Open Access

Comparative genomic analysis of catfish linkage group 8 reveals two homologous chromosomes in zebrafish and other teleosts with extensive inter-chromosomal rearrangements

  • Yu Zhang1,
  • Shikai Liu1,
  • Jianguo Lu1,
  • Yanliang Jiang1,
  • Xiaoyu Gao1,
  • Parichart Ninwichian1,
  • Chao Li1,
  • Geoff Waldbieser2 and
  • Zhanjiang Liu1Email author
BMC Genomics201314:387

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-387

Received: 15 September 2012

Accepted: 24 May 2013

Published: 10 June 2013

Abstract

Background

Comparative genomics is a powerful tool to transfer genomic information from model species to related non-model species. Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) is the primary aquaculture species in the United States. Its existing genome resources such as genomic sequences generated from next generation sequencing, BAC end sequences (BES), physical maps, linkage maps, and integrated linkage and physical maps using BES-associated markers provide a platform for comparative genomic analysis between catfish and other model teleost fish species. This study aimed to gain understanding of genome organizations and similarities among catfish and several sequenced teleost genomes using linkage group 8 (LG8) as a pilot study.

Results

With existing genome resources, 287 unique genes were identified in LG8. Comparative genome analysis indicated that most of these 287 genes on catfish LG8 are located on two homologous chromosomes of zebrafish, medaka, stickleback, and three chromosomes of green-spotted pufferfish. Large numbers of conserved syntenies were identified. Detailed analysis of the conserved syntenies in relation to chromosome level similarities revealed extensive inter-chromosomal and intra-chromosomal rearrangements during evolution. Of the 287 genes, 35 genes were found to be duplicated in the catfish genome, with the vast majority of the duplications being interchromosomal.

Conclusions

Comparative genome analysis is a powerful tool even in the absence of a well-assembled whole genome sequence. In spite of sequence stacking due to low resolution of the linkage and physical maps, conserved syntenies can be identified although the exact gene order and orientation are unknown at present. Through chromosome-level comparative analysis, homologous chromosomes among teleosts can be identified. Syntenic analysis should facilitate annotation of the catfish genome, which in turn, should facilitate functional inference of genes based on their orthology.

Keywords

Comparative mapping Synteny Genome Chromosome Linkage map Physical map Catfish Fish

Background

Comparative genomics is a powerful tool to transfer genomic information from model species to related non-model species. This approach was first applied to construct a human-chimpanzee comparative genome map using BAC end sequence (BESs) searched against human genome [1]. Subsequently this approach was widely used for comparisons of mammalian genomes such as human-mouse [2], human-cattle [3], human-porcine [4] and human-horse [5] genome comparisons. Recently, comparative genome studies have been conducted in a number of fish species [69].

Comparative genomic analyses could bring great benefits to non-model, economically important species. With exception of the recently published cod genome [10], no whole-genome sequence exists for aquaculture fish species. For aquaculture species, comparative genomic analyses not only provide evolutionary perspectives for genome evolution, but also practical applications for the identification of positional candidate genes. It provides a useful tool for genome annotation and functional inference through the analysis of conserved syntenies. This is particularly important because direct testing of functions for a large number of aquaculture species may prove to be difficult to achieve.

Comparative genome analysis requires rich genome resources. With the release of whole genome sequences from five teleost species: zebrafish (Danio rerio) (http://www.ensembl.org), fugu (Fugu rubripes) [11], green-spotted pufferfish (Tetraodon nigroviridis) [12], medaka (Oryzias latipes) [13, 14] and three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) [15], it is now possible to conduct initial comparative genome analysis for aquaculture species. In recent years, great effort has been devoted for the development of genome resources in aquaculture species. For instance, rich genome resources have been, or are being produced with Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) [1619], rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) [2025], tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) [2631], gilthead sea bream (Sparus auratus) [3234], European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) [3539], and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) for reviews, see [40, 41]. These genomic resources included expressed sequence tags (ESTs), genetic linkage maps, BAC-based physical maps and radiation hybrid (RH) maps, and draft genome sequences which allow comparative genomic analyses to be conducted. Second, conserved syntenic groups could be established through comparisons of model species with non-model species [42]. The search of conserved syntenies could enhance the identification of gene order, thereby allowing insight into orthologies that may be informative for the analysis of quantitative trait loci (QTL) for commercially important traits [42, 43]. In addition, syntenies can provide evolutionary information that support phylogenetic studies for gene and genome annotation [13, 42, 44].

Channel catfish (I. punctatus) is the primary aquaculture species in the United States. It is one of the six species included in the U.S. National Animal Genome Project NRSP-8. Major progress has been made in developing genomic resources of catfish. These genomic resources included numerous molecular markers [4549], genetic linkage maps [5053], ESTs [5459], microarray platforms [6064], transcriptome generated using the next generation sequencing technologies [6567], BAC libraries [68, 69], BAC-based physical maps [70, 71], and a partially integrated physical and genetic linkage map [53]. With these genomic resources, comparative genomic analyses were conducted between catfish and model species. Wang et al. (2007) utilized 20,366 catfish BESs and identified syntenic regions among the genomes of catfish, zebrafish, and green-spotted pufferfish [69]. In a separate study, Liu et al. (2009) compared local conserved syntenies between the catfish and zebrafish genomes using a large number of BAC end sequences [9]. Kucuktas et al. (2009) constructed a gene-based catfish linkage map that allowed preliminary comparison of genome similarities among several teleost species [52]. In all these earlier studies, high levels of inter- and intra-chromosomal shuffling were found, suggesting that the generalized linearity relationships may not apply to the organization of the catfish genome when compared to the genomes of other teleosts, as otherwise found between medaka-sea bream, Tetraodon-sea bream, stickleback-sea bream, medaka-stickleback, Tetraodon-medaka and Tetraodon-stickleback genomes [7, 42]. However, in these studies, only a small number of gene markers were used that may not allow detection of rearrangement events. Fish-specific genome duplication and accompanying genome rearrangements were reported to lead to teleost species with a higher rate of gene-linkage disruption and lineage divergence than mammals [44, 72]. Study on comparison between zebrafish and Tetraodon suggested that there were high levels of conserved syntenies between the majority of zebrafish and Tetraodon chromosomes, but in the conserved syntenic regions numerous inversions existed involving large regions with altered gene orders and orientations [73]. In this study, we chose catfish linkage group 8 (LG8), which was found to contain microsatellite markers associated with the tolerance to hypoxia (unpublished), as a pilot study to gain greater insight into the similarities and conserved syntenies between the catfish genome and the genomes of several well-characterized fish. Here we report the potential orthologous chromosomes of catfish LG8 in several sequenced fish species, conserved syntenies, annotation of genes on LG8 of the catfish, and identification of a set of duplicated genes.

Results

Establishing chromosome-scale scaffolds

In order to conduct comparative genome analysis, the first required step without a whole genome sequence is to establish large scaffolds that can then be compared to chromosomal segments of other species with rich genomic resources. Here, we started with the 106 BAC end sequence-derived microsatellites that were mapped to LG8 [53]. As shown in Table 1, these 106 mapped BAC end sequence-derived microsatellites were from 46 BAC contigs of the physical map [71] that included 1645 BAC end sequences (BESs) [9, 48]. Therefore, all these 1645 BESs are on LG8. However, the BESs are short single pass reads and many of them do not contain gene sequences, making their direct comparison with other genomes difficult. Consequently, BLASTN searches using these 1645 BESs against the draft catfish genome sequence contigs (255,858 contigs with N50 of 6027 bp, unpublished data) resulted in 951 significant hits (Table 1).
Table 1

Identification of genes on LG8 using information from BESs, the physical map, linkage map and draft genome sequences using BLAST analysis

Catalog

Number

BAC-associated markers in LG8

106

BAC contigs containing the BAC-associated markers

46

All BAC-end sequences (BES) from mapped BAC contigs

1,645

BESs with significant hits to draft genome

1,510

Draft genome contigs hit by BESs

951

Unique zebrafish genes with genome sequence contig hits

287

Genes with a single genome sequence contig hit

250

Genes with multiple genome sequence contig hits

37

The 951 genome sequence contigs were then used as queries to determine what genes are associated with these genome sequence contigs using BLASTX searches against ENSEMBL zebrafish protein database. The BLASTX searches resulted in 287 unique gene hits. Because the genetic linkage positions of the 1645 BESs are known on LG8, the BLASTX analysis allowed the anchor of the 287 genes on LG8, forming the LG8 scaffold for comparative analysis. Out of the 287 gene hits, 250 genes were hit by a single genome contig while 37 genes were hit by two or more catfish genome contigs (Table 1). The two or more catfish genome sequence contigs that had sequence similarity with a single gene could be from different portion of the same gene (e.g., different exons of the same gene, but yet there are gaps in the draft genome sequence), or from duplicated genes in the catfish genome (see below).

Identification of homologous chromosomes of catfish LG8

The 287 genes identified on LG8 were used as queries to search the genomes of the four sequenced teleost species, zebrafish, medaka, stickleback, and green-spotted pufferfish. As summarized in Table 2, the largest number of genes had hits on chromosome 7 (148 hits) and chromosome 2 (79 hits) in zebrafish, although significant hits existed for most of the chromosomes, as well as for unassigned scaffolds (Table 2). Similarly, the 287 genes also had largest number of hits on two chromosomes in medaka (chromosome 17 and 18) and stickleback (chromosome 3 and 7), and had largest hits on three chromosomes in green-spotted pufferfish (chromosome 15, 20, and 6). However, green-spotted pufferfish chromosome 1 had 14 gene hits, but there is only one syntenic block involved 2 genes. Therefore green-spotted pufferfish chromosome 1 was not considered as homologous chromosome. These data suggested that the catfish LG8 was homologous to two or three chromosomes in the four sequenced fish genomes (Table 3). As catfish is most closely related to zebrafish phylogenetically, the number of the genes with significant hits was also largest in zebrafish. In green-spotted pufferfish, a large number of these genes have not been assigned to chromosomes, and that is part of the reason that the number of genes with significant hits on the relevant chromosomes was low (Table 2).
Table 2

Distributions of LG8 genes on orthologous chromosomes of four model teleost fish species

Chromosome

No. of gene hits

Zebrafish

Medaka

Stickleback

Green-spotted pufferfish

1

6

10

6

14

2

79

1

4

2

3

2

2

53

4

4

3

19

4

4

5

2

6

1

1

6

9

1

2

17

7

148

1

77

5

8

0

4

15

2

9

0

1

12

2

10

0

0

3

10

11

3

1

3

5

12

2

2

2

3

13

0

2

2

2

14

2

5

0

5

15

0

0

12

35

16

1

2

2

0

17

2

51

0

3

18

1

100

5

5

19

2

2

2

1

20

6

30

1

25

21

2

1

29

-

22

1

12

-

-

23

0

2

-

-

24

7

4

-

-

25

2

-

-

-

Unassigned scaffolds

6

13

42

122

Total

287

272

277

267

Chromosomes with a large number of genes of catfish LG8 is underlined.

Table 3

Orthologous chromosomes of catfish LG8

Catfish

Zebrafish

Medaka

Stickleback

Green-spotted pufferfish

LG8

Chr 2

Chr 17

Chr 3

Chr 15

 

Chr 7

Chr 18

Chr 7

Chr 20 and Chr6

Annotation of genes on catfish LG8

Annotation in teleost species is often difficult because of the complications caused by gene and genome duplications. Proper annotation of genes from a non-model species requires detailed phylogenetic analysis or analysis of evolutionarily conserved syntenic blocks. Here we have annotated 227 genes on catfish LG8 through comparative analysis of conserved microsyntenies, with 79 genes having significant syntenic conservations on zebrafish chromosome 2 (Additional file 1), and 148 genes having significant syntenic conservations on zebrafish chromosome 7 (Additional file 2 and Additional file 3).

Conserved syntenic blocks between catfish LG8 and zebrafish

To gain a close insight into the conserved genomic segments, conserved syntenies were examined between the catfish LG8 and zebrafish chromosome 2 and 7. As shown in Additional file 1 and Additional file 2, a total of 37 conserved syntenies were identified. A total of 13 conserved syntenies were identified on chromosome 2 of zebrafish involving 48 genes. These conserved regions span a total of 8.5 million base pairs (Table 4) in the zebrafish genome. Similarly, but to a larger extent, a total of 24 conserved syntenies were identified involving 107 genes on chromosome 7 of zebrafish. These conserved syntenies span a total of 11.2 Mb on zebrafish chromosome 7 (Table 5).
Table 4

Summary of conserved syntenic blocks between catfish LG8 and zebrafish chromosome 2

Syntenic block on zebrafish Chr2

Catfish BAC contigs

Number of genes

Spanning size on zebrafish chr (kb)

1

Contig2535

2

57

2

Contig0034

2

53

3

Contig 2461

2

42

4

Contig 2732

3

99

5

Contig 1723 (1)

11

1,301

6

Contig 0570

4

2,489

7

Contig 0481

4

381

8

Contig 2727

2

75

9

Contig 0672

4

1,036

10

Contig 1676

5

955

11

Contig 1724

3

1,463

12

Contig 1723 (2)

4

458

13

Contig 1723 (3)

2

55

Total

11

48

8,464

The numbers in parentheses mean the different snyteny within same physical map contig.

Table 5

Summary of conserved syntenic blocks between catfish LG8 and zebrafish chromosome 7

Syntenic block on zebrafish Chr7

Catfish physical contigs

Number of genes

Spanning size on zebrafish chr (kb)

1

contig1016

3

217

2

contig 0688

8

927

3

contig 2664 (1)

6

483

4

contig 2770 (1)

3

446

5

contig 2664 (2)

11

944

6

contig 1705 (1)

6

456

7

contig 1919 (1)

6

405

8

contig 1705 (2)

4

281

9

contig 1919 (2)

5

614

10

contig 2813

6

313

11

contig 1258

2

185

12

contig 0726

2

146

13

contig 2120

5

400

14

contig 0174

2

373

15

contig 2214

3

189

16

contig 0067 (1)

3

72

17

contig 1919

6

719

18

contig 2770 (2)

7

1,218

19

contig 2665

3

351

20

contig 1918

3

302

21

contig 0067 (2)

4

593

22

contig 1705 (3)

5

550

23

contig 1818

2

244

24

contig 2570

2

753

Total

18

107

11,181

The numbers in parentheses means the different snyteny within same physical contig.

Various lengths of conserved syntenies were identified, ranging from just 40–50 kb to 2.5 Mb (Tables 4 and 5). In some cases, conserved syntenic blocks were extensive involving relatively large number of genes, strongly supporting the syntenic relationships. For instance, catfish contig 1723 was homologous to a genomic segment of 1.3 Mb involving 11 identified genes on zebrafish chromosome 2, and the zebrafish intergenic spaces (without consideration of the gene size) are 350 kb, 41 kb, 73 kb, 199 kb, 15 kb, 66 kb, 65 kb, 215 kb, 98 kb, and 171 kb, indicating linearity relationships of genes and their positions (Additional file 1). In other cases, however, large conserved syntenic blocks were identified involving only a small number of genes, less supportive of linearity relationships. For instance, the largest conserved syntenic block on zebrafish chromosome 2 spans a segment of 2.49 Mb (Table 4), but only four genes are included in the BAC contig 570. The intergenic spaces (without consideration of the gene sizes) were 107 kb, 225 kb, and 2 Mb between them, suggesting a huge deletion within the catfish genome among these genes as compared to the zebrafish genome, or a large number of genes in this region have not been detected in the catfish draft genome sequences.

Conserved syntenic blocks between catfish and medaka, catfish and stickleback and between catfish and green-spotted pufferfish were also conducted (Additional files 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15). The situations are similar to the comparison with the zebrafish genome. Overall, the scale of conserved synteny is largest between catfish LG8 and zebrafish chromosome 7 and chromosome 2, followed by medaka, stickleback, and green-spotted pufferfish (Additional files 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15).

Chromosome level structural conservations

As described above, BLAST searches indicated that the catfish LG8 is homologous to two chromosomes of zebrafish, medaka, and stickleback, and three chromosomes of green-spotted pufferfish (Table 3). We then focused on the gene position and gene order conservations at the chromosome level. For instance, 148 genes on zebrafish chromosome 7 were determined to be on the catfish LG8. An examination of the chromosome locations of these 148 genes indicated that they were present on zebrafish chromosome 7 at positions from 2.6 Mb to 9.7 Mb, 17 Mb to 27.2 Mb, 41.5 Mb to 44.4 Mb, 52.3 Mb to 53.1 Mb, 58.8 Mb to 65.9 Mb and 73.1 Mb to 75.3 Mb, spanning a physical distance of 30.1 Mb. Without a whole genome assembly in catfish, a complete comparison of gene positions is not yet possible at present because many genes were found to be in each of the physical map contigs, but the resolution of the genetic linkage map that positioned the linked BAC contigs was not high enough to put the catfish genes on a linear order. Therefore, many catfish genes are “stacked”. Nonetheless, we were able to compare the gene positions and order at the chromosome level, ignoring the stacked genes. As shown in Figure 1, homologous genes located on a large segment of zebrafish chromosome 7 of approximately 10.2 Mb (from 17 Mb to 27.2 Mb ) existed on the catfish LG8, spanning a genetic distance of 26 cM. However, this chromosome segment was rearranged in the catfish LG8 in at least 10 major blocks (Figure 1 and Additional file 2). The first block, located on LG8 position 44.5 cM included 6 stacks of genes that are located on zebrafish chromosome 7 at chromosomal location 18.7-19.2 Mb. The second block, located on LG8 position 44.4 cM, included 3 stacks of genes that are located on zebrafish chromosome 7 at location 19.2-19.7 Mb. The third block, located on LG8 position 44.5 cM, included 11 stacks of genes that are located on zebrafish chromosome 7 at location 19.7-20.6 Mb. The fourth block, located on LG8 position 43 cM, included 6 stacks of genes that are located on zebrafish chromosome 7 at location 20.7-21.1 Mb. The fifth block, located on LG8 position 42 cM, included 5 stacks of genes that are located on zebrafish chromosome 7 at location 21.2-21.6 Mb. The sixth block, located on LG8 position 43 cM, included 4 stacks of genes that are located on zebrafish chromosome 7 at location 21.7-22 Mb. The seventh block, located on LG8 position 42 cM, included 5 stacks of genes that are located on zebrafish chromosome 7 at location 22.4-23 Mb. The eighth block, located on LG8 position 43 cM, included 6 stacks of genes that are located on zebrafish chromosome 7 at location 23.8-24 Mb. Another two blocks from 45 cM and 44 cM involved 5 and 3 genes, which spanned 25.9-26.2 Mb and 26.9-27.2 Mb on zebrafish chromosome 7.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2164-14-387/MediaObjects/12864_2012_Article_5102_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Comparative map between catfish LG8 and zebrafish chromosome 2 and chromosome 7. The catfish LG8 is presented in the center panel, and zebrafish chromosome 2 (chr2) and chromosome 7 (chr7) are presented on the left panel and right panel, respectively. For zebrafish chromosomes, gene locations along the chromosome are indicated in Mb on the left (chr2) and right (chr7) of the chromosome(s), while gene names are indicated on the right (chr2) and left (chr7). For catfish LG8, genetic linkage position is indicated in cM on the left, and the gene-associated physical contigs are indicated on the righ. Markers with green labels are associated with genes homologous to zebrafish chr2 and markers with red labels are associated with genes homologous to zebrafish chr7. Markers with blue labels are associated with contigs containing genes homologous to both zebrafish chr2 and chr7.

Similarly, the 79 zebrafish genes located on two major segments of chromosome 2 spanning a physical distance of 29 Mb on the zebrafish genome, and they were mapped to the catfish LG8 spanning a genetic distance of 15 cM. Very similar to the situation of the comparison between the catfish LG8 with zebrafish chromosome 7, comparison of the catfish LG8 with zebrafish chromosome 2 also revealed extensive chromosome rearrangement in the catfish genome.

Comparative analyses were also conducted between catfish and medaka, catfish and stickleback, catfish and green-spotted pufferfish (Additional files 16, 17 and 18). The situations are highly similar to the comparison with the zebrafish genome. Overall, the organization of the catfish LG8 is most similar to that of zebrafish chromosome 7 and chromosome 2, followed by medaka, stickleback, and green-spotted pufferfish. In addition, comparative map indicated that green-spotted pufferfish chormorsome 15 is homologous to zebrafish 2, but chromosome 20 and 6 are homologous to zebrafish chromosome 7, since the catfish physical contigs with significant gene hits on zebrafish chromosome 7 had significant gene hits on both chromosome 20 and chromosome 6 of green-spotted pufferfish. These findings here are consistent with Woods et al. [72], who reported that Tetraodon chromosome 15 is homologous to zebrafish chromosome 2. However, Tetraodon chromosome 20 is homologous to zebrafish chromosome 7 and 14, and Tetraodon chromosome 6 is homologous to zebrafish chromosome 7, 2, and 24 [72].

Evolutionary junctions of chromosome rearrangement

Comparisons between syntenic blocks on catfish LG8 and zebrafish chromosome 7 and chromosome 2 (as well as those in medaka, stickleback, and green-spotted pufferfish) indicated extensive chromosomal rearrangements that fused the sequences on two chromosomes together within the catfish genome during evolution. Through sequence analysis, genes involved in the same catfish physical map contig were found to be located on two chromosomes in the zebrafish genome. For instance, 15 genes were identified in the catfish physical map contig 2577 (Additional file 3). Eleven of the 15 genes were found on zebrafish chromosome 2 while four of the 15 genes were found on zebrafish chromosome 7. Similarly, four of the 12 genes in the catfish physical map contig 123 were found on zebrafish chromosome 2 while eight of the 12 genes on zebrafish chromosome 7; four of the 7 genes within the catfish physical map contig 2102 were found on zebrafish chromosome 2 and three genes were on zebrafish chromosome 7 (Additional file 3). Taken together, these findings suggested the presence of fusion junctions in these physical map contigs.

Duplicated genes on catfish LG8

As discussed above, BLASTX analysis revealed that 37 genes match more than one draft catfish genome sequences (Table 1). These 37 genes are potentially involved in duplicated genes on catfish LG8, though an alternative possibility is that the two or more catfish genome contigs were unassembled contigs in the draft genome assembly. In order to identify the potentially duplicated genes on LG8, all the 287 genes on LG8 were searched against catfish genome sequence contigs. The basic principle is that genes mapped to different genomic locations (e.g., different genome contigs) are potentially duplicated, whereas the careful visual inspection needs to be applied. From BLASTN searches (E-value ≤ 1E-10), a total of 159 genes were hit by multiple genome contigs. Through visual inspections of the homologous regions of these 159 genes, 76 genes match more than one genomic sequence contigs by overlapping regions, suggesting that they may be potentially duplicated genes on LG8 (Table 6). BLASTN searches (cutoff 1E-10) were carried out using the duplication-involved genome contigs to determine if these are truly duplicated genes. A total of 227 genome contigs that potentially represented duplicated genes were used as queries to search against themselves followed by visual inspection of the alignments. A total of 35 genes were identified as duplications on the catfish LG8 (Table 6).
Table 6

Summary of duplicated gene identification on LG8

Catalog

Number

Genes with single gnome contig hit

71

Gene with mutiple genome contig hits, but without overlapping on hitting region

83

Gene with mutiple genome contig and with overlapping on hitting region

76

Potential duplications after analysis using sequence alignments

35

To further determine if these 35 genes were duplicated in the zebrafish genome, web-based BLASTP in ENSEMBL was used to align these 35 genes with zebrafish protein database with genomic locations. A total of 30 (86%) genes out of the 35 genes were determined to be duplicated in the zebrafish genome as well (Table 7).
Table 7

A list of duplicated genes on LG8

Gene ID

Gene identity

Nature of duplication

Duplication in zebrafish

Zebrafish chromosome locations

ENSDARG00000020857

Coiled-coil domain containing 149b

Inter-chr

+

Chr1: 40,426,579-40,445,530

Chr7: 73,934,667-73,961,321

ENSDARG00000078251

Testis-specific kinase 1

Inter-chr

+

Chr1: 40,601,010-40,619,684

Chr7: 25,695,507-25,738,547

ENSDARG00000011233

Phosphate cytidylyltransferase 1, choline, alpha a

Inter-chr

+

Chr2: 9,544,319-9,572,728

Chr18: 44,426,569-44,436,626

ENSDARG00000011600

Eph receptor a4b

Inter-chr

+

Chr2: 40,081,937-40,266,727

Chr24: 28,418,728-28,585,492

ENSDARG00000014692

Zinc finger protein 622

Inter-chr

-

Chr2: 41,536,204-41,544,585

-

ENSDARG00000014986

Activin a receptor, type i like

Inter-chr

+

Chr2: 41,563,236-41,583,420

Chr23: 28,076,284-28,097,688

ENSDARG00000045137

Histamine receptor h4

Inter-chr

+

Chr2: 1,358,788-1,372,630

Chr22: 1,111,647-1,145,152

ENSDARG00000053293

Fintrim family, member 14

Inter-chr

+

Chr2: 43,232,265-43,236,818

Chr2: 43,804,098-43,806,620

ENSDARG00000054746

Udp-glucose:glycoprotein glucosyltransferase 1

Inter-chr

-

Chr2: 40,583,387-40,642,628

-

ENSDARG00000062991

Abl-interactor 1b

Inter-chr

+

Chr2: 9,651,729-9,704,711

Chr24: 6,018,848-6,096,165

ENSDARG00000067818

Replicase/helicase/endonuclease

Inter-chr

-

Chr3: 44,040,671-44,043,730

-

ENSDARG00000093045

Protein nlrc3-like

Inter-chr

+

Chr4: 49,816,584-49,827,190

Chr1: 37,643,376-37,652,927

ENSDARG00000001241

Poly-u binding splicing factor b

Inter-chr

+

Chr7: 43,876,256-43,887,769

Chr2: 32,371,845-32,389,729

ENSDARG00000032458

Map/microtubule affinity-regulating kinase 2

Inter-chr

+

Chr7: 26,056,874-26,144,251

Chr21: 26,599,159-26,667,051

ENSDARG00000056690

Myotubularin related protein 1a

Inter-chr

+

Chr7: 26,984,248-27,002,780

Chr21: 33,053,927-33,084,023

ENSDARG00000068557

5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 5a like

Inter-chr

+

Chr7: 43,811,481-43,832,125

Chr2: 29,650,026-29,653,812

ENSDARG00000069463

Arachidonate 12-lipoxygenase

Inter-chr

-

Chr7: 27,155,574-27,173,814

-

ENSDARG00000070107

Sine oculis homeobox homolog 7

Inter-chr

+

Chr7: 8,229,740-8,248,372

Chr13: 9,823,203-9,826,579

ENSDARG00000074367

Ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase

Inter-chr

+

Chr7: 52,780,107-52,812,002

Chr20: 23,071,313-23,099,240

ENSDARG00000074813

Bloodthirsty-related gene family, member 5

Intra-chr

+

Chr7: 16,963,727-16,970,800

Chr7: 16,970,942-16,980,218

ENSDARG00000075485

Kinesin light chain 2

Inter-chr

+

Chr7: 7,710,099-7,745,347

Chr22: 41,392,590-41,425,645

ENSDARG00000075647

Grb10 interacting gyf protein 1

Inter-chr

+

Chr7: 22,013,314-22,051,954

Chr7: 22,066,424-22,077,128

ENSDARG00000076302

Deltex homolog 4

Inter-chr

+

Chr7: 19,772,977-19,815,910

Chr1: 41,879,456-41,911,414

ENSDARG00000079906

Calcium channel, voltage-dependent, beta 2a

Inter-chr

+

Chr7: 74,455,736-74,500,031

Chr3: 15,773,660-15,847,471

ENSDARG00000090874

Leukocyte immune-type receptor 3 precursor

Inter-chr

+

Chr7: 7,161,386-7,169,236

Chr7: 6,472,649-6,485,064

ENSDARG00000025789

Chromodomain helicase dna binding protein 4

Inter-chr

+

Chr16: 33,984,640-34,013,093

Chr19: 5,625,090-5,682,362

ENSDARG00000075603

Bloodthirsty-related gene family, member 20

Inter-chr

+

Chr19: 2,844,513-2,855,533

Chr19: 4,855,762-4,867,193

ENSDARG00000016464

Serine/threonine-protein kinase mrck alpha-like

Inter-chr

+

Chr20: 35,110,850-35,230,881

Chr17: 8,164,393-8,331,381

ENSDARG00000017338

Kinase d-interacting substrate of 220b

Inter-chr

+

Chr20: 29,769,812-29,809,552

Chr17: 34,978,387-35,119,673

ENSDARG00000032238

Dynamin 3

Inter-chr

+

Chr20: 14,733,643-14,839,604

Chr5: 66,937,070-67,009,337

ENSDARG00000059933

Phosphatidic acid phosphatase type 2b

Inter-chr

-

Chr20: 8,143,071-8,201,815

-

ENSDARG00000004988

Protein phosphatase 3, catalytic subunit, alpha isozyme

Inter-chr

+

Chr21: 28,352,865-28,470,208

Chr14: 7,770,521-7,857,833

ENSDARG00000078791

General transcription factor ii-i repeat domain-containing protein 2-like

Inter-chr

+

Chr22: 8,348,278-8,349,747

Chr15: 10,383,223-10,384,977

ENSDARG00000052330

Solute carrier family 4, anion exchanger, member 2b

Inter-chr

+

Chr24: 34,531,261-34,600,148

Chr2: 32,109,772-32,175,798

ENSDARG00000071501

Heparan sulfate 6-o-sulfotransferase 1b

Inter-chr

+

Chr24: 28,654,200-28,749,436

Chr9: 30,372,294-30,460,884

Discussion

In this paper, we present the evidence that the catfish LG8 are homologous to two chromosomes in several sequenced teleost fish species, zebrafish, medaka, and stickleback, and to three chromosomes of green-spotted pufferfish. Such findings were made possible by establishing chromosome level scaffolds using BAC end sequences, the catfish physical map, and the catfish genetic linkage map [9, 48, 53, 71].

Although there are sequence similarities between catfish and zebrafish at various levels, we decided to use only gene sequences for our analysis because gene sequences are more unique and highly conserved in the teleost genomes while sequences from intergenic regions are more divergent, and may involve repeated sequences. Through analysis of 287 genes within the catfish LG8, it is apparent that these genes are located mostly on two or three chromosomes of other teleost species (Table 3). The largest number of genes was found in zebrafish on the two relevant chromosomes with 227 out of 287 genes located on chromosome 2 and chromosome 7, followed by medaka with 151 genes, stickleback with 130 genes, and green-spotted pufferfish with just 77 genes. This is partly due to many of the genes were unassigned to chromosomes with green-spotted pufferfish and Stickleback (Table 2), but is consistent with their phylogenetic relationships with catfish.

Analysis of conserved microsyntenies allowed identification of gene positions and order in different species, thereby establishing potential orthologies. Through analyses of sequence similarity, genome context and neighboring genes, we were able to annotate a relatively large number of genes on catfish LG8. The inferred orthologies are useful for genome annotation in catfish, and perhaps also useful for functional inference. Orthology inference of gene functions will prove to be an effective approach for the vast majority of genes with aquaculture species [74].

The catfish LG8 has a high level of similarity with part of zebrafish chromosome 2 and chromosome 7 (and similarly with two chromosomes in medaka, stickleback and three chromosomes in Tetraodon). However, extensive chromosome rearrangement must have occurred. Numerous small syntenic blocks were identified (Additional file 1 and Additional file 2), with some spanning only 40–50 Kb while others spanning well over 2 Mb (Tables 4 and 5). It is apparent that the catfish genome is well conserved at the chromosomal level with those of other teleosts, but extensive local shuffling lead to differences in gene positions and orientations.

Genes included in the same catfish physical map contigs were found on two chromosomes in zebrafish, medaka, stickleback, and green-spotted pufferfish. For instance, genes included in physical map contigs 2577, 123, and 2102 were found to be on chromosome 2 and chromosome 7 in zebrafish. One possibility is that the physical map was wrongly assembled due to duplicated genomic segments. However, this possibility did not hold because genetic linkage mapping of the BAC end-associated microsatellites within these contigs placed the BAC clones on the same linkage group, LG8. In addition, we have examined the physical map assembly with extremely high stringencies at p = 10-40, the associated genes from the same BAC contigs still had hits to genes on both chromosome 2 and chromosome 7 in zebrafish. Furthermore, in some cases two genes on the same catfish BAC clone are homologous to genes on two different zebrafish chromosomes. For instance, the two genes from mate paired reads of BAC end sequences residing within ctg2102 were homologous to “cadherin 24, type 2” located on zebrafish chromosome 2, and to “mannose receptor, C type 1a” located on zebrafish chromosome 7 (Additional file 3). Taken together, these physical contigs should harbor the fusion junctions of the sequences from the two chromosomes during evolution. Analysis of such junctions is not possible at present because the sequences are not yet available, but it should be interesting to look into these junctions to reveal evolutionary events in forming the chromosome represented by LG8.

It is interesting to observe a higher level of genome scale structural conservation between catfish and zebrafish than between catfish and the other three fish species. However, it is also intriguing that catfish has 29 chromosomes whereas zebrafish has 25, medaka has 24, stickleback has 21, and green-spotted pufferfish has 21 chromosomes, but yet the homologous chromosome segments of LG8 of catfish are distributed on two or three chromosomes in these fish, suggesting that some catfish chromosomes may have to be large to contain genes from several chromosome equivalents of the model fish species, or that significant chromosomal rearrangements have occurred during evolution, in contrast to the generalized linearity relationships among medaka, stickleback, green-spotted pufferfish, and sea bream as previously reported [42]. To the minimum, it is expected that in some cases, one chromosome of zebrafish (and more so with medaka, stickleback and Tetraodon because they have even fewer chromosomes) should be equivalent to more than one catfish chromosomes. Whole genome comparative mapping is warranted to address such issues.

After two rounds of whole genome duplication in vertebrates, ray-finned fishes (actinopterygian) had a third round, fish-specific genome duplication ~350 million years ago (FSGD or 3R) [12, 72, 75, 76]. Studies on Hox gene clusters from a spectrum of vertebrate species provided critical evidence in support of this hypothesis [77, 78]. In addition, several studies have suggested increased rate of inter-chromosomal rearrangements following the whole-genome duplication (WGD) [13, 44, 79]. Further studies suggested eight major interchromosomal rearrangements in the 24 ancestor chromosomes in teleosts [13]. Subsequently, the medaka lineage preserved its ancestral genomic structure and green-spotted pufferfish lineage underwent three major rearrangements, while the zebrafish lineage has experienced many interchromosomal rearrangements [13]. From the comparison of chromosome blocks among the five teleost species under study, it is apparent that many inter- as well as intra-chromosomal rearrangements may have occurred.

However, the conserved syntenies we identified between catfish LG8 and zebrafish chromosomes 2 and 7, and medaka chromosomes 17 and 18 are consistent with the ancestral vertebrate linkage groups model presented by Nakatani et al. [80] and Danzmann et al. [81]. According to that model, there is strong affinity between the ancestral chromosome M and zebrafish chromosome 2 and medaka chromosome 17. Similarly, there is partial affinity between the ancestral chromosome F and zebrafish chromosome 7 and medaka chromosome 18. Our results here provide additional support to the ancestral chromosome model, and hold promise for whole-genome comparative genome analysis.

A set of potentially duplicated genes were identified by sequence alignment analysis. Although the final status of the nature of duplication requires additional work, particularly the sequence assembly of the whole genome sequence, it is apparent that 35 out of 287 (12.2%) genes on catfish LG8 were duplicated. This rate of gene duplication is similar to that found in zebrafish genome (14.9%) [82]. In addition Bloodthirsty-related gene family member 5 and its duplicated copy are located on the same scaffold in catfish, suggesting that they are intra-chromosomal duplication in the catfish genome. Interestingly, this duplication pair is also located on the same chromosome in zebrafish (Table 7). Other 34 putative duplicated genes are potentially inter-chromosomal duplication because they are located on different scaffolds that have been mapped to different linkage groups [53]. Therefore, all but one of the 35 duplicated genes are inter-chromosomal, consistent with the situations in related teleost species [82].

Conclusion

In this study, integrated genome resources with BAC end sequences, physical map, linkage map and the draft genome sequences were used to conduct comparative genome analysis of the catfish LG8. The catfish LG8 was found to be homologous to two chromosomes in zebrafish, medaka, stickleback and three chromosomes in green-spotted pufferfish. Through syntenic analysis, a large number of genes were annotated on LG8. Detailed analysis of syntenic blocks suggested extensive inter- and intra-chromosomal rearrangements in the catfish genome, with certain BAC contigs identified to contain evolutionary fusion junctions. A set of potentially duplicated genes was identified. As a pilot project, this work provided the proofs of the principle for whole genome comparative mapping, and for whole genome sequence assembly and annotation.

Methods

Establishing chromosome-scale scaffolds

The flow chart of this work is illustrated in Figure 2. This work started with genetically mapped BAC end sequences using microsatellite markers [53], the catfish physical map [71], the BAC end sequences, and the draft catfish genome sequence contigs (unpublished data). The BAC end sequences were previously described and they were deposited to GenBank [9, 48]. The basic concept is that when one BAC end sequence is mapped to LG8, the entire BAC contig is mapped to LG8. BAC clones within the same BAC contigs as the mapped BAC clones were identified through the examination of the catfish physical map [71]. All available BAC end sequences within the BAC contigs were then collected from the NCBI database. A total of 1,645 BAC end sequences were obtained and used to conduct BLAST searches against the draft catfish genome sequence database with E-value ≤1E-10. The genome sequence contigs that were “mapped” to LG8 were filtered with high stringent bit scores ≥ 400 to ensure the identification of true homologous sequences.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2164-14-387/MediaObjects/12864_2012_Article_5102_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Flowchart of establishing chromosome-scale scaffolds.

Gene identification on LG8

The mapped genome sequence contigs were repeat-masked using RepeatMasker (version 3.2.7, http://www.repeatmasker.org/) to mask repetitive sequences before the BLASTX search for gene identification. The repeat-masked genome sequence contigs were used as queries for BLASTX search against the ENSEMBL zebrafish protein database (Danio rerio Zv9.67) with an E-value cutoff of 1E-10. Gene annotation information was retrieved by BioMart (http://www.biomart.org) with ENSEMBL gene IDs. For uncharacterized genes in ENSEMBL, BLAST search was conducted against NCBI nr database to obtain the gene annotation information.

Identification of homologous chromosomes

The homologous chromosomes and gene locations in zebrafish were obtained using BioMart with the unique ENSEMBL gene IDs. For medaka, stickleback and green-spotted pufferfish, similarly, BLASTX searches were conducted using gene-coding sequences. The coding sequences as query were searched against protein databases: medaka (MEDAKA1.68), stickleback (BROADS1.68) and green-spotted pufferfish (TETRAODON8.68) with the E-value cutoff of 1E-10, respectively. The homologous chromosomes and gene locations were then identified by BioMart. Homologous chromosomes were identified as the chromosomes with high number of gene hits.

Identification of conserved syntenies

Conserved syntenies were identified based on genetic positions of BAC end associated microsatellite markers, the associated genes on the linkage map and model fish chromosomal locations. Putative conserved syntenies were established when the genes were located in the same chromosome and the same linkage group. Microsyntenic blocks were identified based on genes included within BAC contigs of the catfish physical map and their locations on one chromosome of model fish. The putative conserved microsyntenies were identified as segments of model fish chromosomes with a set of adjacent genes that are homologous to a set of adjacent genes in catfish that are reflected by their colocation within a single BAC contig. For the BAC contigs with significant hits on more than one model fish chromosomes, e.g., ctg0123, ctg2577 and ctg2102 were mapped on both zebrafish chromosome 7 and chromosome 2, the physical maps with high stringent cutoff value: 10-40, 10-30 and 10-25 were checked to determine if these BAC contigs were incorrectly assembled in the physical map which was constructed using a cutoff value of 10-20[71].

Comparative maps were constructed by using MapChart [83]. The BAC contigs were anchored to the linkage group based on the BES-associated microsatellite markers. The comparative maps were then drawn based on the positions of BAC contigs on catfish LG8 and the gene locations on model fish chromosomes.

Analysis of gene duplication on LG8

All the 287 genes on LG8 were used as queries to search against catfish whole genome sequence assembly (unpublished data) to identify potential duplicated genes. Theoretically, the genes with significant hits to different genomic regions (e.g., different genome contigs) should represent duplicated genes. However, the current catfish genome assembly is still incomplete. Therefore, the genes with hits of multiple genomic contigs were used as a starting point for further analysis and visual inspections. All the catfish genome contigs involved in potential duplications were retrieved and visually checked by sequence alignments using BLASTN at a cutoff value of 1E-10 and minimum alignment length of 100 bp. The nature of duplicated genes were determined by examination of their genomic locations, with the understanding that if they are located in the same contig or scaffold, then the duplicated genes are tandem or intra-chromosome, but not inter-chromosome. In contrast, if they are located in different scaffolds, they are candidates for inter-chromosomal duplications, pending mapping of the two scaffolds to different chromosomes.

To determine if the duplicated genes in the catfish genome are also duplicated in the zebrafish genome, duplicated genes in catfish were used as queries to search against the ENSEMBL zebrafish protein database using the Web based ENSEMBL BLAST (cutoff of 1E-10) to determine the genomic locations and coordinates of these genes. The hits with high stringencies (alignment score ≥ 1000) were considered as duplications.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2009-35205-05101, 2010-65205-20356 and 2012-67015-19410 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Thanks are given to Alabama Supercomputer Center for providing the computer capacity for the bioinformatic analysis. Yu Zhang, Shikai Liu and Chao Li are supported by a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council (CSC) for studying abroad.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures and Program of Cell and Molecular Biosciences, Aquatic Genomics Unit, The Fish Molecular Genetics and Biotechnology Laboratory, Auburn University
(2)
Catfish Genetics Research Unit, USDA-ARS

References

  1. Fujiyama A, Watanabe H, Toyoda A, Taylor TD, Itoh T, Tsai S-F, Park H-S, Yaspo M-L, Lehrach H, Chen Z, Fu G, Saitou N, Osoegawa K, DeJong PJ, Suto Y, Hattori M, Sakaki Y: Construction and Analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map. Science. 2002, 295: 131-134. 10.1126/science.1065199.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Gregory SG, Sekhon M, Schein J, Zhao S, Osoegawa K, Scott CE, Evans RS, Burridge PW, Cox TV, Fox CA, Hutton RD, Mullenger IR, Phillips KJ, Smith J, Stalker J, Threadgold GJ, Birney E, Wylie K, Chinwalla A, Wallis J, Hillier L, Carter J, Gaige T, Jaeger S, Kremitzki C, Layman D, Maas J, McGrane R, Mead K, Walker R, et al: A physical map of the mouse genome. Nature. 2002, 418: 743-750. 10.1038/nature00957.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Larkin DM, Everts-Van Der WA, Rebeiz M, Schweitzer PA, Bachman S, Green C, Wright CL, Campos EJ, Benson LD, Edwards J, Liu L, Osoegawa K, Womack JE, De Jong PJ, Lewin HA: A cattle-human comparative map built with cattle BAC-ends and human genome sequence. Genome Res. 2003, 13: 1966-1972.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Meyers SN, Rogatcheva MB, Larkin DM, Yerle M, Milan D, Hawken RJ, Schook LB, Beever JE: Piggy-BACing the human genome: II. A high-resolution, physically anchored, comparative map of the porcine autosomes. Genomics. 2005, 86: 739-752. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2005.04.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Leeb T, Vogl C, Zhu B, de Jong PJ, Binns MM, Chowdhary BP, Scharfe M, Jarek M, Nordsiek G, Schrader F, Bloker H: A human-horse comparative map based on equine BAC end sequences. Genomics. 2006, 87: 772-776. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2006.03.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Sarropoulou E, Franch R, Louro B, Power DM, Bargelloni L, Magoulas A, Senger F, Tsalavouta M, Patarnello T, Galibert F, Kotoulas G, Geisler R: A gene-based radiation hybrid map of the gilthead sea bream Sparus aurata refines and exploits conserved synteny with Tetraodon nigroviridis. BMC Genomics. 2007, 8: 44-10.1186/1471-2164-8-44.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Sarropoulou E, Nousdili D, Magoulas A, Kotoulas G: Linking the genomes of nonmodel teleosts through comparative genomics. Mar Biotechnol (NY). 2008, 10: 227-233. 10.1007/s10126-007-9066-5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Guyomard R, Boussaha M, Krieg F, Hervet C, Quillet E: A synthetic rainbow trout linkage map provides new insights into the salmonid whole genome duplication and the conservation of synteny among teleosts. BMC Genet. 2012, 13: 15-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Liu H, Jiang Y, Wang S, Ninwichian P, Somridhivej B, Xu P, Abernathy J, Kucuktas H, Liu Z: Comparative analysis of catfish BAC end sequences with the zebrafish genome. BMC Genomics. 2009, 10: 592-10.1186/1471-2164-10-592.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Star B, Nederbragt AJ, Jentoft S, Grimholt U, Malmstrøm M, Gregers TF, Rounge TB, Paulsen J, Solbakken MH, Sharma A, Wetten OF, Lanzén A, Winer R, Knight J, Vogel JH, Aken B, Andersen O, Lagesen K, Tooming-Klunderud A, Edvardsen RB, Tina KG, Espelund M, Nepal C, Previti C, Karlsen BO, Moum T, Skage M, Berg PR, Gjøen T, Kuhl H, et al: The genome sequence of Atlantic cod reveals a unique immune system. Nature. 2011, 477: 207-210. 10.1038/nature10342.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Aparicio S, Chapman J, Stupka E, Putnam N, Chia JM, Dehal P, Christoffels A, Rash S, Hoon S, Smit A, Gelpke MD, Roach J, Oh T, Ho IY, Wong M, Detter C, Verhoef F, Predki P, Tay A, Lucas S, Richardson P, Smith SF, Clark MS, Edwards YJ, Doggett N, Zharkikh A, Tavtigian SV, Pruss D, Barnstead M, Evans C, et al: Whole-genome shotgun assembly and analysis of the genome of Fugu rubripes. Science. 2002, 297: 1301-1310. 10.1126/science.1072104.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Jaillon O, Aury JM, Brunet F, Petit JL, Stange-Thomann N, Mauceli E, Bouneau L, Fischer C, Ozouf-Costaz C, Bernot A, Nicaud S, Jaffe D, Fisher S, Lutfalla G, Dossat C, Segurens B, Dasilva C, Salanoubat M, Levy M, Boudet N, Castellano S, Anthouard V, Jubin C, Castelli V, Katinka M, Vacherie B, Biémont C, Skalli Z, Cattolico L, Poulain J, et al: Genome duplication in the teleost fish Tetraodon nigroviridis reveals the early vertebrate proto-karyotype. Nature. 2004, 431: 946-957. 10.1038/nature03025.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kasahara M, Naruse K, Sasaki S, Nakatani Y, Qu W, Ahsan B, Yamada T, Nagayasu Y, Doi K, Kasai Y, Jindo T, Kobayashi D, Shimada A, Toyoda A, Kuroki Y, Fujiyama A, Sasaki T, Shimizu A, Asakawa S, Shimizu N, Hashimoto S, Yang J, Lee Y, Matsushima K, Sugano S, Sakaizumi M, Narita T, Ohishi K, Haga S, Ohta F, Nomoto H, Nogata K, Morishita T, Endo T, Shin-I T, Takeda H, Morishita S, Kohara Y: The medaka draft genome and insights into vertebrate genome evolution. Nature. 2007, 447: 714-719. 10.1038/nature05846.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ahsan B, Kobayashi D, Yamada T, Kasahara M, Sasaki S, Saito TL, Nagayasu Y, Doi K, Nakatani Y, Qu W, Jindo T, Shimada A, Naruse K, Toyoda A, Kuroki Y, Fujiyama A, Sasaki T, Shimizu A, Asakawa S, Shimizu N, Hashimoto S, Yang J, Lee Y, Matsushima K, Sugano S, Sakaizumi M, Narita T, Ohishi K, Haga S, Ohta F, et al: UTGB/medaka: genomic resource database for medaka biology. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008, 36: D747-D752.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones FC, Grabherr MG, Chan YF, Russell P, Mauceli E, Johnson J, Swofford R, Pirun M, Zody MC, White S, Birney E, Searle S, Schmutz J, Grimwood J, Dickson MC, Myers RM, Miller CT, Summers BR, Knecht AK, Brady SD, Zhang H, Pollen AA, Howes T, Amemiya C, Baldwin J, Bloom T, Jaffe DB, Nicol R, Wilkinson J, Lander ES, Di Palma F, Lindblad-Toh K, Kingsley DM, Broad Institute Genome Sequencing Platform Whole Genome Assembly Team: The genomic basis of adaptive evolution in threespine sticklebacks. Nature. 2012, 484: 55-61. 10.1038/nature10944.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lien S, Gidskehaug L, Moen T, Hayes BJ, Berg PR, Davidson WS, Omholt SW, Kent MP: A dense SNP-based linkage map for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) reveals extended chromosome homeologies and striking differences in sex-specific recombination patterns. BMC Genomics. 2011, 12: 615-10.1186/1471-2164-12-615.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Moen T, Hayes B, Baranski M, Berg PR, Kjoglum S, Koop BF, Davidson WS, Omholt SW, Lien S: A linkage map of the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) based on EST-derived SNP markers. BMC Genomics. 2008, 9: 223-10.1186/1471-2164-9-223.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ng SHS, Artieri CG, Bosdet IE, Chiu R, Danzmann RG, Davidson WS, Ferguson MM, Fjell CD, Hoyheim B, Jones SJM, De Jong PJ, Koop BF, Krzywinski MI, Lubieniecki K, Marra MA, Mitchell LA, Mathewson C, Osoegawa K, Parisotto SE, Phillips RB, Rise ML, Von Schalburg KR, Schein JE, Shin H, Siddiqui A, Thorsen J, Wye N, Yang G, Zhu B: A physical map of the genome of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. Genomics. 2005, 86: 396-404. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2005.06.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Rise ML, Von Schalburg KR, Brown GD, Mawer MA, Devlin RH, Kuipers N, Busby M, Beetz-Sargent M, Alberto R, Gibbs AR, Hunt P, Shukin R, Zeznik JA, Nelson C, Jones SR, Smailus DE, Jones SJ, Schein JE, Marra MA, Butterfield YS, Stott JM, Ng SH, Davidson WS, Koop BF: Development and application of a salmonid EST database and cDNA microarray: data mining and interspecific hybridization characteristics. Genome Res. 2004, 14: 478-490. 10.1101/gr.1687304.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Genet C, Dehais P, Palti Y, Gao G, Gavory F, Wincker P, Quillet E, Boussaha M: Analysis of BAC-end sequences in rainbow trout: content characterization and assessment of synteny between trout and other fish genomes. BMC Genomics. 2011, 12: 314-10.1186/1471-2164-12-314.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Palti Y, Genet C, Gao G, Hu Y, You FM, Boussaha M, Rexroad CE, Luo MC: A second generation integrated map of the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) genome: analysis of conserved synteny with model fish genomes. Mar Biotechnol (NY). 2012, 14: 343-357. 10.1007/s10126-011-9418-z.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Palti Y, Genet C, Luo MC, Charlet A, Gao G, Hu Y, Castaño-Sánchez C, Tabet-Canale K, Krieg F, Yao J, Vallejo RL, Rexroad CE: A first generation integrated map of the rainbow trout genome. BMC Genomics. 2011, 12: 180-10.1186/1471-2164-12-180.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Palti Y, Luo MC, Hu Y, Genet C, You FM, Vallejo RL, Thorgaard GH, Wheeler PA, Rexroad CE: A first generation BAC-based physical map of the rainbow trout genome. BMC Genomics. 2009, 10: 462-10.1186/1471-2164-10-462.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rexroad CE, Palti Y, Gahr SA, Vallejo RL: A second generation genetic map for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). BMC Genet. 2008, 9: 74-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Guyomard R, Mauger S, Tabet-Canale K, Martineau S, Genet C, Krieg F, Quillet E: A type I and type II microsatellite linkage map of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) with presumptive coverage of all chromosome arms. BMC Genomics. 2006, 7: 302-10.1186/1471-2164-7-302.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Guyon R, Rakotomanga M, Azzouzi N, Coutanceau JP, Bonillo C, D'Cotta H, Pepey E, Soler L, Rodier-Goud M, D'Hont A, Conte MA, Van Bers NE, Penman DJ, Hitte C, Crooijmans RP, Kocher TD, Ozouf-Costaz C, Baroiller JF, Galibert F: A high-resolution map of the Nile tilapia genome: a resource for studying cichlids and other percomorphs. BMC Genomics. 2012, 13: 222-10.1186/1471-2164-13-222.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Bers NE, Crooijmans RP, Groenen MA, Dibbits BW, Komen J: SNP markerdetection and genotyping in tilapia. Mol Ecol Resour. 2012, 12: 932-941. 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2012.03144.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Soler L, Conte MA, Katagiri T, Howe AE, Lee BY, Amemiya C, Stuart A, Dossat C, Poulain J, Johnson J, Di Palma F, Lindblad-Toh K, Baroiller JF, D'Cotta H, Ozouf-Costaz C, Kocher TD: Comparative physical maps derived from BAC end sequences of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). BMC Genomics. 2010, 11: 636-10.1186/1471-2164-11-636.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee BY, Howe AE, Conte MA, D'Cotta H, Pepey E, Baroiller JF, di Palma F, Carleton KL, Kocher TD: An EST resource for tilapia based on 17 normalized libraries and assembly of 116,899 sequence tags. BMC Genomics. 2010, 11: 278-10.1186/1471-2164-11-278.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Katagiri T, Kidd C, Tomasino E, Davis JT, Wishon C, Stern JE, Carleton KL, Howe AE, Kocher TD: A BAC-based physical map of the Nile tilapia genome. BMC Genomics. 2005, 6: 89-10.1186/1471-2164-6-89.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee BY, Lee WJ, Streelman JT, Carleton KL, Howe AE, Hulata G, Slettan A, Stern JE, Terai Y, Kocher TD: A second-generation genetic linkage map of tilapia (Oreochromis spp.). Genetics. 2005, 170: 237-244. 10.1534/genetics.104.035022.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuhl H, Sarropoulou E, Tine M, Kotoulas G, Magoulas A, Reinhardt R: A Comparative BAC map for the gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata L.). J Biomed Biotechnol. 2011, 2011: 329025-PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Franch R, Louro B, Tsalavouta M, Chatziplis D, Tsigenopoulos CS, Sarropoulou E, Antonello J, Magoulas A, Mylonas CC, Babbucci M, Patarnello T, Power DM, Kotoulas G, Bargelloni L: A genetic linkage map of the hermaphrodite teleost fish Sparus aurata L. Genetics. 2006, 174: 851-861. 10.1534/genetics.106.059014.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Senger F, Priat C, Hitte C, Sarropoulou E, Franch R, Geisler R, Bargelloni L, Power D, Galibert F: The first radiation hybrid map of a perch-like fish: The gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata L). Genomics. 2006, 87: 793-800. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2005.11.019.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Chistiakov DA, Tsigenopoulos CS, Lagnel J, Guo YM, Hellemans B, Haley CS, Volckaert FA, Kotoulas G: A combined AFLP and microsatellite linkage map and pilot comparative genomic analysis of European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax L. Anim Genet. 2008, 39: 623-634. 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2008.01786.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Guyon R, Senger F, Rakotomanga M, Sadequi N, Volckaert FA, Hitte C, Galibert F: A radiation hybrid map of the European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) based on 1581 markers: Synteny analysis with model fish genomes. Genomics. 2010, 96: 228-238. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2010.07.007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuhl H, Beck A, Wozniak G, Canario AV, Volckaert FA, Reinhardt R: The European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax genome puzzle: comparative BAC-mapping and low coverage shotgun sequencing. BMC Genomics. 2010, 11: 68-10.1186/1471-2164-11-68.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Chistiakov DA, Hellemans B, Haley CS, Law AS, Tsigenopoulos CS, Kotoulas G, Bertotto D, Libertini A, Volckaert FA: A microsatellite linkage map of the European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax L. Genetics. 2005, 170: 1821-1826. 10.1534/genetics.104.039719.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Whitaker HA, McAndrew BJ, Taggart JB: Construction and characterization of a BAC library for the European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax. Anim Genet. 2006, 37: 526-10.1111/j.1365-2052.2006.01514.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Liu Z: A review of catfish genomics: progress and perspectives. Comp Funct Genomics. 2003, 4: 259-265. 10.1002/cfg.265.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Liu Z C: [Kole C (Series Editor): Genome Mapping and Genomics in Animals, vol. 2]. Genome Mapping and Genomics in Fishes and Aquatic Animals Volume 2. Edited by: Kocher T, Kole C. 2008, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 85-100.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Sarropoulou E, Fernandes JM: Comparative genomics in teleost species: Knowledge transfer by linking the genomes of model and non-model fish species. Comp Biochem Physiol Part D Genomics Proteomics. 2011, 6: 92-102. 10.1016/j.cbd.2010.09.003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Norman JD, Robinson M, Glebe B, Ferguson MM, Danzmann RG: Genomic arrangement of salinity tolerance QTLs in salmonids: a comparative analysis of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) with Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and rainbow trout. BMC Genomics. 2012, 13: 420-10.1186/1471-2164-13-420.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Ravi V, Venkatesh B: Rapidly evolving fish genomes and teleost diversity. Curr Opin Genet Development. 2008, 18: 544-550. 10.1016/j.gde.2008.11.001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. He C, Chen L, Simmons M, Li P, Kim S, Liu ZJ: Putative SNP discovery in interspecific hybrids of catfish by comparative EST analysis. Anim Genet. 2003, 34: 445-448. 10.1046/j.0268-9146.2003.01054.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Serapion J, Kucuktas H, Feng J, Liu Z: Bioinformatic mining of type I microsatellites from expressed sequence tags of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Mar Biotechnol (NY). 2004, 6: 364-377. 10.1007/s10126-003-0039-z.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Somridhivej B, Wang S, Sha Z, Liu H, Quilang J, Xu P, Li P, Hu Z, Liu Z: Characterization, polymorphism assessment, and database construction for microsatellites from BAC end sequences of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus): A resource for integration of linkage and physical maps. Aquaculture. 2008, 275: 76-80. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.01.013.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Xu P, Wang S, Liu L, Peatman E, Somridhivej B, Thimmapuram J, Gong G, Liu Z: Channel catfish BAC-end sequences for marker development and assessment of syntenic conservation with other fish species. Anim Genet. 2006, 37: 321-326. 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2006.01453.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Liu S, Zhou Z, Lu J, Sun F, Wang S, Liu H, Jiang Y, Kucuktas H, Kaltenboeck L, Peatman E, Liu Z: Generation of genome-scale gene-associated SNPs in catfish for the construction of a high-density SNP array. BMC Genomics. 2011, 12: 53-10.1186/1471-2164-12-53.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Liu Z, Karsi A, Li P, Cao D, Dunham R: An AFLP-based genetic linkage map of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) constructed by using an interspecific hybrid resource family. Genetics. 2003, 165: 687-694.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Waldbieser GC, Bosworth BG, Nonneman DJ, Wolters WR: A microsatellite-based genetic linkage map for channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus. Genetics. 2001, 158: 727-734.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Kucuktas H, Wang S, Li P, He C, Xu P, Sha Z, Liu H, Jiang Y, Baoprasertkul P, Somridhivej B, Wang Y, Abernathy J, Guo X, Liu L, Muir W, Liu Z: Construction of Genetic Linkage Maps and Comparative Genome Analysis of Catfish Using Gene-associated Markers. Genetics. 2009, 181: 1649-1660. 10.1534/genetics.108.098855.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Ninwichian P, Peatman E, Liu H, Kucuktas H, Somridhivej B, Liu S, Li P, Jiang Y, Sha Z, Kaltenboeck L, Abernathy JW, Wang W, Chen F, Lee Y, Wong L, Wang S, Lu J, Liu Z: Second-generation genetic linkage map of catfish and its integration with the BAC-based physical map. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics. 2012, 2: 1233-41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Cao D, Kocabas A, Ju Z, Karsi A, Li P, Patterson A, Liu Z: Transcriptome of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus): initial analysis of genes and expression profiles of the head kidney. Anim Genet. 2001, 32: 169-188. 10.1046/j.1365-2052.2001.00753.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Ju Z, Karsi A, Kocabas A, Patterson A, Li P, Cao D, Dunham R, Liu Z: Transcriptome analysis of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus): genes and expression profile from the brain. Gene. 2000, 261: 373-382. 10.1016/S0378-1119(00)00491-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Karsi A, Cao D, Li P, Patterson A, Kocabas A, Feng J, Ju Z, Mickett KD, Liu Z: Transcriptome analysis of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus): initial analysis of gene expression and microsatellite-containing cDNAs in the skin. Gene. 2002, 285: 157-168. 10.1016/S0378-1119(02)00414-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Kocabas AM, Li P, Cao D, Karsi A, He C, Patterson A, Ju Z, Dunham RA, Liu Z: Expression profile of the channel catfish spleen: analysis of genes involved in immune functions. Mar Biotechnol (NY). 2002, 4: 526-536. 10.1007/s10126-002-0067-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Li P, Peatman E, Wang S, Feng J, He C, Baoprasertkul P, Xu P, Kucuktas H, Nandi S, Somridhivej B, Serapion J, Simmons M, Turan C, Liu L, Muir W, Dunham R, Brady Y, Grizzle J, Liu Z: Towards the ictalurid catfish transcriptome: generation and analysis of 31,215 catfish ESTs. BMC Genomics. 2007, 8: 177-10.1186/1471-2164-8-177.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang S, Abernathy J, Waldbieser G, Lindquist E, Richardson P, Lucas S, Wang M, Li P, Thimmapuram J, Liu L, Vullaganti D, Kucuktas H, Murdock C, Small B, Wilson M, Liu H, Jiang Y, Lee Y, Chen F, Lu J, Wang W, Peatman E, Xu P, Somridhivej B, Baoprasertkul P, Quilang J, Sha Z, Bao B, Wang Y, Wang Q, Takano T, Nandi S, Liu S, Wong L, Kaltenboeck L, Quiniou S, Bengten E, Miller N, Trant J, Rokhsar D, Liu Z: Catfish Genome Consortium: Assembly of 500,000 inter-specific catfish expressed sequence tags and large scale gene-associated marker development for whole genome association studies. Genome Biol. 2010, 11: R8-10.1186/gb-2010-11-1-r8.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Ju Z, Dunham RA, Liu Z: Differential gene expression in the brain of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) in response to cold acclimation. Mol Genet Genomics. 2002, 268: 87-95. 10.1007/s00438-002-0727-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Li RW, Waldbieser GC: Production and utilization of a highdensity oligonucleotide microarray in channel catfish. Ictalurus punctatus. BMC Genomics. 2006, 7: 134-10.1186/1471-2164-7-134.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Liu Z, Li RW, Waldbieser GC: Utilization of microarray technology for functional genomics in ictalurid catfish. J Fish Biol. 2008, 72: 2377-2390. 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.01898.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Peatman E, Baoprasertkul P, Terhune J, Xu P, Nandi S, Kucuktas H, Li P, Wang S, Somridhivej B, Dunham R, Liu Z: Expression analysis of the acute phase response in channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) after infection with a Gram-negative bacterium. Development Comp Immunol. 2007, 31: 1183-1196. 10.1016/j.dci.2007.03.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Peatman E, Terhune J, Baoprasertkul P, Xu P, Nandi S, Wang S, Somridhivej B, Kucuktas H, Li P, Dunham R, Liu Z: Microarray analysis of gene expression in the blue catfish liver reveals early activation of the MHC class I pathway after infection with Edwardsiella ictaluri. Mol Immunol. 2008, 45: 553-566. 10.1016/j.molimm.2007.05.012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Li C, Zhang Y, Wang R, Lu J, Nandi S, Mohanty S, Terhune J, Liu ZJ, Peatman E: RNA-Seq analysis of mucosal immune responses reveals signatures of intestinal barrier disruption and pathogen entry following Edwardsiella ictaluri infection in channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2012, 32: 816-827. 10.1016/j.fsi.2012.02.004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Sun F, Peatman E, Li C, Liu S, Jiang Y, Zhou Z, Liu Z: Transcriptomic signatures of attachment, NF-kB suppression and IFN stimulation in the catfish gill following columnaris bacterial infection. Dev Comp Immunol. 2012, 38: 169-180. 10.1016/j.dci.2012.05.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Liu S, Zhang Y, Zhou Z, Waldbieser G, Sun F, Lu J, Zhang J, Jiang Y, Zhang H, Wang X, Rajendran KV, Kucuktas H, Peatman E, Liu Z: Efficient assembly and annotation of the transcriptome of catfish by RNA-Seq analysis of a doubled haploid homozygote. BMC Genomics. 2012, 13: 595-10.1186/1471-2164-13-595.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Quiniou SM, Katagiri T, Miller NW, Wilson M, Wolters WR, Waldbieser GC: Construction and characterization of a BAC library from a gynogenetic channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus. Genet Sel Evol. 2003, 35: 673-683. 10.1186/1297-9686-35-7-673.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Wang S, Xu P, Thorsen J, Zhu B, De Jong PJ, Waldbieser G, Kucuktas H, Liu Z: Characterization of a BAC library from channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus: indications of high levels of chromosomal reshuffling among teleost genomes. Mar Biotechnol (NY). 2007, 9: 701-711. 10.1007/s10126-007-9021-5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Quiniou SM, Waldbieser GC, Duke MV: A first generation BAC based physical map of the channel catfish genome. BMC Genomics. 2007, 8: 40-10.1186/1471-2164-8-40.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Xu P, Wang S, Liu L, Thorsen J, Kucuktas H, Liu Z: A BAC-based physical map of the channel catfish genome. Genomics. 2007, 90: 380-388. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2007.05.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Meyer A, Van de Peer Y: From 2R to 3R: evidence for a fish-specific genome duplication (FSGD). Bioessays. 2005, 27: 937-945. 10.1002/bies.20293.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Woods IG, Wilson C, Friedlander B, Chang P, Reyes DK, Nix R, Kelly PD, Chu F, Postlethwait JH, Talbot WS: The zebrafish gene map defines ancestral vertebrate chromosomes. Genome Res. 2005, 15: 1307-1314. 10.1101/gr.4134305.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Liu S, Zhang Y, Sun F, Jiang Y, Wang R, Li C, Zhang J: Functional Genomics Research in Aquaculture: Principles and General Approaches. Functional Genomics in Aquaculture. Edited by: Saroglia M, Liu ZJ. 2011, Oxford, UK: Wiley and Blackwell, 1-40.Google Scholar
  75. McLysaght A, Hokamp K, Wolfe KH: Extensive genomic duplication during early chordate evolution. Nat Genet. 2002, 31: 200-204. 10.1038/ng884.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Dehal P, Boore JL: Two rounds of whole genome duplication in the ancestral vertebrate. PLoS Biol. 2005, 3: 1700-1708.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Taylor JS, Van de Peer Y, Braasch I, Meyer A: Comparative genomics provides evidence for an ancient genome duplication in fish. Phil Trans Roy Soc. 2001, 356: 1661-1679. 10.1098/rstb.2001.0975.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Prohaska SJ, Stadler PF: The duplication of the Hox gene clusters in teleost fishes. Theory Biosci. 2004, 23: 89-110.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Otto SP: The evolutionary consequences of polyploidy. Cell. 2007, 131: 452-462. 10.1016/j.cell.2007.10.022.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Nakatani Y, Takeda H, Kohara Y, Morishita S: Reconstruction of the vertebrate ancestral genome reveals dynamic genome reorganization in early vertebrates. Genome Res. 2007, 17: 1254-1265. 10.1101/gr.6316407.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Danzmann R, Davidson E, Ferguson M, Gharbi K, Koop B, Hoyheim B, Lien S, Lubieniecki K, Moghadam H, Park J, Phillips RB, Davidson WS: Distribution of ancestral proto-Actinopterygian chromosome arms within the genomes of 4R-derivative salmonid fishes (Rainbow trout and Atlantic salmon). BMC Genomics. 2008, 9: 557-10.1186/1471-2164-9-557.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Lu J, Peatman E, Tang H, Lewis J, Liu Z: Profiling of gene duplication patterns of sequenced teleost genomes: evidence for rapid lineage-specific genome expansion mediated by recent tandem duplications. BMC Genomics. 2012, 13: 246-10.1186/1471-2164-13-246.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Voorrips RE: MapChart: software for the graphical presentation of linkage maps and QTLs. J Hered. 2002, 93: 77-78. 10.1093/jhered/93.1.77.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Zhang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.