Differential karyotype profiling of three popular breeds of dogs in India

YOGESHWAR SANDHU; SHASHIKANT MAHAJAN; R S SETHI; J S ARORA; C S MUKHOPADHYAY

doi:10.56093/ijans.v90i11.111496

Authors

YOGESHWAR SANDHU Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana 141 004 India
SHASHIKANT MAHAJAN Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana 141 004 India
R S SETHI Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana 141 004 India
J S ARORA Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana 141 004 India
C S MUKHOPADHYAY Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana 141 004 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v90i11.111496

Keywords:

Dog, G-banding, German shepherd, Karyotype, Labrador, Pug

Abstract

The present investigation aims to study the karyology of the three most popular dog breeds as well as indigenous local dog. In this study, we identified the most popular dog breeds of the Punjab region which are maintained as companion animals, or for guarding. Metaphase plates were prepared after culturing of lymphocytes isolated from heparinized blood collected from the identified three most popular canine breeds. The isolated lymphocyte cells were cultured for 70-72 h following the cell cycle arrest at metaphase. The G-banding of the chromosomes was done by Giemsa staining through a standard protocol. The most popular three breeds of dog in the sub-tropical region were Labrador, the German Shepherd, and Pug. There were no significant distinguishable differences between the karyotypes of the dog breeds studied. This study gives insight into karyology information, which can be beneficial to the researchers, dog breeders, and kennel clubs. Moreover, it provides information about chromosomal abnormalities which may lead to the study of various fertility, growth, and phenotypic abnormalities problems in dog breeds.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Barch M J, Lawee H J and Arsham M S. 1991. Peripheral blood culture, pp: 17–30. The ACT cytogenetics Laboratory Manual. (Ed.) Barch, M J. 2nd edition. Newyork, Raven Press.

Bininda-Emonds O R, Gittleman J L and Purvis A. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 74: 143–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0006323199005307

Fumio Kasai, Jorge C Pereira, Arihiro Kohara, Malcolm A and Ferguson Smith. 2018. Homologue-specific chromosome sequencing characterizes translocation junctions and permits allelic assignment. DNA Research 25(4): 353–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/dnares/dsy007

Graphodatsky A S, Yang F, O’Brien P C, Perelman P, Milne B S, Serdukova N, Kawada S I and Ferguson Smith M A. 2001. Phylogenetic implications of the 38 putative ancestral chromosome segments for four canid species. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics 92: 243–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000056911

Gustavsson I. 1964. The chromosomes of the dog. Hereditas 51: 187–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1964.tb01926.x

Hans Minderman. 2019. Simultaneous analysis of phenotype and cytogenetics using imaging Flow Cytometry: Time to Teach Old Dogs New Tricks. International Society for Advancement of Cytometry doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.23776. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.23776

Lindblad-Toh K, Wade C M, Mikkelsen T S and Karlsson E K et al. 2005. Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog. Nature 438: 803–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04338

Minouchi O. 1928. The spermatogenesis of the dog, with special reference to meiosis. Japanese Journal of Zoology 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1508/cytologia.1.88

Moorhead P S, Nowell P C, Mellman W J, Battips D T and Hungerford D A. 1960. Chromosome preparations of leukocytes cultured from human peripheral blood. Experimental Cell Research 20(3): 613–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4827(60)90138-5

Ostrander E A. 2007. Genetics and the Shape of Dogs. American Scientist 95: 406–13. Breen M. 2008. Canine cytogenetics from band to base pair. Cytogenetic and genome research 120(1– 2): 50–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000118740

Sumner A T, Evans H T and Buckland R A. 1971. New technique for distinguishing between human chromosomes. Nature N B 232: 31–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/newbio232031a0

Suryawanshi A R, Kanadkhedkar H L and Umrikar U D. 2004. Chromosome analysis of Domestic Dogs. Indian Veterinary Journal 81: 1071–73.

Topashka-Ancheva M, Gerasimova T S, Dinchev V and Dimitrov K. 2009. Karyological data about the Bulgarian native dog breed “Karakachan Dog”. Biotechnology and Biotechnological Equipment 23(sup1): 136–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2009.10818384

Wayne R K. 1993. Molecular evolution of the dog family. Trends in Genetics 9: 218–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9525(93)90122-X