Printer Friendly

Chromosomal rearrangement in Pectinidae revealed by rRNA loci and implications for bivalve evolution.

Introduction

Chromosomal changes, particularly polyploidy, have played a significant role in the evolution of plants, and most higher plants are recent polyploids (DeWit, 1980). Although polyploidy is relatively rare in animals, chromosomal changes are increasingly recognized as an important force in animal evolution. It is hypothesized that two rounds of genomic duplication occurred during the evolution of vertebrates leading to humans (Furlong and Holland, 2002; Spring, 2002). Chromosomal rearrangements may play a role in reproductive isolation and speciation, by creating barriers to meiotic pairing and reducing the fitness of hybrids (White, 1978; King, 1993). Genic theories, on the other hand, stress the importance of accumulation of genic mutations in reproductive isolation. Recent findings of effects of chromosomal rearrangements on recombination have bridged the gap between the chromosomal and genic theories of reproductive isolation, arguing for a major role of chromosomal changes in speciation (Rieseberg, 2001; Navarro and Barton, 2003). However, the extent of chromosomal changes and their roles in speciation are poorly understood in many animal taxa, including marine bivalves. Many marine bivalves are sympatric broadcast spawners whose mechanisms of reproductive isolation are particularly interesting but largely unknown. Chromosomal studies may provide a unique perspective on the evolution of marine bivalves.

Scallops, members of family Pectinidae, are widely distributed in world oceans. Scallops are characterized by two mostly equal and round valves with a byssal notch and ctenolium on the right valve. Most scallops are free living and mobile, and inhabit the surface of subtidal bottoms. Some species may use byssal threads for temporary attachment or cement themselves permanently onto hard surfaces. The earliest representative of Pectinidae appeared in the Triassic period about 230 million years ago, but most groups did not emerge until the early Paleocene, or 65 million years ago (Waller, 1991). The family contains about 360 living species, and many of them are important for fishery and aquaculture production. Chromosome number and karyotype have so far been studied in 16 species of scallops (Beaumont and Gruffydd, 1974; Komaru and Wada, 1985; Insua et al., 1998; Pauls and Affonso, 2000). Chromosome number and karyotype vary considerably. While most of the species have a haploid number of 19 chromosomes, some have 16 (Wada, 1978; Komaru and Wada, 1985), and one species, Aequipecten opercularis, has 13 (Beaumont and Gruffydd, 1974). Even among species with 19 pairs of chromosomes, variation in karyotype is apparent, and the number of telocentric chromosomes varies from zero in Chlamys farreri to 14 in Pecten maximus and P. albicans (Beaumont and Gruffydd, 1974; Komaru and Wada, 1985).

Clearly, significant changes in chromosome number and structure occurred during the evolution of Pectinidae. However, detailed analysis of chromosomal changes in scallops is hindered by the inability to identify individual chromosomes. Chromosome identification remains difficult in scallops as well as in most marine bivalves, primarily due to the lack of cell lines needed for preparing elongated chromosomes. Chromosome identification by traditional banding and using embryonic material is possible, but not practical. C-banding analysis has been studied in the queen scallop Aequipecten opercularis, but banding characteristics were not distinctive or reliable for routine chromosome identification (Insua et al., 1998). Nucleolar organizer regions (NORs) have been studied in the queen scallop and the chilean-peruvian scallop Argopecten purpuratus (Insua et al., 1998; Gajardo et al., 2002), although NOR sites are not always reliable as chromosomal landmarks (Pauls and Affonso, 2000; Wang et al., 2004). Recently, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has been used for chromosomal identification and karyotypic analysis in marine bivalves, providing clear and unambiguous identification of some chromosomes (e.g., Insua et al., 2001; Xu et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2004). The major (18S-5.8S-28S) and minor (5S) ribosomal RNA genes have been assigned to the chromosomes of Aequipecten opercularis (Insua et al., 1998).

Major and minor rRNA genes are two distinct families of ribosomal RNA genes in higher eukaryotes. The two gene families are relatively independent of each other and often organized into separate loci on the same or different chromosomes (Martins and Galetti, 2001; Liu et al., 2002). The major rRNA genes correspond to NORs and sometimes can be visualized by silver-staining. Both gene families are present in large numbers of tandem repeats, making them ideal targets for FISH. We studied the karyotype and chromosomal localization of the major and 5S rRNA genes by FISH in zhikong (C. farreri) and bay (A. irradians irradians) scallops, two Pectinid species with different haploid numbers. Surprisingly, the species with the lower haploid number (A. i. irradians, n = 16) had three rRNA-bearing chromosomes, while the species with the higher haploid number (C. farreri, n = 19) had one, suggesting that the karyotype of the latter is pleisomorphic.

Materials and Methods

Chromosome preparation

The zhikong scallops (Chlamys farreri Jones and Preston 1904) and bay scallops (Argopecten irradians irradians Lamarck 1819) used in this study were from hatcheries in Shandong, China. C. farreri is a native species of China and commonly found along much of that country's north and central coasts as well as in waters off Korea and Japan. A. i. irradians is native to the Atlantic coast of North America, and it was introduced to China in 1982 (Zhang et al., 1986). C. farreri and A. i. irradians are the two most important scallop species cultured in China.

Metaphase chromosomes were prepared from early embryos, using the procedures described in Guo et al. (1992). Briefly, early embryos were treated with 0.005% colchicine for 15 min and 0.075 M KCl for 12 min, before being fixed in freshly prepared fixative, 1:3 (v:v) acetic acid and methanol. The fixative was changed at least twice, with a 15-min duration each time. The fixed samples were stored in the fixative at 4 [degrees]C until use. Chromosome samples were prepared by loading the fixed cell suspension onto preheated slides and air-dried. Slides were stored at 4 [degrees]C before FISH analysis.

Probe construction

Genomic DNA was extracted from adductor muscle by proteinase K digestion, according to the method described by Doyle and Doyle (1987). A fragment of the targeted ribosomal RNA locus was amplified, labeled with digoxigenin-11-dUTP (alkali-stable) by PCR incorporation. Digoxigenin-11-dUTP and all other PCR reagents were purchased from Roche Diagnostics (Indianapols, IN). Intergenic transcribed spacers between the 18S and 5.8S rRNA genes (ITS1) were used as probes for the major rRNA genes. The primer sequences were 5'-GGTTTCTGTAGGTGAACCTGC and 5'-CTGCGTTCTTCATCGACCC. For the 5S rRNA gene, primers were designed based on the published sequence of mussel Mytilus edulis 5S rRNA (GenBank accession no. J01869; Fang et al., 1982): 5'-GTCTACGACCATATCACGTTGAAAA and 5'-TGTCTACAACACCCGGTATTCCC. The PCR reaction mixture (25 [micro]l) contained 1.5 mM of Mg[Cl.sub.2]; 0.2 mM each of dATP, dCTP, and dGTP; 0.13 mM dTTP; 0.07 mM digoxigenin-11-dUTP (for labeling); 0.63 U Taq DNA polymerase; 0.4 mg/ml BSA; 1 [micro]M of each primer; and 1 [micro]g of genomic DNA. The PCR reaction was performed using a DeltaCycler II System thermal cycler, with an initial 5-min denaturation at 95 [degrees]C; followed by 35 cycles of 1-min denaturation at 95 [degrees]C, 1-min annealing at 50 [degrees]C, and 1-min extension at 72 [degrees]C; and a final 5-min extension at 72 [degrees]C. PCR products were evaluated on 1% (w:v) agarose gels and visualized by 1 [micro]g/ml ethidium bromide staining and ultraviolet illumination.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization

FISH was carried out according to Guo and Allen (1997a), with slight modifications. Chromosomes were pretreated by incubating the slides in 2X SSC (0.3 M sodium chloride, 0.03 M sodium citrate, pH 7.0) for 30 min at 37 [degrees]C; dehydrated in 70%, 80%, and 95% ethanol for 2 min each; and air-dried. Chromosomes were denatured in 70% formamide in 2X SSC (pH 7.0) at 72 [degrees]C for 2 min and then dehydrated in a cold ethanol series (70%, 80%, and 95%) and air-dried. The labeled probes were diluted in hybridization solution, 65% formamide in 2X SSC, at a ratio of 1:15; denatured at 72 [degrees]C for 5 min; and placed immediately on ice. Probe mixture (15-20 [micro]l) was applied to each denatured slide, covered with a glass coverslip, and sealed with rubber cement. For dual-hybridization of two probes on the same metaphase, two probes were denatured and mixed before application. Slides were then incubated at 37 [degrees]C in a humidity incubator overnight for hybridization. After hybridization, the coverslips were removed and the slides were washed twice in 2X SSC at 72 [degrees]C for 5 min each time, with 1X PBT (0.1 M Na[H.sub.2]P[O.sub.4], 0.4% BSA, 0.1% Tween-20, pH 7.4) at room temperature for 2 min. The digoxigenin-labeled probes were detected with fluorescein-labeled anti-digoxigenin antibody. Chromosomes were counter-stained with 0.6 [micro]g/ml of propidium iodide (PI) in antifade solution (Vector Laboratories) and viewed under a Nikon epifluorescence microscope. FISH signals and karyotype were captured using a 3CCD camera and analyzed using the Image-Pro Plus 3.0 software. Chromosomes were classified according to the criteria defined by Levan et al. (1964).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Results

Probe quality

All PCR amplifications were successful and produced specific fragments as visualized on agarose gels. Amplification with ITS1 primers in Chlamys farreri generated a single fragment at about 350 bp (Fig. 1A, Lane 2). The incorporation of digoxigenin-11-dUTP shifted the PCR product to about 480 bp (Fig. 1A, Lane 3), a sign of successful labeling. In Argopecten irradians irradians, the ITS1 fragment was slightly longer than that from C. farreri, or about 380 bp (Fig. 1B, Lane 2). The labeling with digoxigenin-11-dUTP shifted the fragment to about 500 bp.

PCR amplification with 5S rRNA primers generated a single fragment of about 120 bp, the expected size, in both species (Fig. 1A, B, Lane 4). Similarly, the mobility of the PCR product shifted to about 200 bp after the incorporation of digoxigenin-11-dUTP (Lane 5), indicating that the labeling was successful.

Karyotype

Little variation in haploid number was observed among the metaphases screened in this study. The loss of one or two chromosomes was occasionally seen in a few metaphases that appeared to be overly spread. Analyses confirmed the haploid numbers previously reported for both species: 19 for C. farreri and 16 for A. i. irradians.

Fifteen metaphases that showed no chromosome overlapping or signs of chromosome loss were selected for karyotypic analysis. Chromosomes were measured after FISH. In addition to the difference in haploid number, the two species had strikingly different karyotypes. The karyotype of C. farreri consisted of the following chromosome types: three metacentric (m), four submetacentric (sm), seven submetacentric or subtelocentric (sm-st, centromeric index [+ or -] SD overlaps two categories), four subtelocentric (st), and one subtelocentric or telocentric (st-t) (Table 1). In comparison, the karyotype of A. i. irradians, 5st + 11t, contained only subtelocentric and telocentric chromosomes and no metacentric or submetacentric chromosomes (Table 2). Although the pairing of some chromosomes is subjective because of similarities in length and arm ratio, the number of different types of chromosomes clearly set the two karyotypes apart.

18S-5.8S-28S rRNA genes

The major rRNA genes were easily detected with the ITS1 probes. Strong FISH signals were found on interphase nuclei and metaphase chromosomes in both species. The number of signals per nucleus was variable, which was expected because of varying stages of the cell cycle and overlapping signals. The number of signals per metaphase was consistent. In C. farreri, the number of FISH signals per nucleus varied between one and two. For metaphases, FISH signals were consistently found on two (or one pair of) chromosomes (Fig. 2A). Karyotypic analysis indicated that the FISH signals were located on the telomeric region of the short arm of Chromosome 5 (Fig. 2H), a submetacentric or subtelocentric chromosome with a centric index of 0.25 [+ or -] 0.03. In A. i. irradians, two to four FISH signals were observed in interphase nuclei. For metaphases, FISH signals were observed on two pairs of chromosomes (Fig. 2E). Karyotypic analysis showed that the FISH signals were located on Chromosomes 4 and 8 (Fig. 2I). Both chromosomes were subtelocentric, and the FISH signals were in telomeric regions of the short arms.

5S rRNA genes

Compared with the FISH signals generated by the ITS1 probe for major rRNA genes, those from the 5S probe were relatively weak, but strong enough for unambiguous chromosomal assignment. As with ITS1, the number of signals varied in interphase nuclei but was consistent on metaphase chromosomes. In both species, FISH signals were found on two (or one pair of) chromosomes (Fig. 2B, F). In both species, the 5S locus was at an interstitial site on the long arms, about 1/3 arm length away from the telomere and 2/3 arm length from the centromere.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

To determine whether the 5S and the major rRNA genes are linked on the same chromosome, the two gene families were located on the same metaphase by dual-hybridization. In C. farreri, the two genes were located on the same chromosome (Fig. 2C, D), but in different regions. The rRNA gene-bearing chromosome was Chromosome 5 (Fig. 2H), as previously shown. In A. i. irradians, the 5S genes were not associated with the two chromosome pairs that carried the major rRNA genes (Fig. 2G). Instead, they were located on Chromosome 10, a telocentric chromosome (Fig. 2H).

The karyotypic characteristics of C. farreri and A. i. irradians are summarized in Table 3, along with those of 14 other species studied so far. In addition to differences in haploid number and chromosome morphology, the number and distribution of rRNA gene loci represent another major difference between C. farreri and A. i. irradians. C. farreri had only one chromosome carrying rRNA genes, while A. i. irradians had three. C. farreri had 38 chromosomal arms, while A. i. irradians had 21.

Discussion

Karyotype and rRNA loci

This study provides unambiguous chromosomal mapping of the major (18S-5.8S-28S) and minor (5S) rRNA genes in Chlamys farreri and Argopecten i. irradians. As far as we can determine, this is the first time that specific genes have been assigned to chromosomes in the two scallop species. Before this study, chromosomal location of ribosomal RNA genes had been determined using FISH in only one species of scallops--Aequipecten opercularis (Insua et al., 1998). In Nodipecten nodosus and Argopecten purpuratus, two to three Ag-NOR sites were reported at variable locations (Pauls and Affonso, 2000; Gajardo et al., 2002). NORs are supposed to be actively transcribed rRNA sites; however, the number and location of NORs are often variable and may not always provide accurate location of the major rRNA genes (Wang et al., 2004).

This study provides a karyotype for A. i. irradians, which has not been described before. The karyotype we describe, 5st + 11t, is identical to that of another species of the same genus, A. purpuratus, described by Gajardo et al. (2002); it differs, however, from the A. purpuratus karyotype of Von Brand et al. (1990) (Table 3). As pointed out by Gajardo et al. (2002), the karyotype of Von Brand et al. (1990) may not be based on proper measurements. The karyotype of C. farreri we describe is similar to that described by Komaru and Wada (1985) for the same species.

Modal haploid number and karyotype of Pectinidae

The findings of this study, along with available data from the literature (Table 3), support the hypothesis that the haploid number, n = 19, is the modal or ancestral number for Pectinidae. This hypothesis is based on the fact that most of the species across four genera studied so far have a haploid number of 19 (White, 1954; Beaumont and Zouros, 1991). The other chromosome numbers, n = 13 in Aequipecten opercularis and n = 16 in Argopecten purpuratus, were considered as derived primarily because they were less frequent (Beaumont and Gruffydd, 1974; Insua et al., 1998; Gajardo et al., 2002). The assumption that common features are pleisomorphic is not necessarily true. This study provides another and perhaps more convincing evidence that 19 is the modal haploid number of Pectinidae. The finding that C. farreri (n = 19) has one major rRNA locus and one rRNA-bearing chromosome while A. i. irradians (n = 16) has two major rRNA loci and three rRNA-bearing chromosomes suggests that the karyotype of C. farreri is pleisomorphic and that of A. i. irradians is derived. A single locus for rRNA genes is considered as the ancestral state within taxa (Hsu et al., 1975). It is more likely that the one rRNA-bearing chromosome in C. farreri splits into three chromosomes than that the three chromosomes consolidate into one. In vertebrates, the major and 5S rRNA genes are rarely located on the same chromosome (Schmid et al., 1987; Lucchini et al., 1993; Makinen et al., 1997). The two gene families are found on the same chromosome in the nematode Meloidogyne arenaria (Vahidi et al., 1991) and in the gastropod periwinkle Melarhaphe neritoides (Colomba et al., 2002).

Given that n = 19 is the ancestral haploid number, the karyotype of C. farreri, which has the highest number of chromosomal arms (38, Table 3), is probably the closest representative of the ancestral karyotype of Pectinidae. Karyotypes with metacentric or submetacentric chromosomes are considered as more pleisomorphic than those with telocentric and subtelocentric chromosomes (Thiriot-Quievreux, 1994). We argue that karyotypic changes in Pectinidae started with a karyotype with a haploid number of 19 and 38 arms, similar to that of C. farreri, and involved gradual loss of arms by deletion and of whole chromosomes by fusion, leading to all other variant karyotypes in Pectinidae.

Fossil records suggest that the Aequipecten group (including Argopecten) is a descendent of the Chlamys stem group from about 60 million years ago (Waller, 1991). Phylogenetic trees constructed using molecular data are consistent with fossil records and also indicate that the Aequipecten group is derived from the Chlamys group (Rice et al., 1993; Barucca et al., 2004). Interestingly, three species with reduced chromosome numbers, Aequipecten opercularis, A. i. irradians and Chlamys glabra (Table 3), are found in a single clade distal from the root on the phylogenetic tree of Barucca et al. (2004), supporting our conclusion that karyotype of A. i. irradians is derived.

Chromosomal rearrangements in Pectinidae

Robertsonian centric fusion has been used to explain chromosome number reductions in Pectinidae. Beaumount and Zouros (1991) postulated that the Chlamys nobilis karyotype (n = 16), which has 3 metacentric and 13 telocentric chromosomes (Komaru and Wada, 1985), may be derived from the n = 19 karyotype, by Robertsonian fusion of three pairs of telocentric chromosomes. Similarly, the karyotype of Aequipecten opercularis (n = 13), which has 6 metacentric and submetacentric chromosomes and 7 telocentric chromosomes, can also be explained by Robertsonian fusion (Beaumont and Gruffydd, 1974; Insua et al., 1998).

There is no question that centric fusion plays a role in chromosome number reduction in Pectinidae. However, the karyotype of A. i. irradians described in this study and that of A. purpuratus (Gajardo et al., 2002), both with a reduced haploid number of 16 and without any metacentric chromosomes, cannot be explained by centric fusion alone. They have to involve the loss of chromosome arms after centric fusion. Furthermore, fusion alone cannot explain chromosomal arm losses in scallops with the haploid number of 19, but chromosomal deletion can (Table 3).

We argue that chromosomal deletion is a major feature of karyotypic changes in Pectinidae, as indicated by the wide range of chromosomal arms (19-38, Table 3) and DNA contents (2.23-3.28 pg per diploid genome) (Rodriguez-Juiz et al., 1996; Gonzales-Tizon et al., 2000; Thiriot-Quievreux, 2002). The four species with reduced haploid numbers (13 or 16) have an average of 20 chromosome arms, ranging from 19 to 21 (Table 3). On the other hand, the four species with the ancestral haploid number (n = 19) have an average of 30 chromosome arms, ranging from 24 to 38. The loss of chromosome arms is likely caused by chromosomal deletion, rather than relocation, as the reduction in arm number in Aequipecten opercularis (by 20.8%) corresponds to a similar reduction in DNA content (by 21.2%), using Pecten maximus as a reference species (Rodriguez-Juiz et al., 1996). More data on DNA content from other species are needed to verify the correlation.

Results of this study also suggest that chromosomal trans-location and duplication may play a role in karyotypic evolution in Pectinidae. The finding that the major and minor rRNA genes are located on the same chromosome in C. farreri but on two different chromosomes in A. i. irradians can be explained by translocation. The fact that A. i. irradians has two loci for the major rRNA genes while C. farreri has only one points to chromosomal duplication, possibly through unequal translocation.

We speculate that the karyotype of A. i. irradians is evolved from an ancestral karyotype of n = 19, similar to that of C. farreri, possibly involving the following steps: (1) loss of the chromosomal arms and emergence of telocentric chromosomes; (2) fusion of telocentric chromosomes; (3) deletion of chromosomal arms after fusion; and (4) trans-location and duplication of the major rRNA loci. Further studies involving more species may improve our under-standing of karyotypic changes in Pectinidae.

Evolutionary implications: Is the ancestral karyotype tetraploid?

Assuming that the karyotype of C. farreri represents the ancestral/modal form (n = 19, 38 arms), evolution leading to the Aequipecten (n = 13) and Argopecten (n = 16) is accompanied by significant loss of chromosomal arms (by about 50%). If this is true, it raises the question of why scallops can tolerate so much chromosomal loss. The most obvious explanation is that the ancestral karyotype, n = 19, may be polyploid. Polyploid species are known to tolerate considerable loss of chromosomes (White, 1978). We hypothesize that the ancestral karyotype of Pectinidae (n = 19) is tetraploid and evolved by genome duplication from an ancestral bivalve with a haploid number of about 10, similar to that of Ostreidae (n = 10). During or soon after the genome duplication, one pair of chromosomes was lost, leading to a relatively stable karyotype of n = 19. Since most bivalves studied so far have a haploid number of 19 chromosomes (Nakamura, 1985; Rodriguez-Juiz et al., 1996; Thiriot-Quievreux, 2002), it is possible that all bivalve groups with a modal haploid number of 19 are tetraploid and derived from a common diploid or triploid ancestor. Bivalve species with variant haploid numbers between 13 and 16 represent a triploid state, either derived from the diploid species or formed through chromosome reduction from the tetraploid form by a process similar to that found in Pectinidae.

Ostreidae, with a haploid number of 10 in most member species studied so far (Nakamura, 1985; Thiriot-Quievreux, 2002), may represent the closest relative of the diploid ancestor. Triploid and tetraploid oysters are fully viable and phenotypically indistinguishable from diploids (Stanley et al., 1981; Guo et al., 1996). Triploid and tetraploid oysters can easily tolerate the loss of two chromosomes in one generation without obvious deleterious effects, while diploids can rarely tolerate the loss of one (Wang et al., 1999). Polyploid oysters can lose chromosomes de novo and can even revert from triploidy to diploidy or from tetraploidy to triploidy (Allen et al., 1997). Tetraploids in the Pacific oysters produce significant proportions of aneuploid gametes with chromosome losses due to multivalent formation (Guo and Allen, 1997b). Therefore, genome duplication from n = 10 to n = 19 is theoretically possible. A quick examination of limited data on DNA content seems to support the genome duplication hypothesis. DNA content per diploid nucleus ranged from 1.82 to 2.33 pg in Ostreidae, compared to 2.83-3.94 pg in bivalves with a haploid number of 19 chromosomes (Rodriguez-Juiz et al., 1996; Gonzales-Tizon et al., 2000; Thiriot-Quievreux, 2002). Minor deviations in DNA content and chromosome numbers can be explained by chromosomal losses or gains, and the pattern is in general agreement with the genome duplication hypothesis.

In summary, we suggest that at least one genome duplication event has occurred during the evolution of bivalves. The tetraploid hypothesis is primarily based on the findings that (1) the ancestral karyotype of Pectinidae (n = 19) can tolerate significant amount of chromosome loss, leading to the formation of A. i. irradians (this study); (2) most bivalves have a haploid number of 19 (Nakamura, 1985; Rodriguez-Juiz et al., 1996; Thiriot-Quievreux, 2002), while Ostreidae has a modal haploid number of 10; and (3) there is a general correlation between chromosome number and DNA content, and variations can be explained by chromosomal deletion, fusion, translocation, and limited duplication, as shown for Pectinidae in this study. Although our hypothesis on genome duplication is somewhat speculative, it is the most logical explanation of available data and provides a theoretical framework for further testing and analysis. Phylogenetic relationships among most bivalve groups are not well understood (Schneider, 2001). Recently, molecular studies have produced phylogenetic trees that are in general agreement about the relationship among most major groups (Adamkewicz et al., 1997; Giribet and Wheeler, 2002; Giribet and Distel, 2003). Supporting our genome duplication hypothesis, the basal positions of the phylogenetic trees are dominated by species with low haploid numbers, including Ostreidae (n = 10) and Solemya (n = 11); the derived branches are dominated by species with n = 19; and species with n = 14 lie in between. Two of the three trees are rooted with Polyplacophora (Adamkewicz et al., 1997; Giribet and Distel, 2003), which has a modal haploid number of n = 12 (Patterson, 1969) and is a close relative of the bivalves. It is possible that Polyplacophora and Bivalvia share a common ancestor which, after genome duplication, gave rise to scallops and clams with haploid numbers of 19.

Clearly, significant chromosomal rearrangements occurred during the evolution of Pectinidae and Bivalvia. Whether these changes are the driving forces for speciation or merely byproducts of other evolutionary events remains unclear. It is possible that scallops with reduced chromosome numbers evolved as a result of chromosomal rearrangements, but supporting data are yet to be collected. C. farreri and A. i. irradians can cross-fertilize with a success level of up to 90%, and the larvae can survive for 12 days (Chen et al., 1991), but no viable hybrids have been reported. It is not known if the postzygotic barrier to hybridization is chromosomal or genic. This study does demonstrate the usefulness of FISH analysis and the need for similar studies in more species of pectinids and other bivalves.
Table 1 Karyotype analysis of 15 metaphases in zhikong scallop Chlamys
farreri

Chromosome  Relative length     Centromeric index
    no.     (mean [+ or -] SD)  (mean [+ or -] SD)  Classification (1)

 1          6.79 [+ or -] 0.15  0.31 [+ or -] 0.03      sm
 2          6.60 [+ or -] 0.25  0.23 [+ or -] 0.03      sm/st
 3          6.46 [+ or -] 0.15  0.29 [+ or -] 0.04      sm
 4          6.17 [+ or -] 0.24  0.23 [+ or -] 0.02      st
 5          5.95 [+ or -] 0.32  0.25 [+ or -] 0.03      sm/st
 6          5.78 [+ or -] 0.25  0.31 [+ or -] 0.03      sm
 7          5.60 [+ or -] 0.16  0.23 [+ or -] 0.04      sm/st
 8          5.36 [+ or -] 0.39  0.28 [+ or -] 0.05      sm/st
 9          5.35 [+ or -] 0.35  0.43 [+ or -] 0.03      m
10          5.27 [+ or -] 0.04  0.25 [+ or -] 0.03      sm/st
11          5.03 [+ or -] 0.12  0.20 [+ or -] 0.04      st
12          4.86 [+ or -] 0.20  0.28 [+ or -] 0.04      sm/st
13          4.78 [+ or -] 0.47  0.11 [+ or -] 0.02      st/t
14          4.77 [+ or -] 0.32  0.41 [+ or -] 0.05      m
15          4.62 [+ or -] 0.16  0.25 [+ or -] 0.03      sm/st
16          4.45 [+ or -] 0.20  0.22 [+ or -] 0.01      st
17          4.16 [+ or -] 0.11  0.27 [+ or -] 0.02      sm
18          4.01 [+ or -] 0.24  0.42 [+ or -] 0.03      m
19          3.97 [+ or -] 0.21  0.15 [+ or -] 0.02      st

(1) m = metacentric, sm = submetacentric, st = subtelocentric, t =
telocentric; m/sm, sm/st, and st/t are chromosomes overlapping two
categories.

Table 2 Karyotype analysis of 15 metaphases in bay scallop Argopecten
irradians irradians

Chromosome  Relative length     Centromeric index
    no.     (mean [+ or -] SD)  (mean [+ or -] SD)  Classification (1)

 1          8.40 [+ or -] 0.52  0                         t
 2          8.23 [+ or -] 0.59  0.15 [+ or -] 0.01        st
 3          7.73 [+ or -] 0.40  0                         t
 4          6.95 [+ or -] 0.24  0.20 [+ or -] 0.02        st
 5          6.75 [+ or -] 0.06  0                         t
 6          6.39 [+ or -] 0.36  0.20 [+ or -] 0.02        st
 7          6.23 [+ or -] 0.16  0                         t
 8          6.21 [+ or -] 0.39  0.16 [+ or -] 0.02        st
 9          5.98 [+ or -] 0.09  0                         t
10          5.82 [+ or -] 0.40  0                         t
11          5.70 [+ or -] 0.11  0                         t
12          5.53 [+ or -] 0.13  0                         t
13          5.34 [+ or -] 0.32  0                         t
14          5.02 [+ or -] 0.29  0.20 [+ or -] 0.02        st
15          5.07 [+ or -] 0.08  0                         t
16          4.64 [+ or -] 0.20  --                        t

(1) st = subtelocentric; t = telocentric.

Table 3 Summary of karyotypic data from 16 species of Pectinidae

                       Haploid  Arm              Karyotype (1)
Species                number   number  m  m/sm  sm  sm/st  st  st/t  t

Aequipecten
  opercularis            13       19    2   4    0    0      0   0     7
Argopecten i.
  irradians              16       21    0   0    0    0      5   0    11
Argopecten purpuratus    16       21    0   0    0    0      5   0    11
                         16       28    2   7    0    0      3   0     4
Chlamys nobilis          16       19    3   0    0    0      0   0    13
Chlamys glabra           14       --
Chlamys farreri          19       38    3   0    4    7      4   1     0
                         19       38    3   0    1    6      7   2     0
Chlamys distorta         19       --
Chlamys islandica        19       --
Chlamys varia            19       --
Euvola ziczac            19       37    5   0    6    0      7   0     1
Nodipecten nodosus       19       38    6   0    6    0      7   0     0
                         19       35    4   0    5    0      7   0     3
Patinopecten
  yessoensis             19       35    2   1    4    6      3   0     3
Pecten albicans          19       24    1   1    0    3      0   0    14
                         19       26    0   3    0    0      4   0    12
Pecten maximus           19       24    2   0    2    0      1   0    14
Pecten jacobeus          19       --
Placopecten
  magellanicus           19       30    0   0    5    0     10   0     4

                       Haploid
Species                number   18S    5S     Reference

Aequipecten
  opercularis            13     7q     1q,1q  Insua et al., 1998
Argopecten i.
  irradians              16     4p,8p  10q    This study
Argopecten purpuratus    16                   Gajardo et al., 2002
                         16                   Von Brand et al., 1990
Chlamys nobilis          16                   Komaru and Wada, 1985
Chlamys glabra           14                   Rasotto et al., 1981
Chlamys farreri          19     5p     5q     This study
                         19                   Komaru and Wada, 1985
Chlamys distorta         19                   Beaumount and Gruffydd,
                                                1974
Chlamys islandica        19                   Beaumount and Gruffydd,
                                                1974
Chlamys varia            19                   Beaumount and Gruffydd,
                                                1974
Euvola ziczac            19                   Basoa et al., 2000
Nodipecten nodosus       19                   Pauls and Affonso, 2000
                         19                   Basoa et al., 2000
Patinopecten
  yessoensis             19                   Komaru and Wada, 1985
Pecten albicans          19                   Komaru and Wada, 1985
                         19                   Ieyama, 1975
Pecten maximus           19                   Beaumount and Gruffydd,
                                                1974
Pecten jacobeus          19                   Rasotto et al., 1981
Placopecten
  magellanicus           19                   Xiang et al., 1993

(1) m = metacentric, sm = submetacentric, st = subtelocentric,
t = telocentric; m/sm, sm/st, and st/t are chromosomes overlapping two
categories.


Acknowledgements

The authors thank Drs. Ning Gong and Xiaojun Zhang, Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, for kindly providing metaphase material from bay scallops. We thank Dr. Ken Halanych and anonymous reviewers for constructive comments. This study is conducted at Rutgers University and supported by grants from the U.S. Sea Grant (B/T-9801; R/OD-2003-1), U.S. Department of Agriculture (96-35205-3854), and New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology (02-2042-007-11). Part of the work is supported by grants from China's Natural Science Foundation (39825121 and 30230280), the 863 program (2001AA628150) and Chinese Academy of Sciences. This is Publication IMCS-2004-11 and NJSG-04-566.

Received 5 April 2004; accepted 6 August 2004.

Literature Cited

Adamkewicz, S. L., M. G. Harasewych, J. Blake, D. Saudek, and C. J. Bult. 1997. A molecular phylogeny of the bivalve mollusks. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14: 619-629.

Allen, S. K., Jr., X. Guo, G. Burreson, and R. Mann. 1997. Heteroploid mosaics and reversion among triploid oysters, Crassostrea gigas: fact or artifact? J. Shellfish Res. 15: 514.

Barucca, M., E. Olmo, S. Schiaparelli, and A. Canapa. 2004. Molecular phylogeny of the family Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) based on mitochondrial 16S and 12S rRNA genes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 31: 89-95.

Basoa, E., C. Alfonsi, J. E. Perez, and H. Cequea. 2000. Karyotypes on the scallops Euvola ziczac and Nodipecten nodosus from the Gulf of Cariaco, Sucre State, Venezuela. Bol. Inst. Oceanogr. Venez. 39: 49-54.

Beaumont, A. R., and L. D. Gruffydd. 1974. Studies on the chromosomes of the scallop Pecten maximus (L.) and related species. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 54: 713-718.

Beaumont, A. R., and E. Zouros. 1991. Genetics of scallops. Pp. 585-623 in Scallops: Biology, Ecology and Aquaculture, S. E. Shumway, ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Chen, Q., J. Xiang, Y. Qin, B. Kou, and H. Wang. 1991. Study on the possibility of hybridization and breeding between Argopecten irradians, Chlamys farreri, and Patinonecten yessoensis I. The affinity of heterogametes between the three species of scallops and early development of hybrids. Pp. 122-128 in Annual Research Report of the Experimental Marine Biology Laboratory Institute of Oceanology, Academia Sinica, C. Zeng, and X. Feng, eds. Qingdao Ocean University Press, Qingdao, China (in Chinese).

Colomba, M. S., R. Vitturi, L. Castriota, R. Bertoni, and A. Libertini. 2002. FISH mapping of 18S-28S and 5S ribosomal DNA, (GATA)[.sub.n] and (TTAGGG)[.sub.n] telomeric repeats in the periwinkle Melarhaphe neritoides (Prosobranchia, Gastropoda, Caenogastropoda). Heredity 88: 381-384.

DeWit, J. M. J. 1980. Origins of polyploids. Pp. 3-15 in Polyploidy, Biological Relevance, W. H. Lewis, ed. Plenum Press, New York.

Doyle, J. J., and J. L. Doyle. 1987. A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochem. Bull. 19: 11-15.

Fang, B.L., R. De Baere, A. Vandenberghe, and R. De Wachter. 1982. Sequences of three molluscan 5 S ribosomal RNAs confirm the validity of a dynamic secondary structure model. Nucleic Acids Res. 10: 4679-4685.

Furlong, R. F., and P. W. H. Holland. 2002. Were vertebrates octoploid? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 357: 531-544.

Gajardo, G., M. Parraguez, and N. Colihueque. 2002. Karyotype analysis and chromosome banding of the Chilean-Peruvian scallop Argopecten purpuratus (Lamarck, 1819). J. Shellfish Res. 21: 585-590.

Giribet, G., and D. L. Distel. 2003. Bivalve phylogeny and molecular data. Pp. 45-90 in Molecular Systematics and Phylogeography of Mollusks, C. Lydeard and D.R. Lindberg, eds. Smithsonian Books, Washington, DC.

Giribet, G., and W. C. Wheeler. 2002. On bivalve phylogeny: a high-level analysis of the Bivalvia (Mollusca) based on combined morphology and DNA sequence data. Invertebr. Biol. 121: 271-324.

Gonzales-Tizon, A. M., A. Martinez-Lage, I. Rego, J. Ausio, and J. Mendez. 2000. DNA content, karyotypes, and chromosomal location of 18S-5.8S-28S ribosomal loci in some species of bivalve molluscs from the Pacific Canadian coast. Genome 43: 1065-1072.

Guo, X., and S. K. Allen, Jr. 1997a. Fluorescence in situ hybridization of the vertebrate telomere sequence to chromosome ends of the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas Thunberg. J. Shellfish Res. 16: 87-89.

Guo, X., and S. K. Allen, Jr. 1997b. Sex and meiosis in autotetraploid Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas (Thunberg). Genome 40: 397-405.

Guo, X., K. Cooper, W. K. Hershberger, and K. K. Chew. 1992. Genetic consequences of blocking polar body I with cytochalasin B in fertilized eggs of the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas: I. Ploidy of resultant embryos. Biol. Bull. 183: 381-386.

Guo, X., G. DeBrosse, and S. K. Allen, Jr. 1996. All-triploid Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas Thunberg) produced by mating tetraploids and diploids. Aquaculture 142: 149-161.

Hsu, T. C., S. E. Spirito, and M. L. Pardue. 1975. Distribution of 18 + 28 S ribosomal genes in mammalian genomes. Chromosoma 53: 25-36.

Ieyama, H. 1975. Chromosome number of three species in three families of Pteriomorphia (Bivalvia). Venus Jpn. J. Malacol. 34: 26-32.

Insua, A., M. J. Lopez-Pinon, and J. Mendez. 1998. Characterization of Aequipecten opercularis (Bivalvia: Pectinidae) chromosomes by different staining techniques and fluorescent in situ hybridization. Genes Genet. Syst. 73: 193-200.

Insua, A., R. Freire, J. Rios, and J. Mendez. 2001. The 5S rDNA of mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis and M. edulis: sequence variation and chromosomal location. Chromosome Res. 9: 495-505.

King, M. 1993. Species Evolution: The Role of Chromosome Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Komaru, A., and K. T. Wada. 1985. Karyotypes of four species in the Pectinidae (Bivalvia: Pteriomorphia). Venus Jpn. J. Malacol. 44: 249-259.

Levan, A., D. Fredga, and A. A. Sandberg. 1964. Nomenclature for centromeric position on chromosomes. Hereditas 52: 201-220.

Liu, Z., D. Zhang, D. Hong, and X. Wang. 2002. Chromosomal localization of 5S and 18S-5.8S-25S ribosomal DNA sites in five Asian pines using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Theor. Appl. Genet. 122: 1007-1024.

Lucchini, S., I. Nardi, G. Barsacchi, R. Batistoni, and F. Andronico. 1993. Molecular cytogenetics of the ribosomal (18 + 28S and 5S) DNA loci in primitive and advanced urodele amphibians. Genome 36: 762-773.

Makinen, A., C. Zijlstra, N. A. Haan, C. H. M. Mellink, and A. A. Bosma. 1997. Localization of 18S + 28S and 5S ribosomal RNA genes in the dog by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 78: 231-235.

Martins, C., and P. M. Galetti, Jr. 2001. Two 5S rDNA arrays in neotropical fish species: Is it a general rule for fishes? Genetica 111: 439-446.

Nakamura, H. K. 1985. A review of molluscan cytogenetic information based on the CISMOCH-computerized index system for molluscan chromosomes. Bivalvia, Polyplacophora and Cephalopoda. Venus Jpn. J. Malacol. 44: 193-226.

Navarro, A., and N. H. Barton. 2003. Evolution in rearranged chromosomes. Science 300: 321-324.

Patterson, C. M. 1969. Chromosomes of molluscs. Pp. 635-689 in Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium of Mollusca. Marine Biological Association of India, Ernakulam, Cochin, India.

Pauls, E., and P. R. Affonso. 2000. The karyotype of Nodipecten nodosus (Bivalvia: Pectinidae). Hydrobiologia 420: 99-102.

Rasotto, M., D. Altieri, and D. Colombera. 1981. I chromosomi spermatocitari di 16 species appartenenti alla classe Pelecypoda. Atti Congr. Soc. Malac. Ital. 1198: 113-127.

Rice, E. L., D. Roddick, and R. K. Singh. 1993. A comparison of molluscan (Bivalvia) phylogenies based on palaeontological and molecular data. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol. 2: 137-146.

Rieseberg, L. H. 2001. Chromosomal rearrangements and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 351-358.

Rodriguez-Juiz, A. M., M. Torrado, and J. Mendez. 1996. Genomesize variation in bivalve molluscs determined by flow cytometry. Mar. Biol. 126: 489-497.

Schmid, M., L. Vitelli, and R. Batistoni. 1987. Chromosome banding in Amphibia. IV. Constitutive heterochromatin, nucleolus organizers, 18S + 28S and 5S ribosomal RNA genes in Ascaphidae, Pipidae, Discoglossidae and Pelobatidae. Chromosoma 95: 271-284.

Schneider, J. A. 2001. Bivalve systematics during the 20th century. J. Paleont. 75: 1119-1127.

Spring, J. 2002. Genome duplication strikes back. Nat. Genet. 31: 128-129.

Stanley, J. G., S. K. Allen, Jr., and H. Hidu. 1981. Polyploidy induced in the American oyster, Crassostrea virginica, with cytochalasin B. Aquaculture 23: 1-10.

Thiriot-Quievreux, C. 1994. Advances in cytogenetics of aquatic organisms. Pp. 369-388 in Genetics and Evolution of Aquatic Organisms, A. R. Beaumont, ed. Chapman and Hall, London.

Thiriot-Quievreux, C. 2002. Review of the literature on bivalve cytogenetics in the last ten years. Cah. Biol. Mar. 43: 17-26.

Vahidi, H., A. Purac, J. M. Leblanc, and B. M. Honda. 1991. Characterization of potentially functional 5S rRNA-encoding genes within ribosomal DNA repeats of the nematode Meloidogyne arenaria. Gene 108: 281-284.

Von Brand, E., G. Bellolio, and K. Lohrmann. 1990. Chromosome number of the Chilean scallop Argopecten purpuratus. Tohoku J. Agric. Res. 40: 91-95.

Wada, K. 1978. Chromosome karyotypes of three bivalves: the oysters, Isognomon alatus and Pinctada imbricata, and the bay scallop, Argopecten irradians irradians. Biol. Bull. 155: 235-245.

Waller, T. R. 1991. Evolutionary relationships among commercial scallops (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Pectinidae). Pp. 1-73 in Scallops: Biology, Ecology and Aquaculture, S. E. Shumway, ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Wang, Y., Z. Xu, and X. Guo. 2004. Differences in the rDNA-bearing chromosome divide the Asian-Pacific and Atlantic species of Crassostrea (Bivalvia, Mollusca). Biol. Bull. 206: 46-54.

Wang, Z., X. Guo, S. K. Allen, Jr., and R. Wang. 1999. Aneuploid Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas Thunberg) as incidentals from triploid production. Aquaculture 173: 347-357.

White, M. J. D. 1954. Animal Cytology and Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 454 pp.

White, M. J. D. 1978. Modes of Speciation. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.

Xiang, J. H., R. R. Desrosiers, and F. Dube. 1993. Studies on the chromosomes of the giant scallop Placopecten magellanicus (Gmelin) and the surf clam Spisula solidissima (Dillwyn). Cytologia 58: 125-132.

Xu, Z., X. Guo, P. M. Gaffney, and J. C. Pierce. 2001. Chromosomal location of the major ribosomal RNA genes in Crassostrea virginica and Crassostrea gigas. Veliger 44: 79-83.

Zhang, F., Y. He, X. Liu, J. Ma, S. Li, and L. Qi. 1986. The introduction, hatchery rearing and culture of bay scallops. Oceanol. Limnol. Sinica 17: 367-374 (in Chinese with English Abstract).

YONGPING WANG (1,2) AND XIMING GUO (1,*)

(1) Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, 6959 Miller Avenue, Port Norris, New Jersey 08349; and (2) Experimental Marine Biology Laboratory, Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 7 Nanhai Road, Qingdao, Shandong 266071, People's Republic of China

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: xguo@hsrl.rutgers.edu
COPYRIGHT 2004 University of Chicago Press
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Wang, Yongping; Guo, Ximing
Publication:The Biological Bulletin
Date:Dec 1, 2004
Words:6905
Previous Article:Developmental dimorphism: consequences for larval behavior and dispersal potential in a marine gastropod.
Next Article:A message from the editor.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters