin, M. Comparative mapping of the gene coding for inhibin-alpha (INHA) to chromosome 2 in sheep and cattle. Mamm. Genome 1995, 6, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Goldammer, T.; Brunner, R.M.; Hiendleder, S.; Schwerin, M. Comparative mapping of sheep inhibin subunit beta b to chromosome 2 in sheep and cattle by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Anim. Genet. 1995, 26, 199–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Hayes, H.; Le Chalony, C.; Goubin, G.; Mercier, D.; Payen, E.; Bignon, C.; Kohno, K. Localization of ZNF164, ZNF146, GGTA1, SOX2, PRLR and EEF2 on homoeologous cattle, sheep and goat chromosomes by fluorescent in situ hybridization and comparison with the human gene map. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1996, 72, 342–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Goldammer, T.; Meyer, L.; Seyfert, H.M.; Brunner, R.M.; Schwerin, M. STAT5A encoding gene maps to chromosome 19 in cattle and goat and to chromosome 11 in sheep. Mamm. Genome 1997, 8, 705–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Goldammer, T.; Brunner, R.M.; Schwerin, M. Comparative analysis of Y chromosome structure in Bos taurus and B. indicus by FISH using region-specific, microdissected, and locus-specific DNA probes. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1997, 77, 238–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Faure, M.; Hayes, H.; Bledsoe, R.K.; Hutson, S.M.; Papet, I. Assignment of the gene of mitochondrial branched chain aminotransferase (BCAT2) to sheep chromosome band 14q24 and to cattle and goat chromosome bands 18q24 by in situ hybridization. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1998, 83, 96–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Robinson, T.J.; Harrison, W.R.; Ponce de León, F.A.; Davis, S.K.; Elder, F.F. A molecular cytogenetic analysis of X-chromosome repatterning in the Bovidae: Transpositions, inversions, and phylogenetic inference. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1998, 80, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Piumi, F.; Schibler, L.; Vaiman, D.; Oustry, A.; Cribiu, E.P. Comparative cytogenetic mapping reveals chromosome rearrangements between the X chromosomes of two closely related mammalian species (cattle and goats). Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1998, 81, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Schibler, L.; Vaiman, D.; Oustry, A.; Giraud-Delville, C.; Cribiu, E.P. Comparative gene mapping: A fine-scale survey of chromosome rearrangements between ruminants and humans. Genome Res. 1998, 8, 901–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  175. Schmitz, A.; Oustry, A.; Vaiman, D.; Chaput, B.; Frelat, G.; Cribiu, E.P. Comparative karyotype of pig and cattle using whole chromosome painting probes. Hereditas 1998, 128, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Bardaro, T. ZOO-FISH and R-banding reveal extensive conservation of human chromosome regions in euchromatic regions of river buffalo chromosomes. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1998, 82, 210–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Incarnato, D. Comparison of the human with the sheep genomes by use of human chromosome-specific painting probes. Mammal. Genome 1999, 10, 719–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Incarnato, D.; Lopez-Corrales, N.; Smith, J. Chromosomal localization of four HSA2 type I loci in river buffalo (Bubalus bubalis, 2n=50) chromosomes 2q and 12. Mammal. Genome 2000, 11, 241–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Hayes, H.; Bonfils, J.; Faure, M.; Papet, I. Assignment of BCAT1, the gene encoding cytosolic branched chain aminotransferase, to sheep chromosome band 3q33 and to cattle and goat chromosome bands 5q33 by in situ hybridization. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 2000, 90, 84–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  180. Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Incarnato, D.; Schibler, L.; Cribiu, E.P. Comparative FISH-mapping of bovid X chromosomes reveals homologies and divergences between the subfamilies Bovinae and Caprinae. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 2000, 89, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Schibler, L.; Incarnato, D.; Ferrara, L.; Bardaro, T.; Cribiu, E.P. Sixteen type I loci from six chromosomes were comparatively fluorescent in-situ mapped to river buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) and sheep (Ovis aries) chromosomes. Chromosome Res. 2000, 8, 447–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Schibler, L.; Incarnato, D.; Ferrara, L.; Cribiu, E.P.; Iannuzzi, L. Thirteen type I loci from HSA4q, HSA6p, HSA7q and HSA12q were comparatively FISH-mapped in four river buffalo and sheep chromosomes. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 2000, 90, 102–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Iannuzzi, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Schibler, L.; Incarnato, D.; Cribiu, E.P. Comparative FISH-mapping in river buffalo and sheep chromosomes: Assignment of forty autosomal type I loci from sixteen human chromosomes. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 2001, 94, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Gautier, M.; Hayes, H.; Taourit, S.; Laurent, P.; Eggen, A. Assignment of eight additional genes from human chromosome 11 to bovine chromosomes 15 and 29: Refinement of the comparative map. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 2001, 93, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Incarnato, D.; Ferretti, L.; Di Berardino, D.; Caputi Jambrenghi, A.; Vonghia, G.; Iannuzzi, L. Comparative mapping of twenty-eight bovine loci in sheep (Ovis aries, 2n = 54) and river buffalo (Bubalus bubalis, 2n = 50) by FISH. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2002, 98, 262–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Cosseddu, G.M.; Oustry-Vaiman, A.; Jego, B.; Moreno, C.; Taourit, S.; Cribiu, E.P.; Elsen, J.M.; Vaiman, D. Sheep/human comparative map in a chromosome region involved in scrapie incubation time shows multiple breakpoints between human chromosomes 14 and 15 and sheep chromosomes 7 and 18. Chromosome Res. 2002, 10, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Hayes, H.; Elduque, C.; Gautier, M.; Schibler, L.; Cribiu, E.; Eggen, A. Mapping of 195 genes in cattle and updated comparative map with man, mouse, rat and pig. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2003, 102, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Goldammer, T.; Amaral, M.E.; Brunner, R.M.; Owens, E.; Kata, S.R.; Schwerin, M.; Womack, J.E. Clarifications on breakpoints in HSAX and BTAX by comparative mapping of F9, HPRT, and XIST in cattle. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2003, 101, 39–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Brunner, R.M.; Sanftleben, H.; Goldammer, T.; Kühn, C.; Weikard, R.; Kata, S.R.; Womack, J.E.; Schwerin, M. The telomeric region of BTA18 containing a potential QTL region for health in cattle exhibits high similarity to the HSA19q region in humans. Genomics 2003, 81, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Ahrens, E.; Graphodatskaya, D.; Nguyen, B.X.; Stranzinger, G. Cytogenetic comparison of saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis) and cattle (Bos taurus) using G- and Q-banding and FISH. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2005, 111, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Uboldi, C.; Roperto, S.; Incarnato, D.; Roperto, F.; Williams, J.; Eggen, A.; Ferretti, L.; Iannuzzi, L. Comparative mapping of the fragile histidine triad (FHIT) gene in cattle, river buffalo, sheep and goat by FISH and assignment to BTA22 by RH-mapping: A comparison with HSA3. Anim. Genet 2005, 36, 363–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  192. Di Meo, G.P.; Perucatti, A.; Floriot, S.; Incarnato, D.; Rullo, R.; Caputi Jambrenghi, A.; Ferretti, L.; Vonghia, G.; Cribiu, E.; Eggen, A.; et al. Chromosome evolution and improved cytogenetic maps of the Y chromosome in cattle, zebu, river buffalo, sheep and goat. Chromosome Res. 2005, 13, 349–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Perucatti, A.; Floriot, S.; Di Meo, G.P.; Soglia, D.; Rullo, R.; Maione, S.; Incarnato, D.; Eggen, A.; Sacchi, P.; Rasero, R.; et al. Comparative FISH mapping of mucin 1, transmembrane (MUC1) among cattle, river buffalo, sheep and goat chromosomes: Comparison between bovine chromosome 3 and human chromosome 1. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2006, 112, 103–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Perucatti, A.; Di Meo, G.P.; Vallinoto, M.; Kierstein, G.; Schneider, M.P.; Incarnato, D.; Caputi Jambrenghi, A.; Mohammadi, G.; Vonghia, G.; Silva, A.; et al. FISH-mapping of LEP and SLC26A2 genes in sheep, goat and cattle R-banded chromosomes: Comparison between bovine, ovine and caprine chromosome 4 (BTA4/OAR4/CHI4) and human chromosome 7 (HSA7). Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2006, 115, 7–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Schibler, L.; Roig, A.; Mahe, M.-F.; Laurent, P.; Hayes, H.; Rodolphe, F.; Cribiu, E.P. High-resolution comparative mapping among man, cattle and mouse suggests a role for repeat sequences in mammalian genome evolution. BMC Genom. 2006, 7, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  196. Antonacci, R.; Vaccarelli, G.; Di Meo, G.P.; Piccinni, B.; Miccoli, M.C.; Cribiu, E.P.; Perucatti, A.; Iannuzzi, L.; Ciccarese, S. Molecular in situ hybridization analysis of sheep and goat BAC clones identifies the transcriptional orientation of T cell receptor gamma genes on chromosome 4 in bovids. Vet. Res. Comm. 2007, 31, 977–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Perucatti, A.; Di Meo, G.P.; Goldammer, T.; Incarnato, D.; Brunner, R.; Iannuzzi, L. Comparative FISH-mapping of twelve loci in river buffalo and sheep chromosomes: Comparison with HSA8p and HSA4q. Cytogenet. Genome. Res. 2007, 119, 242–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Goldammer, T.; Brunner, R.M.; Weikard, R.; Kuehn, C.; Wimmers, K. Generation of an improved cytogenetic and comparative map of Bos taurus chromosome BTA27. Chromosome Res. 2007, 15, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Ropiquet, A.; Gerbault-Seureau, M.; Deuve, J.L.; Gilbert, C.; Pagacova, E.; Chai, N.; Rubes, J.; Hassanin, A. Chromosome evolution in the subtribe Bovina (Mammalia, Bovidae): The karyotype of the Cambodian banteng (Bos javanicus birmanicus) suggests that Robertsonian translocations are related to interspecific hybridization. Chromosome Res. 2008, 16, 1107–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Nguyen, T.T.; Aniskin, V.M.; Gerbault-Seureau, M.; Planton, H.; Renard, J.P.; Nguyen, B.X.; Hassanin, A.; Volobouev, V.T. Phylogenetic position of the saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis) inferred from cytogenetic analysis of eleven species of Bovidae. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2008, 122, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Bratuś, A.; Bugno, M.; Klukowska-Rötzler, J.; Sawińska, M.; Eggen, A.; Słota, E. Chromosomal homology between the human and the bovine DMRT1 genes. Folia Biol. 2009, 57, 29–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Bratuś, A.; Słota, E. Comparative cytogenetic and molecular studies of DM domain genes in pig and cattle. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2009, 126, 180–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Perucatti, A.; Di Meo, G.P.; Goldammer, T.; Incarnato, D.; Nicolae, I.; Brunner, R.; Iannuzzi, L. FISH-mapping comparison between river buffalo chromosome 7 and sheep chromosome 6: Assignment of new loci and comparison with HSA4. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2009, 124, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Goldammer, T.; Brunner, R.M.; Rebl, A.; Wu, C.H.; Nomura, K.; Hadfield, T.; Maddox, J.F.; Cockett, N.E. Cytogenetic anchoring of radiation hybrid and virtual maps of sheep chromosome X and comparison of X chromosomes in sheep, cattle, and human. Chromosome Res. 2009, 17, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Manera, S.; Bonfiglio, S.; Malusà, A.; Denis, C.; Boussaha, M.; Russo, V.; Roperto, F.; Perucatti, A.; Di Meo, G.P.; Eggen, A.; et al. Comparative mapping and genomic annotation of the bovine oncosuppressor gene WWOX. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2009, 126, 186–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. Goldammer, T.; Di Meo, G.P.; Lühken, G.; Drögemüller, C.; Wu, C.H.; Kijas, J.; Dalrymple, B.P.; Nicholas, F.W.; Maddox, J.F.; Iannuzzi, L.; et al. Molecular cytogenetics and gene mapping in sheep (Ovis aries, 2n = 54). Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2009, 126, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Schibler, L.; Di Meo, G.P.; Cribiu, E.P.; Iannuzzi, L. Molecular cytogenetics and comparative mapping in goats (Capra hircus, 2n = 60). Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2009, 126, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Genualdo, V.; Spalenza, V.; Perucatti, A.; Iannuzzi, A.; Di Meo, G.P.; Caputi-Jambrenghi, A.; Vonghia, G.; Rasero, R.; Nebbia, C.; Sacchi, P.; et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization mapping of six loci containing genes involved in the dioxin metabolism of domestic bovids. J. Appl. Genet. 2011, 52, 229–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Di Meo, G.P.; Goldammer, T.; Perucatti, A.; Genualdo, V.; Iannuzzi, A.; Incarnato, D.; Rebl, A.; Di Berardino, D.; Iannuzzi, L. Extended cytogenetic maps of sheep chromosome 1 and their cattle and river buffalo homoeologues: Comparison with the OAR1 RH map and human chromosomes 2, 3, 21 and 1q. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2011, 133, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Cernohorska, H.; Kubickova, S.; Vahala, J.; Rubes, J. Molecular insights into X;BTA5 chromosome rearrangements in the tribe Antilopini (Bovidae). Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2012, 136, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Kopecna, O.; Kubickova, S.; Cernohorska, H.; Cabelova, K.; Vahala, J.; Rubes, J. Isolation and comparison of tribe-specific centromeric repeats within Bovidae. J. Appl. Genet. 2012, 53, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  212. Perucatti, A.; Genualdo, V.; Iannuzzi, A.; Rebl, A.; Di Berardino, D.; Goldammer, T.; Iannuzzi, L. Advanced comparative cytogenetic analysis of X chromosomes in river buffalo, cattle, sheep, and human. Chromosome Res. 2012, 20, 413–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  213. Kolesárová, V.; Šiviková, K.; Holečková, B.; Dianovský, J. A comparative FISH mapping of LCA5L gene in cattle, sheep, and goats. Anim. Biotechnol. 2015, 26, 37–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. De Lorenzi, L.; Planas, J.; Rossi, E.; Malagutti, L.; Parma, P. New cryptic karyotypic differences between cattle (Bos taurus) and goat (Capra hircus). Chromosome Res. 2015, 23, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  215. De Lorenzi, L.; Pauciullo, A.; Iannuzzi, A.; Parma, P. Cytogenetic Characterization of a Small Evolutionary Rearrangement Involving Chromosomes BTA21 and OAR18. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2020, 160, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Perucatti, A.; Iannuzzi, A.; Armezzani, A.; Palmarini, M.; Iannuzzi, L. Comparative fluorescence in Situ hybridization (FISH) mapping of twenty-three endogenous Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus (enJSRVs) in sheep (Ovis aries) and river buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) chromosomes. Animals 2022, 12, 2834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Hayes, H. Chromosome painting with human chromosome-specific DNA libraries reveals the extent and distribution of conserved segments in bovine chromosomes. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1995, 71, 168–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Chowdhary, B.P.; Frönicke, L.; Gustavsson, I.; Scherthan, H. Comparative analysis of the cattle and human genomes: Detection of ZOO-FISH and gene mapping-based chromosomal homologies. Mamm. Genome 1996, 7, 297–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Solinas-Toldo, S.; Lengauer, C.; Fries, R. Comparative genome map of human and cattle. Genomics 1995, 27, 489–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Pauciullo, A.; Knorr, C.; Perucatti, A.; Iannuzzi, A.; Iannuzzi, L.; Erhardt, G. Characterization of a very rare case of living ewe-buck hybrid using classical and molecular cytogenetics. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 34781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  221. Iannuzzi, A.; Pereira, J.; Iannuzzi, C.; Fu, B.; Ferguson-Smith, M. Pooling strategy and chromosome painting characterize a living zebroid for the first time. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0180158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  222. Amaral, M.E.; Grant, J.R.; Riggs, P.K.; Stafuzza, N.B.; Filho, E.A.; Goldammer, T.; Weikard, R.; Brunner, R.M.; Kochan, K.J.; Greco, A.J.; et al. A first generation whole genome RH map of the river buffalo with comparison to domestic cattle. BMC Genom. 2008, 9, 631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  223. Faraut, T.; de Givry, S.; Hitte, C.; Lahbib-Mansais, Y.; Morisson, M.; Milan, D.; Schiex, T.; Servin, B.; Vignal, A.; Galibert, F.; et al. Contribution of radiation hybrids to genome mapping in domestic animals. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2009, 126, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  224. Stafuzza, N.B.; Abbassi, H.; Grant, J.R.; Rodrigues-Filho, E.A.; Ianella, P.; Kadri, S.M.; Amarante, M.V.; Stohard, P.; Womack, J.E.; de León, F.A.; et al. Comparative RH maps of the river buffalo and bovine Y chromosomes. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2009, 126, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  225. Durmaz, A.A.; Karaca, E.; Demkow, U.; Toruner, G.; Schoumans, J.; Cogulu, O. Evolution of Genetic Techniques: Past, Present, and Beyond. BioMed. Res. Intern. 2015, 2015, 461524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Fidlerova, H.; Senger, G.; Kost, M.; Sanseau, P.; Sheer, D. Two simple procedures for releasing chromatin from routinely fixed cells for fluorescence in situ hybridization. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1994, 65, 203–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Brunner, R.M.; Goldammer, T.; Fürbass, R.; Vanselow, J.; Schwerin, M. Genomic organization of the bovine aromatase encoding gene and a homologous pseudogene as revealed by DNA fiber FISH. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 1998, 82, 37–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Seyfert, H.M.; Pitra, C.; Meyer, L.; Brunner, R.M.; Wheeler, T.T.; Molenaar, A.; McCracken, J.Y.; Herrmann, J.; Thiesen, H.J.; Schwerin, M. Molecular characterization of STAT5A- and STAT5B-encoding genes reveals extended intragenic sequence homogeneity in cattle and mouse and different degrees of divergent evolution of various domains. J Mol. Evol. 2000, 50, 550–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Hamilton, C.K.; Favetta, L.A.; Di Meo, G.P.; Floriot, S.; Perucatti, A.; Peippo, J.; Kantanen, J.; Eggen, A.; Iannuzzi, L.; King, W.A. Copy number variation of testis-specific protein, Y-encoded (TSPY) in 14 different breeds of cattle (Bos taurus). Sex Dev. 2009, 3, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Pauciullo, A.; Fleck, K.; Lühken, G.; Di Berardino, D.; Erhardt, G. Dual-color high-resolution fiber-FISH analysis on lethal white syndrome carriers in sheep. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2013, 140, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. du Manoir, S.; Speicher, M.R.; Joos, S.; Schröck, E.; Popp, S.; Döhner, H.; Kovacs, G.; Robert-Nicoud, M.; Lichter, P.; Cremer, T. Detection of complete and partial chromosome gains and losses by comparative genomic in situ hybridization. Hum. Gene.t 1993, 90, 590–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  232. Kallioniemi, A.; Kallioniemi, O.P.; Sudar, D.; Rutovitz, D.; Gray, J.W.; Waldman, F.; Pinkel, D. Comparative genomic hybridization for molecular cytogenetic analysis of solid tumors. N. Y. Sci. J. 1992, 258, 818–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  233. Solinas-Toldo, S.; Lampel, S.; Stilgenbauer, S.; Nickolenko, J.; Benner, A.; Döhner, H.; Cremer, T.; Lichter, P. Matrix-based comparative genomic hybridization: Biochips to screen for genomic imbalances. Genes Chromosom. Cancer. 1997, 20, 399–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Brennan, C.; Zhang, Y.; Leo, C.; Feng, B.; Cauwels, C.; Aguirre, A.J.; Kim, M.; Protopopov, A.; Chin, L. High-resolution global profiling of genomic alterations with long oligonucleotide microarray. Cancer Res. 2004, 64, 4744–4748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  235. Carvalho, B.; Ouwerkerk, E.; Meijer, G.A.; Ylstra, B. High resolution microarray comparative genomic hybridisation analysis using spotted oligonucleotides. J. Clin. Pathol. 2004, 57, 644–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  236. Pinkel, D.; Albertson, D.G. Array comparative genomic hybridization and its applications in cancer. Nat. Genet. 2005, 37, S11–S17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Iafrate, A.J.; Feuk, L.; Rivera, M.N.; Listewnik, M.L.; Donahoe, P.K.; Qi, Y.; Scherer, S.W.; Lee, C. Detection of large-scale variation in the human genome. Nat. Genet. 2004, 36, 949–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  238. Redon, R.; Ishikawa, S.; Fitch, K.R.; Feuk, L.; Perry, G.H.; Andrews, T.D.; Fiegler, H.; Shapero, M.H.; Carson, A.R.; Hurles, M.E.; et al. Global variation in copy number in the human genome. Nature 2006, 444, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  239. Sebat, J.; Lakshmi, B.; Troge, J.; Alexander, J.; Young, J.; Lundin, P.; Månér, S.; Massa, H.; Walker, M.; Chi, M.; et al. Large-scale copy number polymorphism in the human genome. N. Y. Sci. J. 2004, 305, 525–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  240. Zarrei, M.; MacDonald, J.R.; Merico, D.; Scherer, S.W. A copy number variation map of the human genome. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2015, 16, 172–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  241. Liu, G.E.; Van Tassell, C.P.; Sonstegard, T.S.; Li, R.W.; Alexander, L.J.; Keele, J.W.; Matukumalli, L.K.; Smith, T.P.; Gasbarre, L.C. Detection of germline and somatic copy number variations in cattle. Dev. Biol. 2008, 132, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  242. Liu, G.E.; Hou, Y.L.; Zhu, B.; Cardone, M.F.; Jiang, L.; Cellamare, A.; Mitra, A.; Alexander, L.J.; Coutinho, L.L.; Dell’Aquila, M.E.; et al. Analysis of copy number variations among diverse cattle breeds. Genome Res. 2010, 20, 693–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  243. Fadista, J.; Thomsen, B.; Holm, L.E.; Bendixen, C. Copy number variation in the bovine genome. BMC Genom. 2010, 11, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  244. Liu, M.; Fang, L.; Liu, S.; Pan, M.G.; Seroussi, E.; Cole, J.B.; Ma, L.; Chen, H.; Liu, G.E. Array CGH-based detection of CNV regions and their potential association with reproduction and other economic traits in Holsteins. BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  245. Zhang, L.; Jia, S.; Yang, M.; Xu, Y.; Li, C.; Sun, J.; Huang, Y.; Lan, X.; Lei, C.; Zhou, Y.; et al. Detection of copy number variations and their effects in Chinese bulls. BMC Genom. 2014, 15, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  246. Kijas, J.W.; Barendse, W.; Barris, W.; Harrison, B.; McCulloch, R.; McWilliam, S.; Whan, V. Analysis of copy number variants in the cattle genome. Gene 2011, 482, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  247. Jenkins, G.M.; Goddard, M.E.; Black, M.A.; Brauning, R.; Auvray, B.; Dodds, K.G.; Kijas, J.W.; Cockett, N.; McEwan, J.C. Copy number variants in the sheep genome detected using multiple approaches. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  248. Fontanesi, L.; Beretti, F.; Martelli, P.L.; Colombo, M.; Dall’olio, S.; Occidente, M.; Portolano, B.; Casadio, R.; Matassino, D.; Russo, V. A first comparative map of copy number variations in the sheep genome. Genomics 2011, 97, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  249. Fontanesi, L.; Martelli, P.L.; Beretti, F.; Riggio, V.; Dall’Olio, S.; Colombo, M.; Casadio, R.; Russo, V.; Portolano, B. An initial comparative map of copy number variations in the goat (Capra hircus) genome. BMC Genom. 2010, 11, 639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  250. Canavez, F.C.; Luche, D.D.; Stothard, P.; Leite, K.R.; Sousa-Canavez, J.M.; Plastow, G.; Meidanis, J.; Souza, M.A.; Feijao, P.; Moore, S.S.; et al. Genome sequence and assembly of Bos indicus. J. Hered. 2012, 103, 342–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  251. Afgan, E.; Baker, D.; Batut, B.; van den Beek, M.; Bouvier, D.; Cech, M.; Chilton, J.; Clements, D.; Coraor, N.; Grüning, B.A.; et al. The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2018 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018, 46, W537–W544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  252. Rangwala, S.H.; Kuznetsov, A.; Ananiev, V.; Asztalos, A.; Borodin, E.; Evgeniev, V.; Joukov, V.; Lotov, V.; Pannu, R.; Rudnev, D.; et al. Accessing NCBI data using the NCBI Sequence Viewer and Genome Data Viewer (GDV). Genome Res. 2021, 31, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Kent, W.J.; Sugnet, C.W.; Furey, T.S.; Roskin, K.M.; Pringle, T.H.; Zahler, A.M.; Haussler, D. The human genome browser at UCSC. Genome Res. 2002, 12, 996–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  254. Cunningham, F.; Allen, J.E.; Allen, J.; Alvarez-Jarreta, J.; Amode, M.R.; Armean, I.M.; Austine-Orimoloye, O.; Azov, A.G.; Barnes, I.; Bennett, R.; et al. Ensembl 2022. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022, 50, D988–D995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  255. Untergasser, A.; Cutcutache, I.; Koressaar, T.; Ye, J.; Faircloth, B.C.; Remm, M.; Rozen, S.G. Primer3--new capabilities and interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 40, e115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  256. McLaren, W.; Gil, L.; Hunt, S.E.; Riat, H.S.; Ritchie, G.R.; Thormann, A.; Flicek, P.; Cunningham, F. The Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor. Genome Biol. 2016, 17, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  257. Hulsegge, I.; Oldenbroek, K.; Bouwman, A.; Veerkamp, R.; Windig, J. Selection and Drift: A Comparison between Historic and Recent Dutch Friesian Cattle and Recent Holstein Friesian Using WGS Data. Animals 2022, 12, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  258. Xia, X.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, N.; Li, Z.; Sun, H.; Liu, X.; Lyu, S.; Wang, X.; et al. Assessing genomic diversity and signatures of selection in Jiaxian Red cattle using whole-genome sequencing data. BMC Genom. 2021, 22, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Sun, L.; Qu, K.; Liu, Y.; Ma, X.; Chen, N.; Zhang, J.; Huang, B.; Lei, C. Assessing genomic diversity and selective pressures in Bashan cattle by whole-genome sequencing data. Anim Biotechnol. 2021, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Pollott, G.E.; Piercy, R.J.; Massey, C.; Salavati, M.; Cheng, Z.; Wathes, D.C. Locating a novel autosomal recessive genetic variant in the cattle glucokinase gene using only WGS data from three cases and six carriers. Front Genet. 2022, 13, 755693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Gershoni, M.; Shirak, A.; Raz, R.; Seroussi, E. Comparing BeadChip and WGS Genotyping: Non-Technical Failed Calling Is Attributable to Additional Variation within the Probe Target Sequence. Genes 2022, 13, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Mulim, H.A.; Brito, L.F.; Pinto, L.F.B.; Ferraz, J.B.S.; Grigoletto, L.; Silva, M.R.; Pedrosa, V.B. Characterization of runs of homozygosity, heterozygosity-enriched regions, and population structure in cattle populations selected for different breeding goals. BMC Genom.. 2022, 23, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  263. Meuwissen, T.; van den Berg, I.; Goddard, M. On the use of whole-genome sequence data for across-breed genomic prediction and fine-scale mapping of QTL. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2021, 53, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  264. Butty, A.M.; Chud, T.C.S.; Miglior, F.; Schenkel, F.S.; Kommadath, A.; Krivushin, K.; Grant, J.R.; Häfliger, I.M.; Drögemüller, C.; Cánovas, A.; et al. High confidence copy number variants identified in Holstein dairy cattle from whole genome sequence and genotype array data. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 8044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  265. Taylor, J.F.; Whitacre, L.K.; Hoff, J.L.; Tizioto, P.C.; Kim, J.; Decker, J.E.; Schnabel, R.D. Lessons for livestock genomics from genome and transcriptome sequencing in cattle and other mammals. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2016, 48, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  266. Stegemiller, M.R.; Redden, R.R.; Notter, D.R.; Taylor, T.; Taylor, J.B.; Cockett, N.E.; Heaton, M.P.; Kalbfleisch, T.S.; Murdoch, B.M. Using whole genome sequence to compare variant callers and breed differences of US sheep. Front. Genet. 2023, 13, 1060882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Hirter, N.; Letko, A.; Häfliger, I.M.; Becker, D.; Greber, D.; Drögemüller, C. A genome-wide significant association on chromosome 15 for congenital entropion in Swiss White Alpine sheep. Anim. Genet. 2020, 51, 278–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Saleh, A.A.; Xue, L.; Zhao, Y. Screening Indels from the whole genome to identify the candidates and their association with economic traits in several goat breeds. Funct. Integr. Genom. 2023, 23, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Signer-Hasler, H.; Henkel, J.; Bangerter, E.; Bulut, Z.; VarGoats Consortium; Drögemüller, C.; Leeb, T.; Flury, C. Runs of homozygosity in Swiss goats reveal genetic changes associated with domestication and modern selection. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2022, 54, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  270. Mullis, K.B. Target amplification for DNA analysis by the polymerase chain reaction. Ann. Biol. Clin. 1990, 48, 579–582. [Google Scholar]
  271. Zhu, H.; Zhang, H.; Xu, Y.; Laššáková, S.; Korabečná, M.; Neužil, P. PCR past, present and future. Biotechniques 2020, 69, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Ennis, S.; Gallagher, T.F.A. PCR-based sex-determination assay in cattle based on the bovine amelogenin locus. Anim. Genet. 1994, 25, 425–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  273. McNiel, E.A.; Madrill, N.J.; Treeful, A.E.; Buoen, L.C.; Weber, A.F. Comparison of cytogenetics and polymerase chain reaction based detection of the amelogenin gene polymorphism for the diagnosis of freemartinism in cattle. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 2006, 18, 469–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  274. Lu, W.; Rawlings, N.; Zhao, J.; Wang, H. Amplification and application of the HMG box of bovine SRY gene for sex determination. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2007, 100, 186–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Chandler, J.E.; Taylor, T.M.; Canal, A.L.; Cooper, R.K.; Moser, E.B.; McCormick, M.E.; Willard, S.T.; Rycroft, H.E.; Gilbert, G.R. Calving sex ratio as related to the predicted Y-chromosome-bearing spermatozoa ratio in bull ejaculates. Theriogenology 2007, 67, 563–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Ron, M.; Porat, B.; Band, M.R.; Weller, J.I. Chimaerism detection in bovine twins, triplets and quadruplets using sex chromosome-linked markers. Anim. Genet. 2011, 42, 208–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Szczerbal, I.; Kociucka, B.; Nowacka-Woszuk, J.; Lach, Z.; Jaskowski, J.M.; Switonski, M. A high incidence of leukocyte chimerism (60,XX/60,XY) in single born heifers culled due to underdevelopment of internal reproductive tracts. Czech. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 59, 445–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  278. Bresciani, C.; Parma, P.; De Lorenzi, L.; Di Ianni, F.; Bertocchi, M.; Bertani, V.; Cantoni, A.M.; Parmigiani, E. A clinical case of an SRY-positive intersex/hermaphrodite holstein cattle. Sex Dev. 2015, 9, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  279. De Lorenzi, L.; Arrighi, S.; Rossi, E.; Grignani, P.; Previderè, C.; Bonacina, S.; Cremonesi, F.; Parma, P. XY (SRY-positive) ovarian disorder of sex development in cattle. Sex Dev. 2018, 12, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  280. Qiu, Q.; Shao, T.; He, Y.; Muhammad, A.U.; Cao, B.; Su, H. Applying real-time quantitative PCR to diagnosis of freemartin in Holstein cattle by quantifying SRY gene: A comparison experiment. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Szczerbal, I.; Nowacka-Woszuk, J.; Albarella, S.; Switonski, M. Technical note: Droplet digital PCR as a new molecular method for a simple and reliable diagnosis of freemartinism in cattle. J. Dairy. Sci. 2019, 102, 10100–10104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Cray, N.; Wagner, M.; Hauer, J.; Roti Roti, E. Technical note: Droplet digital PCR precisely and accurately quantifies sex skew in bovine semen. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 6698–6705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Uzar, T.; Szczerbal, I.; Serwanska-Leja, K.; Nowacka-Woszuk, J.; Gogulski, M.; Bugaj, S.; Switonski, M.; Komosa, M. Congenital malformations in a Holstein-Fresian calf with a unique mosaic karyotype: A Case Report. Animals 2020, 10, 1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Szczerbal, I.; Komosa, M.; Nowacka-Woszuk, J.; Uzar, T.; Houszka, M.; Semrau, J.; Musial, M.; Barczykowski, M.; Lukomska, A.; Switonski, M. A disorder of sex development in a Holstein-Friesian heifer with a rare Mosaicism (60,XX/90,XXY): A genetic, anatomical, and histological study. Animals 2021, 11, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  285. Szczerbal, I.; Nowacka-Woszuk, J.; Stachowiak, M.; Lukomska, A.; Konieczny, K.; Tarnogrodzka, N.; Wozniak, J.; Switonski, M. XX/XY chimerism in internal genitalia of a virilized heifer. Animals 2022, 12, 2932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  286. Lansdorp, P. Telomere Length Regulation. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 943622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Iannuzzi, A.; Albarella, S.; Parma, P.; Galdiero, G.; D’Anza, E.; Pistucci, R.; Peretti, V.; Ciotola, F. Characterization of telomere length in Agerolese cattle breed, correlating blood and milk samples. Anim. Genet. 2022, 53, 676–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  288. Kordinas, V.; Ioannidis, A.; Chatzipanagiotou, S. The telomere/telomerase system in chronic inflammatory diseases. Cause or effect? Genes 2016, 7, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  289. Bateson, M. Cumulative stress in research animals: Telomere attrition as a biomarker in a welfare context? Bioessays 2016, 38, 201–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  290. Ilska-Warner, J.J.; Psifidi, A.; Seeker, L.A.; Wilbourn, R.V.; Underwood, S.L.; Fairlie, J.; Whitelaw, B.; Nussey, D.H.; Coffey, M.P.; Banos, G. The Genetic Architecture of Bovine Telomere Length in Early Life and Association With Animal Fitness. Front. Genet. 2019, 10, 1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  291. Tilesi, F.; Domenico, E.G.D.; Pariset, L.; Bosco, L.; Willems, D.; Valentini, A.; Ascenzioni, F. Telomere length diversity in cattle breeds. Diversity 2010, 2, 1118–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  292. Lai, T.P.; Wright, W.E.; Shay, J.W. Comparison of telomere length measurement methods. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2018, 373, 20160451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  293. Ribas-Maynou, J.; Llavanera, M.; Mateo-Otero, Y.; Ruiz, N.; Muiño, R.; Bonet, S.; Yeste, M. Telomere length in bovine sperm is related to the production of reactive oxygen species, but not to reproductive performance. Theriogenology 2022, 189, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  294. Iannuzzi, A.; Della Valle, G.; Russo, M.; Longobardi, V.; Albero, G.; De Canditiis, C.; Kosior, M.A.; Pistucci, R.; Gasparrini, B. Evaluation of bovine sperm telomere length and association with semen quality. Theriogenology 2020, 158, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  295. Cawthon, R.M. Telomere length measurement by a novel monochrome multiplex quantitative PCR method. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37, e21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  296. Bustin, S.A.; Benes, V.; Garson, J.A.; Hellemans, J.; Huggett, J.; Kubista, M.; Mueller, R.; Nolan, T.; Pfaffl, M.W.; Shipley, G.L.; et al. The MIQE guidelines: Minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin. Chem. 2009, 55, 611–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  297. Lindrose, A.R.; McLester-Davis, L.W.Y.; Tristano, R.I.; Kataria, L.; Gadalla, S.M.; Eisenberg, D.T.A.; Verhulst, S.; Drury, S. Method comparison studies of telomere length measurement using qPCR approaches: A critical appraisal of the literature. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  298. Seeker, L.A.; Holland, R.; Underwood, S.; Fairlie, J.; Psifidi, A.; Ilska, J.J.; Bagnall, A.; Whitelaw, B.; Coffey, M.; Banos, G.; et al. Method specific calibration corrects for DNA extraction method effects on relative telomere length measurements by quantitative PCR. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0164046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  299. Tolios, A.; Teupser, D.; Holdt, L.M. Preanalytical Conditions and DNA Isolation Methods Affect Telomere Length Quantification in Whole Blood. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  300. Macville, M.; Veldman, T.; Padilla-Nash, H.; Wangsa, D.; O’Brien, P.; Schröck, E.; Ried, T. Spectral karyotyping, a 24-colour FISH technique for the identification of chromosomal rearrangements. Histochem. Cell Biol. 1997, 108, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  301. Rhoads, A.; Au, K.F. PacBio Sequencing and Its Applications. Genom. Prot. Bioinf. 2015, 13, 278–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  302. Branton, D.; Deamer, D.W.; Marziali, A.; Bayley, H.; Benner, S.A.; Butler, T.; Di Ventra, M.; Garaj, S.; Hibbs, A.; Huang, X.; et al. The potential and challenges of nanopore sequencing. Nat. Biotechnol. 2008, 26, 1146–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 13 00944 g001 550
Figure 1. FISH mapping with a BAC clone mapping proximal to BTA29 (large arrow) and proximal to q-arms (BTA1) of rob (1;29) (small arrows). Indeed, a small chromosome region of 5,4 Mb translocated from proximal BTA29 to the proximal region of BTA1 (with an inversion), originating rob (1;29) [56]. Different colors indicate different BACs.
Figure 1. FISH mapping with a BAC clone mapping proximal to BTA29 (large arrow) and proximal to q-arms (BTA1) of rob (1;29) (small arrows). Indeed, a small chromosome region of 5,4 Mb translocated from proximal BTA29 to the proximal region of BTA1 (with an inversion), originating rob (1;29) [56]. Different colors indicate different BACs.
Animals 13 00944 g001
Animals 13 00944 g002 550
Figure 2. FISH mapping in an interphase nucleus of a female river buffalo affected by X-trisomy. Note the three hybridization signals due to the X chromosome PGK marker.
Figure 2. FISH mapping in an interphase nucleus of a female river buffalo affected by X-trisomy. Note the three hybridization signals due to the X chromosome PGK marker.
Animals 13 00944 g002
Animals 13 00944 g003 550
Figure 3. Sperm-FISH in a river buffalo bull carrying a rob (1p;18) using BAC probes for BBU 1p (red), BBU 1q (green), and BBU 18q (yellow) chromosomes. Normal sperm nucleus with 1/1/1 fluorescent phenotype and separate signals on left. Unbalanced sperm nucleus with 1/0/1 fluorescent phenotype on right.
Figure 3. Sperm-FISH in a river buffalo bull carrying a rob (1p;18) using BAC probes for BBU 1p (red), BBU 1q (green), and BBU 18q (yellow) chromosomes. Normal sperm nucleus with 1/1/1 fluorescent phenotype and separate signals on left. Unbalanced sperm nucleus with 1/0/1 fluorescent phenotype on right.
Animals 13 00944 g003
Animals 13 00944 g004 550
Figure 4. FISH mapping of type II loci in river buffalo R-banded chromosomes. FITC signals (arrows) of the markers and RBH banding were separately acquired by two different microscope filter combinations. Then signals were precisely superimposed to R-banded chromosomes (Drawn from Iannuzzi et al., Cytogenet Cell Genet. 102, 65–75, 2003, DOI: 1 0.1159/000075727, S. Karger AG, Basel [109]).
Figure 4. FISH mapping of type II loci in river buffalo R-banded chromosomes. FITC signals (arrows) of the markers and RBH banding were separately acquired by two different microscope filter combinations. Then signals were precisely superimposed to R-banded chromosomes (Drawn from Iannuzzi et al., Cytogenet Cell Genet. 102, 65–75, 2003, DOI: 1 0.1159/000075727, S. Karger AG, Basel [109]).
Animals 13 00944 g004
Animals 13 00944 g005 550
Figure 5. Comparative FISH mapping between HSA2q and BTA2. Note the different gene order between the two chromosomes due to complex chromosome rearrangements occurred during the chromosome evolution of the two species (Drawn from Di Meo et al., Animal Genetics 37, 299–300, 2006, Wiley Online Library [140]).
Figure 5. Comparative FISH mapping between HSA2q and BTA2. Note the different gene order between the two chromosomes due to complex chromosome rearrangements occurred during the chromosome evolution of the two species (Drawn from Di Meo et al., Animal Genetics 37, 299–300, 2006, Wiley Online Library [140]).
Animals 13 00944 g005
Animals 13 00944 g006 550
Figure 6. Details of the fiber-FISH performed on a lymphocyte nucleus of cattle affected by arthrogryposis using a BAC clone containing the survival of motor neuron gene (SMN). The presence of two groups of linear hybridization signals (arrows) supports the hypothesis that SMN was at least duplicated [135].
Figure 6. Details of the fiber-FISH performed on a lymphocyte nucleus of cattle affected by arthrogryposis using a BAC clone containing the survival of motor neuron gene (SMN). The presence of two groups of linear hybridization signals (arrows) supports the hypothesis that SMN was at least duplicated [135].
Animals 13 00944 g006
Animals 13 00944 g007 550
Figure 7. Identification of the PAR region present on BTAX and BTAY. The PAR region (yellow box) is identified by comparing DNA obtained from a male subject and that obtained from a female subject using a SurePrint G3 Bovine CGH Microarray 180 k (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Parma P. Personal communication.
Figure 7. Identification of the PAR region present on BTAX and BTAY. The PAR region (yellow box) is identified by comparing DNA obtained from a male subject and that obtained from a female subject using a SurePrint G3 Bovine CGH Microarray 180 k (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Parma P. Personal communication.
Animals 13 00944 g007
Table
Table 1. FISH mapping approaches applied for the detection of chromosome abnormalities in domestic bovids. The type of chromosome abnormality, the techniques used (including FISH), the main results, and authors are reported.
Table 1. FISH mapping approaches applied for the detection of chromosome abnormalities in domestic bovids. The type of chromosome abnormality, the techniques used (including FISH), the main results, and authors are reported.
SpeciesChromosome AbnormalityTechniques UsedMain ResultsReferences
Cattlet(X-BTA23) in two normal cowsQBH, FISHBetter position of MHC-locus[22]
Minute fragmentBovine SAT-DNAVisualization of fragment[23]
rob(4;10)Bovine bivariate flow painting probes on R-banded karyotype Discovery of a new rob[24]
iso(Yp)GTG, FISH with repeat sequencesVisualization of iso(Yp)[25]
Trisomy 20QBH, FISHMalformed calf with cranial defects[26]
rob(2;28)Q-, R-banding, telomeric probeMonocentric translocation[27]
rob(1;29), rob(6;8), rob(26;29)GBG, RBG, CBA, FISH, HAS painting probecorrect identification of two of the three robs earlier published[28]
MixoploidyDual-color FISH with BTA6/BTA7 painting probes72% of IVP blastocysts were mixoploid, versus 25% in vivo[29]
Mixoploidy/polyploidyDual-color FISH with BTA6 and 7 painting probes on in vitro embryo cellsNumerical chromosome aberrations were detected as early as day 2 post insemination (pi)[30]
rcp(1;5)(q21;qter)(q11;q33)CBA, GBG, RBG, FISH with HSA3 and HSA12 painting probesBull and dam carriers, the latter with poor fertility[31]
invY(Yq11-q12.2)CBG, RBA, FISH12 young males of which one (carrier) had female traits[32]
Trisomy 28CBG, RBA, FISHNew chrom. identification of a previous studied case of abnormal calf[33]
t(Xp+;23q-)FISH with painting probe, SCAOligospermic bull[34]
rcp(Y;9)(q12.3:q21.1).CBA, RBG, FISHAzoospermic bull[35]
PolyploidyPainting probe BTA6 and BTA7 by microdissection on in vitro embryosPolyploidy was significantly higher in trophectoderm (TE) cells than in embryonic disc (ED) cells[36]
rob(1;29)FISH with SAT-I, III, IVDifferent pattern of satellite DNA families in several chromosomes, model of rob(1; 29) origin[37]
Mosaicism
2 n = 60/2 n = 60 t (2q−;5p+)		FISH with painting probes BTA2 and BTA5Translocation mosaicism in a bull[38]
XXY-TrisomyX-Y painting probesTesticular hypoplasia[39]
fragm/hypoploidy/hypoploidy-mixoploidy; hyperploidy/hyperploidy-mixoploidyKaryotyping, FISH with X-Y painting probes in nuclear transfer embryosAnomalies occurred in NT embryos varied according to the donor cell culture and paralleled the frequency of anomalies in donor cells[40]
rob(1;29)CBG, GTG, FISH with a rob(1;29) painting probePresence of rob(1;29) in Gaur (Bos gaurus)[41]
rob(1;29)CBA, RBA, FISHOrigin of rob(1;29) by complex chromosome rearrangements[42]
rob(1;29)Sperm-FISHLow percentage of abnormal sperm in two carriers[43]
rcp(9;11)(q27;q11)RBG and FISHDe novo origin of the rcp[44]
Mosaicism XX/XY cellsFISH with a male-specific BC1.2 DNA sequence in interphase cell nucleiDiagnosis of freemartin[45]
rcp(11;21)(q28-q12)CBA, RBA, Ag-NORs, FISHNormal bull but with absence of libido; reduced fertility (very low presence of spermatozoa in germinal elements)[46]
rob(1;29)microdissection, DOP-PCR, cloning and sequencing, sperm-FISHDetection of sperm-carrying rob(1;29)[47]
rcp(2;4)(q45;q34)G-banding, SCA, and chromosome paintingDetection of a new rcp in bull[48]
AneuploidyDual-color FISH with Xcen/Y painting probes in spermStudy the aneuploidy in different breeds[49]
rcp(4;7)RBG, FISH (painting probe), aCGHNormal male and no genomic loss in the rcp[50]
AneuploidyDual-color FISH with Xcen and BTA5 painting probesStudy of aneuploidy in oocytes of two breeds[51]
AneuploidyFISH with BTAX, BTAY, and BTA6 painting probes on sperm of several young bullsAneuploidy frequencies in young fertile bull spermatozoa were relatively low[52]
rcp(Y;21)(p11;q11)G-banding, FISHNormal young bull but lower testosterone level at 12 months[53]
rcp(11;25)(q11, q14∼21)CBA, RBA, FISH, NORder11 with two C-bands for a break at the centromere of BTA25; cow with reduced fertility[54]
Aberrant oocytesDual-color FISH of X-cent/BTA5 painting probesSimilar rate of aneuploidy in different cattle breeds[55]
rob(1;29)FISH, aCGHNew results of the origin of this rob by transposition, inversion; no gene-coding regions were disrupted during the rearrangements[56]
Xp-del (inactive X)CBA, RBA, FISHdel found in both dam and calf (normal cow)[57]
X-Y aneuploidyDual-color FISH with Xcen-BTAY painting probesTesting X-Y ratio and aneuploidy[58]
AneuploidyDual-color FISH with Xcen and five autosome painting probesSimilar rates of chromosomal aberrant secondary oocytes in two indigenous cattle breeds[59]
MixoploidyFISH with BTAX and BTA6 painting probesFirst zygotic cleavage (FZC) is a marker of embryo quality by demonstrating a significantly lower incidence of aberrations in early embryos[60]
Aneuploidy/polyploidyCA, SCE, MN, MI, FISHEffect of the tebuconazole-based fungicide: monosomies and trisomies on BTA5 and 7[61]
rcp(5;6)(q13;q34)RBG, FISH, aCGHNormal young bull with balanced rcp[62]
rcp(13;26)(q24;q11)CBG, GTG, painting probes BTA13 and 26, telomeric probeDe novo rcp in both dam and calf[63]
der(11)t(11;25)(q11;q14–21)CBA, RBA, FISHAbnormal female calf[64]
Chromosome damagesSCE, MN, FISH with BTA1, 5, 7 painting probesNo significant chromosome fragility with use of thiacloprid[65]
Abnormal BTA17 in a young bullCBA, R-banding, FISH, PNA-telomeric probe, aCGH, SNP arrayCentromere repositioning[66]
X-monosomyKaryotyping, FISH, SNP genotype dataSterile for abnormal internal sex adducts[67]
rob(3;16)Sperm-FISHLow rate of unbalanced gametes produced by adjacent segregation (5.87%) and interchromosomal effect (ICE) on BTA17 and BTA20[68]
Trisomy 20Q-banding, FISHMalformed fetus, cranial defects[69]
Trisomy 29FISH/genomic analysisMalformed female calf showing dwarfism with severe facial anomalies[70]
rob(1;29); rcp(12;23)FISH, use of BAC clones mapping prox- and dist- regions of all cattle autosomes and XIdentification of chromosome abnormalities in all autosomes and BTAX[71]
tan(18;27)CBA, RBA, FISHMale calf with congenital hypospadias and a ventricular septal defect[72]
River buffaloX-monosomyCBA, RBA, FISHNormal body conformation and external genitalia, ovaries not detectable, sterile[73]
rob(1p;23)CBA, RBA, Ag-NORS, FISHComplex chromosome abnormality with fission on BBU1 and centric fusion of BBU1p with BBU23 in both dam and female calf; reduced fertility in the dam[74]
rob(1p;18)CBA, RBA, FISHFamous bull eliminated from reproduction for the presence of the same chrom. abnormality in part of progeny[75]
Chromosome abnormalitiesZoo-FISHSequential approach with 13 chromosome river buffalo painting probes to detect river buffalo chromosome abnormalities[76]
rob(1p;18)Sperm-FISH in motile and total fraction spermLimited effects on the aneuploidy in gametes on the motile fraction sperm[77]
River/Swamp buffaloAneuploidyM-FISHStudy of aneuploidy in river and swamp buffalo oocytes[78]
SheepChromosome abnormalityProduction of all sheep chromosome painting probes from cell sorter techniqueEasy identification of chromosome abnormalities[79]
rob(8;11)G-bands, painting probes 8 and 11, SAT-I and SAT-IISAT-I proximal on both arms with SAT-II covering the centromere[80]
Diploid-polyploid mosaicismZoo-FISH with bovine painting probes X/Y and 1;29 on nuclei of in vivo and in vitro embryos In vitro embryos showed significant higher number of abnormal embryos than in vivo ones[81]
del(10q22)Use of ovine BAC clone in addition to genetic analysesMicro-chromosomal deletion responsible for EDNRB gene lack[82]
rcp(4q;12q)(q13;q25)CBA, RBA, FISH with both specific markers and PNA-telomeric probeCharacterization of a new rcp in a young sheep[83]
rcp(18;23)(q14;q26).CBA, RBA, FISH with bovine painting probeReduced fertility[84]
Chromosome abnormalities in bovidsPartial river buffalo chromosome painting probes from microdissectionDetection of chromosome abnormalities in bovids[85]
Table
Table 2. Gene mapping obtained with FISH in domestic bovids. Type I and type II markers are expressed with polymorphic (SSRs, microsatellite, STSs) sequences, respectively.
Table 2. Gene mapping obtained with FISH in domestic bovids. Type I and type II markers are expressed with polymorphic (SSRs, microsatellite, STSs) sequences, respectively.
Gene/Genes/MarkerSpeciesReference
Lysozyme gene clusterBBU[110]
Uridine monophosphate synthaseBTA[111]
Uridine monophosphate synthaseBBU[112]
BTA1 to 7BTA[113]
MicrosatellitesBTA[114]
MicrosatellitesBTA[115]
Beta-defensin genesBTA; OAR[116]
Alpha-S2 caseinBTA; BBU[117]
Fas/APO-1BTA[118]
Interferon gammaOAR[119]
Interleukin-2 receptor gammaBTA[120]
Beta-lactoglobulin pseudogeneBTA, OAR, CHI[121]
Bone morphogenetic protein 1BTA[122]
TSPYBTA, OAR, CHI[123]
VILOAR, CHI, BBU[124]
Type I markersBTA[125]
Prion protein geneBTA, OAR, CHI, BBU[126]
IL2RA, VIM, THBD, PLC-II, CSNK2A1, TOP1BTA[127]
NF1, CRYB1, CHRNB1, TP53, P4HB, GH1OAR, BBU[128]
PAX8BTA, OAR, CHI[129]
Type I markersBTA[97]
PREF1BTA[130]
PRKCIBTA[131]
MHCBTA[132]
Type I markersOAR, CHI[100]
CACNA2D1BTA[133]
SLC26a2BTA[134]
SMNBTA, OAR, CHI, BBU[135]
Type I markersBBU[109]
Type I and II markersOAR[136]
PRPHBTA[137]
CYP11b/CYHR1BTA[138]
SRY, ANT3, CSF2RABTA[139]
Autosomal loci (11)BTA, OAR, CHI, BBU[140]
Autosomal loci (88)OAR[141]
Autosomal loci (68)BBU[142]
BMPR1B, BMP15, GDF9BTA, OAR, CHI, BBU[143]
Table
Table 3. Comparative FISH mapping in domestic bovids with related and unrelated species.
Table 3. Comparative FISH mapping in domestic bovids with related and unrelated species.
Author/sResults
[107]Mapping omega and trophoblast interferon genes in cattle and river buffalo
[162]Mapping of lactoperoxidase, retinoblastoma, and alpha-lactalbumin genes in cattle, sheep, and goats
[108]Mapping omega and trophoblast interferon genes in sheep and goats
[163]Mapping LGB and IGHML in cattle, sheep, and goats
[164]Mapping CASAS2 gene to the cattle, sheep, and goat chromosome 4
[165]Mapping MHC-complex in cattle and river buffalo
[166]Mapping inhibin-alpha (INHA) to OAR2 and BTA2
[167]Mapping inhibin subunit beta b to OAR2 and BTA2
[121]Mapping beta-lactoglobulin pseudogene in sheep, goats, and cattle
[168]Mapping ZNF164, ZNF146, GGTA1, SOX2, PRLR, and EEF2 in bovids
[117]Mapping of the alpha-S2 casein gene on river buffalo and cattle
[116]Mapping of beta-defensin genes to river buffalo and sheep chromosomes suggest a chromosome discrepancy in cattle standard karyotypes
[169]Mapping STAT5A gene maps to BTA19, CHI19, and ORA11
[170]Mapping in Y chromosomes of cattle and zebu by microdissected painting probes
[124]Mapping of villin (VIL) gene in river buffalo, sheep, and goats
[126]Mapping prion protein gene (PRNP) on cattle, river buffalo, sheep, and goats
[171]Mapping BCAT2 gene to cattle, sheep, and goats
[172]Comparative mapping in X chromosomes of bovids
[173]Comparative mapping between BTA-X and CHI-X
[174]Survey of chromosome rearrangements between ruminants and humans
[175]Comparative mapping between cattle and pig chromosomes using pig painting probes
[176]Extensive conservation of human chromosome regions in euchromatic regions of river buffalo chromosomes
[128]Mapping of six expressed gene loci (NF1, CRYB1, CHRNB1, TP53, P4HB, and GH1) to river buffalo and sheep chromosomes
[177]Comparison of human and sheep chromosomes using human chromosome painting probes
[178]Mapping four HSA2 type I loci in river buffalo chromosomes 2q and 12
[179]Mapping BCAT1 in cattle, sheep, and goats
[180]Comparative mapping in bovid X chromosomes reveals homologies and divergences between the subfamilies Bovinae and Caprinae
[181]Mapping 16 type I loci in river buffalo and sheep
[182]Mapping 13 type I loci from HSA4q, HSA6p, HSA7q, and HSA12q on in river buffalo
[183]Mapping forty autosomal type I loci in river buffalo and sheep chromosomes and assignment from sixteen human chromosomes
[184]Mapping eight genes from HSA11 to bovine chromosomes 15 and 29
[98]International chromosome nomenclature in domestic bovids based on Q-, G-, and R-banding and FISH with 31 specific Texas marker chromosomes
[185]Mapping 28 loci in river buffalo and sheep chromosomes
[186]Sheep/human comparative map in a chromosome region involved in scrapie incubation time shows multiple breakpoints between human chromosomes 14 and 15 and sheep chromosomes 7 and 18
[135]Physical map of the survival of motor neuron gene (SMN) in domestic bovids
[100]Assignment of the 31 type I Texas bovine markers in sheep and goat chromosomes by comparative FISH mapping and R-banding
[187]Mapping 195 genes in cattle and updated comparative map with humans, mice, rats, and pigs
[188]Mapping of F9, HPRT, and XIST in BTAX and HSAX clarifies breakpoints between the two species
[189]15 gene loci were mapped in the telomeric region of BTA18q and HSA19q
[190]Comparative G- and Q-banding of saola and cattle chromosomes as well as FISH mapping of 32 type I Texas markers
[191]Mapping of fragile histidine triad (FHIT) gene in bovids
[192]Chromosome evolution and improved cytogenetic maps of the Y chromosome in cattle, zebu, river buffalo, sheep, and goats
[193]Physical map of mucin 1, transmembrane (MUC1) among cattle, river buffalo, sheep, and goat chromosomes and comparison with HSA1
[194]Mapping of LEP and SLC26A2 in bovidae chrom. 4 (BTA4/OAR4/CHI4) and HSA7
[140]Mapping 11 genes to BTA2, BBU2q, OAR2q, and CHI2, and comparison with HSA2q
[195]Mapping among humans, cattle, and mice suggests a role for repeat sequences in mammalian genome evolution
[196]Mapping sheep and goat BAC clones identifies the transcriptional orientation of T cell receptor gamma genes on chromosome 4 in bovids
[197]Mapping of twelve loci in river buffalo and sheep chromosomes: comparison with HSA8p and HSA4q
[198]Mapping 25 new loci in BTA27 and comparison with both human and mouse chromosomes
[141]An advanced sheep cytogenetic map and assignment of 88 new autosomal loci
[199]Cross-species FISH with cattle whole-chromosome paints and satellite DNA I probes was used to identify the chromosomes involved in the translocations of some tribe Bovinae species
[142]Extended river buffalo cytogenetic map, assignment of 68 autosomal loci and comparison with human chromosomes
[200]FISH with 28S and telomeric probes in 17 bovid species. NORs are an important and frequently overlooked source of additional phylogenetic information within the Bovidae
[201]Mapping DMRT1 genes to BTA8 and HSA9
[202]Comparative DM domain genes between cattle and pigs
[203]Assignments of new loci to BBU7 and OAR6 and comparison with HSA4
[204]Mapping 22 ovine BAC clones in sheep, cattle, and human X chromosome
[205]Mapping and genomic annotation of bovine oncosuppressor gene in domestic bovids
[206]Cytogenetic map in sheep as anchor of genomic maps also using different genomic resources from other species
[207]Molecular cytogenetics in goats and comparative mapping with human maps
[208]Mapping of 6 loci containing genes involved in the dioxin metabolism of domestic bovids
[209]Extended cytogenetic maps of sheep chromosome 1 and their cattle and river buffalo homologues: comparison with the OAR1 RH-map and HSA2, 3, 21, and 1q
[210]Mapping between BTA5 and some Antilopinae species using Sat-I and SAT-II sequence and BTA-painting probes
[211]Comparison of centromeric repeats between cattle and other Bovidae species
[212]Advanced comparative map in X chromosome of Bovidae
[143]Physical map of BMPR1B, BMP15, and GDF9 fecundity genes on cattle, river buffalo, sheep, and goat chromosomes
[152]Physical mapping of 20 unmapped fragments in Btau 4.0 Genome Assembly in cattle, sheep, and river buffalo
[213]Physical map of LCA5L gene in cattle, sheep, and goats
[214]New cryptic difference between cattle and goat karyotypes
[215]Small evolutionary rearrangement between BTA21 and homologous OAR18
[216]Assignment of 23 endogenous retrovirus to both sheep and homologous chromosomes regions of river buffalo
Table
Table 4. Studies using the fiber-FISH on domestic bovids.
Table 4. Studies using the fiber-FISH on domestic bovids.
SpeciesAuthor/sResults
Cattle[227]Genomic organization of the bovine aromatase
[228]Molecular characterization of STAT5A- and STAT5B-encoding genes
[135]Demonstration of survival of motor neuron gene (SMN) duplication in a calf affected by arthrogryposis
[229]Demonstration of multiple TSPY copies on the Y chromosome
Sheep[230]DNA fiber barcodes indicated a chromosomal deletion
Table
Table 5. Identification of CNV.
Table 5. Identification of CNV.
SpecieReferenceNote
Cattle[241]3 Holstein bulls
Cattle[242]90 animals: 11 Bos taurus breeds, 3 Bos indicus breeds, and 3 composite breeds for beef, dairy, or dual purpose
Cattle[243]20 animals: 14 Holsteins, 3 Simmental 2 Red Danish and 1 Hereford
Cattle[244]47 Holstein bulls
Cattle[245]24 animals from Chianese breeds
Cattle[246]3 Angus, 6 Brahman, and 1 composite animal
Sheep[247]36 animals
Sheep[248]12 animals
Goat[249]10 animals
Table
Table 6. Independent genomic assemblies that can be analyzed through the main genomic visualization sites.
Table 6. Independent genomic assemblies that can be analyzed through the main genomic visualization sites.
Specie 1Genome Assembly 2OriginGDW 3UCSC 4ENS 5
BTAARS-UCD1.3USDA ARSyesnono
ARS-UCD1.2USDA ARSnoyesno
Btau_5.0.1Cattle Gen. Seq. Int. Consortiumyesnono
Btau_4.6.1Cattle Gen. Seq. Int. Consortiumnoyesno
Btau_4.0Cattle Gen. Seq. Int. Consortiumnonoyes
UMD_3.1.1University of Marylandyesyesno
UMD_3.1University of Marylandnonoyes
Baylor 4.0Baylor College of Medicinenoyesno
OARARS-UI_Ramb_v2.0University of Idahoyesnono
Oar_rambouillet_v1.0Baylor College of Medicineyesnoyes
Oar_v4.0Int. Sheep Gen. Consortiumyesyesno
CAU_O.aries_1.0China Agricultural Universityyesnono
CHIARS1.2USDA ARSyesnono
ARS1USDA ARSnonoyes
CHIR_1.0Int. Goat Gen. Consortiumyesnono
BBUNDDB_SH_1Nat. Dairy Dev. Board, Indiayesnono
UOA_WB_1University of Adelaideyesnono
BINBos_indicus_1.0Genoa Biotecnologia SAyesnono
1 BTA = cattle; OAR = sheep; CHI = goat; BBU = water buffalo and BIN = Zebu. 2 Only genomic assemblages at the chromosomal level were considered and not those limited to scaffolds. 3 Genome data viewer. 4 USCS genome browser. 5 Ensembl genome browser.
Table
Table 7. PCR-based approaches on bovids for the detection of chromosomal aberrations.
Table 7. PCR-based approaches on bovids for the detection of chromosomal aberrations.
SpeciesObjectiveSamplePCR-Based MethodReference
CattleSex-determinationEmbryosPCR[272]
CattleFreemartinism diagnosisBloodPCR[273]
CattleSex-determinationEmbryosPCR[274]
CattleSex-determinationSpermatozoaPCR[275]
CattleChimerism diagnosisBloodqPCR[276]
CattleXX/XY chimerism diagnosisBloodPCR[277]
CattleSRY-positive hermaphrodite diagnosisBloodPCR[278]
CattleXY (SRY-positive) diagnosisBloodPCR[279]
CattleFreemartinism diagnosisBloodqPCR[280]
CattleFreemartinism diagnosisBlooddPCR[281]
CattleSex-determinationSpermatozoadPCR[282]
CattleMosaic karyotype (60,XX/60,XX,+mar) diagnosisSkin tissuePCR[283]
CattleMosaicism (60,XX/90,XXY) diagnosisBlood, skin, buccal epithelial cells, and hair folliclesdPCR[284]
CattleXX/XY chimerism diagnosisBlood and hair folliclesdPCR[285]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Iannuzzi, A.; Iannuzzi, L.; Parma, P. Molecular Cytogenetics in Domestic Bovids: A Review. Animals 2023, 13, 944. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13050944

AMA Style

Iannuzzi A, Iannuzzi L, Parma P. Molecular Cytogenetics in Domestic Bovids: A Review. Animals. 2023; 13(5):944. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13050944

Chicago/Turabian Style

Iannuzzi, Alessandra, Leopoldo Iannuzzi, and Pietro Parma. 2023. "Molecular Cytogenetics in Domestic Bovids: A Review" Animals 13, no. 5: 944. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13050944

APA Style

Iannuzzi, A., Iannuzzi, L., & Parma, P. (2023). Molecular Cytogenetics in Domestic Bovids: A Review. Animals, 13(5), 944. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13050944

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop