Next Article in Journal
Synergistic Effects of Silicon and Preservative on Promoting Postharvest Performance of Cut Flowers of Peony (Paeonia lactiflora Pall.)
Previous Article in Journal
Using Alphafold2 to Predict the Structure of the Gp5/M Dimer of Porcine Respiratory and Reproductive Syndrome Virus
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 23
Issue 21
10.3390/ijms232113213
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Accurate Chromosome Identification in the Prunus Subgenus Cerasus (Prunus pseudocerasus) and its Relatives by Oligo-FISH

by
Lei Wang
1,2,
Yan Feng
1,2,
Yan Wang
1,2,
Jing Zhang
1,2,
Qing Chen
1,
Zhenshan Liu
1,2,
Congli Liu
3,
Wen He
1,2,
Hao Wang
1,2,
Shaofeng Yang
1,2,
Yong Zhang
1,
Ya Luo
1,
Haoru Tang
1,2 and
Xiaorong Wang
1,2,*
1
College of Horticulture, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China
2
Institute of Pomology and Olericulture, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China
3
Zhengzhou Fruit Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Zhengzhou 410100, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(21), 13213; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232113213
Submission received: 14 September 2022 / Revised: 26 October 2022 / Accepted: 27 October 2022 / Published: 30 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Molecular Genetics and Genomics)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A precise, rapid and straightforward approach to chromosome identification is fundamental for cytogenetics studies. However, the identification of individual chromosomes was not previously possible for Chinese cherry or other Prunus species due to the small size and similar morphology of their chromosomes. To address this issue, we designed a pool of oligonucleotides distributed across specific pseudochromosome regions of Chinese cherry. This oligonucleotide pool was amplified through multiplex PCR with specific internal primers to produce probes that could recognize specific chromosomes. External primers modified with red and green fluorescence tags could produce unique signal barcoding patterns to identify each chromosome concomitantly. The same oligonucleotide pool could also discriminate all chromosomes in other Prunus species. Additionally, the 5S/45S rDNA probes and the oligo pool were applied in two sequential rounds of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) localized to chromosomes and showed different distribution patterns among Prunus species. At the same time, comparative karyotype analysis revealed high conservation among P. pseudocerasus, P. avium, and P. persica. Together, these findings establish this oligonucleotide pool as the most effective tool for chromosome identification and the analysis of genome organization and evolution in the genus Prunus.

1. Introduction

Chinese cherry (Prunus pseudocerasus) belongs to the genus Prunus (subgenus Cerasus) in the Rosaceae family [1]. It originated in China as an essential native fruit tree with a distinctive rich and unique flavor, and it is cultivated widely in Southwest China [2]. Prunus comprises many species that are valued for their edible fruit and ornamental characteristics, and members of this subgenus are widely distributed in temperate regions. However, most cultivated species are diploid (2n = 2x = 16), with the exception of Chinese cherry (P. pseudocerasus, 2n = 4x = 32) and sour cherry (P. cerasus, 2n = 4x = 32). Several studies have demonstrated that the tetraploid P. cerasus was formed from natural hybridization between P. avium and P. fruticosa [3,4]. Chinese cherry is typically tetraploid; however, pentaploid and hexaploid accessions are occasionally found [5]. However, the origin of tetraploid P. pseudocerasus remains undetermined. Additionally, with the development of sequencing technologies, molecular markers and phylogenetic analyses have been widely applied in recent years, and there is some controversy regarding the taxonomic classification of draw cherries [6,7].
The chromosome is the critical carrier of genetic information in eukaryotic cell nuclei, and chromosome numbers, sizes, and shapes are typically stable within species [8]. The karyotype is a fundamental characteristic of the chromosome complement. Cytological studies have played an essential role in the analysis of chromosomal structural variation, evolution and phylogenetic relationships with related species [9,10]. An accurate and reliable method for chromosome identification is the foundation for karyotype analysis. However, the chromosomes in the genus Prunus are small in size and have similar morphology, making them difficult to distinguish; this is one of the most important reasons why there are only a few reports available on karyotypes in the genus Prunus [5,11,12,13]. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was mainly dependent on the probe sequence to yield signals that could be used for chromosome identification. Repetitive DNA sequences, such as 5S/45S rDNA, telomeres, centromeres and other specific repetitive DNA, contribute a large proportion of the sequence in plant genomes and have been an essential source of FISH probes [14]. Therefore, many studies have reported the use of repetitive DNA as probes in Cucumis [15], Citrus [16], Arachis [17], Ipomoea [18], and Triticum [19]. In contrast, only a few studies have reported the physical mapping of rDNA in Prunus species, such as peach [20], almond [21], cherry rootstocks [22], and African cherry [23].
Questions about the accurate identification of chromosomes have not been thoroughly solved for most plant species. The genomes of an increasing number of species have been obtained with extensively used sequencing technology. A new approach for a FISH probe design that uses single-copy oligonucleotide sequences (40 to 50 bp) selected from a partial chromosomal region or an entire chromosome according to genome sequencing data has been assembled. The selected oligonucleotide sequence is directly synthesized and labeled as the FISH probe. This approach has been used to identify specific chromosomes successfully in cucumber [24,25,26], strawberry [27,28], rice [29], poplar [30], maize [31,32], banana [33,34], beans [35], sugarcane [36,37], oil palm [38], wheat [39,40], Citrus [41], Ipomoea [42], Solanum [43], and Arachis [17]. Approximately thirty materials spanning the genus Prunus have been sequenced due to their small genome size and critical economic importance as fruit trees. Remarkably, most of these genomes have been obtained by single-molecule real-time long-read sequencing or via Hi-C technology, which provide high-quality and integrated genome data [44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. Even though whole-genome sequencing has become an integral approach for detecting genome structure and genetic variation, it is unlikely to be widely conducted for most species within the near future. However, a large amount of existing genomic data is now available for the development of new FISH probes for cytogenetic analysis.
Here, we designed and synthesized an oligonucleotide pool of single-copy sequences that could be used to accurately identify all chromosomes of Chinese cherry and related species according to their FISH signal distribution pattern. We demonstrated that the single-copy sequences on the chromosomes within the genus Prunus were conserved. After two sequential rounds of FISH with the 5S/45S rDNA probes and the oligonucleotide pool, the 5S/45S rDNA distribution patterns on the chromosome exhibited a more significant variation. We also performed a comparative karyotype analysis of the closely related species P. pseudocerasus and P. avium, and their distantly related species P. persica, which exhibited high similarity.

2. Results

2.1. Phylogenetic Relationships Established Based on 45S rDNA

We assembled the completed 45S rDNA sequences using a low-coverage genome sequence. In all taxa of Prunus, the sequence length of 45 S rDNA varied from 5774 to 5793 bp. Sequence alignments showed that the 18 S, 5.8 S, and 28 S rDNA subunits had the same lengths among different taxa (1808 bp, 159 bp, and 3347 bp, respectively) and that their sequences are highly conserved, with only a few mutated bases. In contrast, ITS1 ranged in length from 228 to 247, ITS2 ranged from 229 to 233, and the sequence variation in these regions was more apparent (Figure 1, Supplementary Figure S1).
Subsequently, the complete 45S rDNA sequences were used to construct the phylogenetic tree with the maximum-likelihood method (Figure 2). The phylogenetic tree showed that the species in the Prunus genus were mainly divided into two clades. All species in the subgenus Cerasus were grouped into one clade. The two species of dwarf cherry (P. humilis and P. tomentosa) grouped with P. armeniaca, P. salicina, P. dulcis and P. persica, showing that the dwarf cherry is more distantly related to the subgenus Cerasus.

2.2. Development of Oligo-FISH Probes Using Single-Copy Sequences from Chinese Cherry

We designed 14 sublibraries distributed across specific regions on eight chromosomes of Chinese cherry according to the repeat sequences and oligonucleotide distribution (Figure 3, Table 1). Each sublibrary contained a total of 5146 (Contig_20 on Chr_8) to 7960 (Contig_01 on Chr_5) oligos and spanned a genomic region ranging from 1.40 Mb (Contig_25 on Chr_2) to 2.14 Mb (Contig_29 on Chr_1). Moreover, most sublibraries achieved a density of more than 3 oligos per kb except for Contig_20 (Chr_8, 2.71 oligos/kb), which contains more repetitive sequences.
Subsequently, oligos from each sublibrary on the same chromosome were flanked with the same internal primers (P1 to P8 for Chr_1 to Chr_8) to allow amplification by specific internal primers (Table 1, Supplementary Table S1), thus allowing accurate identification of unique chromosomes. Additionally, one external primer pair (W1 or W2) was added to all oligos to allow the use of green and red fluorescence modifier primers for amplification by PCR (Figure 3, Table 1). Thus, six regions of green and eight regions of red signals were generated which could uniquely identify each chromosome for P. pseudocerasus simultaneously. Therefore, each synthetic oligo contained a 50 bp genomic sequence and two pairs of external and internal primers (Supplementary Table S1). All oligonucleotides from the 14 sublibraries were synthesized in a single pool.
We also confirmed that the selected oligonucleotide sequences from Chinese cherry could align with the pseudochromosomes of closely related species. Their distribution showed that these 14 sublibraries tended to cluster into specific chromosomal locations with similar barcode distributions to Chinese cherry except for Chr_1 of P. × yedoensis (Supplementary Figure S2), which could be due to the lower completeness of the assembled genome. Thus, we were able to use this oligo pool to accurately identify the target chromosomes in other species in Prunus.

2.3. Chromosome Identification in Chinese Cherry and Related Species

Repeat sequences are typically a critical source of probes for molecular cytogenetics. Here, three types of repetitive oligo probes (Oligos_102, Oligos_149, and Oligos_159, Supplementary Table S2) were prepared for FISH. Unexpectedly, their signals were all distributed in the telomeric regions of chromosomes without apparent features other than interspecies variation (Supplementary Figure S3). We also carried out 5S/45S rDNA probes to identify their location on the chromosome (Supplementary Figure S4). This showed that one (two) pair of chromosomes bore 5S rDNA in the diploid (tetraploid) species P. avium, P. tomentosa, P. humilis, and P. salicina (P. cerasus), which means the 5S rDNA could be used to identify the specific chromosome in those species. Still, it could not distinguish the chromosome in other diploid (tetraploid) species because they have two (four) pairs of chromosomes with 5S rDNA probe signals. However, the 45S rDNA probes were not available for directly identifying the specific chromosome because they presented two or three (six) pairs of chromosomes with signals in the diploids (tetraploid) species. Coincidently, one (two) pair of chromosomes bore 5S and 45S rDNA probes simultaneously in the diploid (tetraploid) species of P. yedoensis (P. pseudocerasus).
In this study, probes with repetitive sequences could not be used for each chromosome identification. Thus, we used the oligo pool strategy to amplify two sets of sublibraries as probes with external primers (W1 was labeled with FAM and W2 was labeled with TAMRA) to identify all chromosomes in the same metaphase cells from Chinese cherry. The eight green and six red conserved FISH signals derived from the probes of these two sublibraries in the tetraploid and pentaploid species P. pseudocerasus (Figure 4) matched the predicted patterns (Figure 3). The signals formed a clear barcode that could accurately identify the eight chromosomes from Chinese cherry. We then performed FISH on the other ten Prunus species and observed signal patterns similar to those seen in the Chinese cherry (Figure 5, Supplementary Figure S5). Thus, probes from the two sublibraries could be used to identify all chromosomes from Prunus.

2.4. Distribution of 5S rDNA and 45S rDNA in Different Species

To map the 5S/45S rDNA to the chromosomes, after the first round of FISH using the two sets of oligo sublibrary probes (Figure 6(a1–e1)), the slide was washed and reprobed with 5S/45S rDNA probes (Figure 6(a2–e2)). These 14 sublibraries produced oligo-based barcode signals (Figure 3 and Figure 4). In tetraploid P. pseudocerasus, the 5S rDNA is located on the proximal regions of the short arms of Chr_7 and Chr_8. The 45S rDNA is located in the terminal regions of the short arms of Chr_4, Chr_5, and Chr_7. In addition, the lack of three 45S rDNA signals was observed on Chr_4 in the pentaploid accession of P. pseudocerasus (Figure 6(e1,e2)). This might indicate that the signal is too weak to be detected.
Subsequently, we further confirmed the locations of the 5S/45S rDNA on the chromosomes of other species of Prunus (Supplementary Figure S6). Only P. yedoensis presented a 5S/45S rDNA distribution pattern similar to that of Chinese cherry (Supplementary Figure S6c2). Other species showed distinct distribution patterns, particularly for 5S rDNA, which showed relatively large variations among different species, even closely related diploid species (P. dulcis and P. persica; P. salicina and P. armeniaca; P. campanulata, P. yedoensis, and P. avium), without apparent associations between species phylogeny and 5S rDNA distribution (Figure 7, Supplementary Figure S6). The 5S rDNA signal was identified in the centromeric regions of Chr_6 and the proximal region of Chr_8 (P. campanulata, P. armeniaca, and P. persica), the centromeric regions of Chr_3 and Chr_6 (P. dulcis), or the centromeric regions of Chr_6 (P. humilis, P. tomentosa, and P. salicina), or the proximal region of Chr_8 (P. avium and P. cerasus). In contrast, the 45S rDNA distribution pattern was conserved. Additionally, its distribution showed a close relationship with phylogeny (Figure 7, Supplementary Figure S6). It was detected in the terminal regions of the short arms of Chr_4 and Chr_7 for all species, and it was also detected on the terminal regions of Chr_5 in the subgenus Cerasus (P. pseudocerasus, P. campanulata, P. avium, P. cerasus, and P. yedoensis), the centromeric regions of Chr_5 for the closely related species P. dulcis and P. persica, or the centromeric regions of Chr_3 for the closely related species P. salicina and P. armeniaca.
Moreover, a faint signal was occasionally detected on Chr_8 for some materials, leading to confusion with Chr_4. To avoid such potential ambiguity, we used the specific chromosome oligonucleotide probes from Chr_4 or Chr_8 amplified with internal primers to further identify the chromosome. Among all analyzed species, we observed that the Chr_4 contained the 45S rDNA signal, and the Chr_8 contained the 5S rDNA signal except for P. humilis, P. tomentosa, P. salicina, and P. dulcis (Supplementary Figures S7 and S8). This combination presented clear signals that could accurately identify the chromosome.

2.5. Comparative Karyotype Analyses

To reveal the karyotype stability among the Prunus species, we performed a comparative analysis among P. pseudocerasus, P. avium, and P. persica. P. pseudocerasus displayed closer relationships with P. avium and was more distantly related to P. persica among the species we used in this study. After identifying all chromosomes in the same metaphase cells according to the barcoding patterns, the chromosomes of each species were measured in five complete metaphases. Their karyotype ideograms are shown in Figure 8. Comparative analysis revealed that the karyotypes in these three species were highly conserved (Figure 8, Supplementary Table S3).

3. Discussion

Accurate chromosome identification is a prerequisite and basis for cytogenetics research. Generally, the chromosomes in most Prunus species are very small (lengths ranging from 0.84 to 2.81 μm) and show a similar morphology [13]. In earlier studies, combined cytogenetic techniques (C-banding, BAC-FISH and 5S/45S rDNA-FISH) were often applied to horticultural crops such as Citrus [51,52], Fragaria [53], Cucumis [54,55], and Solanum [56,57] for a karyotype analysis, to identify chromosomal structural variants, and to investigate genome evolution, but research in Prunus has been limited to the characterization of karyotypes and 5S/45S rDNA in only a few species. In this study, we performed a 5S/45S rDNA analysis of 11 species of Prunus. Several different signal distribution patterns were observed: two pairs of 45S rDNA signals and one pair of 5S rDNA signals in the diploid species P. humilis and P. tomentosa; three pairs of 45S rDNA signals and one pair of 5S rDNA signals in the diploid species P. avium and P. salicina; three pairs of 45S rDNA signals and two pairs of 5S rDNA signals in the diploid species P. campanulata, P. yedoensis, P. armeniaca, P. dulcis, and P. persica; and six pairs of 45S rDNA signals and four (two) pairs of 5S rDNA signals in tetraploid P. pseudocerasus (P. cerasus).
Among all of them, one (two) pair of 5S rDNA signals and one (two) pair of 45S rDNA signals were located on the same chromosomes in P. yedoensis (P. pseudocerasus) (Supplementary Figure S4). In parallel, there are two (four) chromosomes with longer lengths in the diploid (tetraploid), while the other chromosomes all have similar lengths. Consequently, it is impossible to identify individual chromosomes. Repetitive DNA sequences, as a vital source of FISH probes, have been broadly applied in many plants [14], especially for peanut [17,58] and wheat [59,60]. However, the three probes that we identified previously could not be used for chromosome identification due to their locations at the terminus of chromosomes, which was due to the lower content or variety of tandem repeat sequences in their genomes [61]. Therefore, we used a combination of genomic data and oligo pool synthesis techniques to design a chromosome-specific single-copy oligonucleotide pool that could be used to accurately identify chromosomes. Similar methods were previously reported for use in cucumber [26], oil palm [38], maize [32], beans [35], potato, tomato, and eggplant [62], rice [63], and Japanese morning glory [42]. This will further improve the accuracy of karyotype analysis and chromosomal structural variant detection within species. This method also has two distinct strengths relative to previous techniques for cytogenetic karyotyping [62,64]. First, all chromosomes can be easily, unambiguously, and simultaneously identified in the mid-phase of mitosis. Second, the chromosome nomenclature is assigned based on the peach genome assembly, which is convenient for comparative cytogenetic analysis among closely related species.
Previous studies have suggested that the pseudochromosomes in the genomes of sweet cherry, plum, apricot, mei, almond and peach have a high level of overall synteny, albeit with minor interchromosomal rearrangements [46,48,49], and that the divergence time between sweet cherry and peach was approximately 10 million years ago (MYA) [45,65]. In this study, the oligo pool covered a relatively small proportion of the entire genome (23.17 Mb). It showed similar barcode signals among Prunus species without discernible variations in chromosome structure or signal intensity. Additionally, the comparative karyotype analysis of two closely related species (Chinese cherry and sweet cherry) and a distantly related species (peach) showed that the chromosome structures were highly conserved. Thus, all these results indicated the high conservation of the genome, as expected, among the Prunus species. Previous reports have confirmed a remarkably conserved karyotype in species that diverged from a common ancestor in the genera Fragaria (6.4 MYA) [28], Solanum (5–8 MYA) [62], Citrus (9 MYA) [41], Cucumis (12 MYA) [24], and Populus (14 MYA) [30] and is consistent with our results. Furthermore, in this study, we identified eight different types of 5S/45S rDNA distribution patterns, which illustrated that the 5S/45S rDNA in Prunus is in a highly dynamic state. The distribution pattern of 5S/45S rDNA signals on the chromosomes differed mainly due to 5S/45S rDNA copy number deletion/amplification, 5S/45S rDNA-containing fragment inversions/translocations, or 5S/45S rDNA unequal crossing over [66,67,68]. Similar results were also reported in Arachis [17], Cucumis [69], and Citrus [41].
Polyploidy is especially common in plants. Chinese cherry and sour cherry are the main two polyploid cultivated species in the genus Prunus, which are commonly tetraploid, while pentaploid or hexaploid individuals have also been detected in Chinese cherry [13]. Polyploidy can emerge directly through crossing within a single species (autopolyploidy) or through interspecific hybridization (allopolyploidy) [70]. Comparative karyotyping analysis among species has been used to infer their phylogenetic relationships or the origin of polyploid species [71]. However, karyotyping in this study showed high similarity even between distantly related species between Chinese cherry and peach due to their short divergence time (Figure 8). Thus, the comparative karyotyping analysis has little significance. Species that are more closely related have more similar 5S/45S rDNA distribution patterns [28,69]. Promisingly, Prunus species showed many different 5S/45S rDNA distribution patterns. This can provide valuable insights into the origin and evolution of polyploid species. In tetraploid P. cerasus, the two pairs of 5S rDNA signals had different signal intensities on the homologous chromosome of Chr_8, and its distribution pattern was also similar to that of P. avium, which partially coincides with the inference that P. cerasus was formed from hybridization between the species of P. avium and P. fruticosa in previous reports [3,4]. Regrettably, no P. fruticosa material was collected in the present study, and FISH could not be conducted for further confirmation. In addition, the origin of tetraploidy in P. pseudocerasus has remained undetermined. In terms of the 5S/45S rDNA distribution patterns, the tetraploid P. pseudocerasus was similar to diploid P. yedoensis and differed from P. campanulata and P. avium. Simultaneously, 5S/45S rDNA distribution patterns were relatively stable on the tetraploid and pentaploid regions of P. pseudocerasus, except for the lack of three 45S rDNA signals on Chr_4 that was observed in its pentaploid accession of P. pseudocerasus.. These results imply that P. pseudocerasus may have been formed from autotetraploidy of closely related species to P. yedoensis or allotetraploidy by interspecific hybridization between two diploid species that are closely related to P. yedoensis.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Sequencing Reads and Phylogenetic Analyses

Paired-ended sequencing reads (2 × 90 bp) were obtained from 11 true cherries (eight P. pseudocerasus, two P. avium, and one P. yedoensis) and two dwarf cherries (one each of P. humilis and P. tomentosa) that were sequenced with Illumina HiSeq 2000 (BGI, Shenzhen, China) by our research group (Supplementary Table S4). Additionally, the raw sequencing reads from two true cherries (P. campanulata and P. cerasus), four closely related species (P. armeniaca, P. salicina, P. dulcis, and P. persica) and one more distantly related species (Fragaria vesca) were downloaded from the SRA (Sequence Reads Archive, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/, accessed on 12 November 2019). Detailed information is listed in Supplementary Table S4.
The 45S rDNA sequence was assembled using the GetOrganelle pipeline (version = 1.7.5.0, k-mer length 21, 55 and 79) with a low-coverage genome sequence from 20 taxa, and sequences with a coverage depth greater than 100 were retained [72]. Multiple 45S rDNA sequences were aligned with default parameters using MAFFT (version = 7.489), with the sequence of Kageneckia angustifolia (GI: 1824670479) used as the outgroup. The phylogenetic tree was reconstructed using the maximum-likelihood method with the best-fit model and 1000 bootstrap replicates in MEGAX.

4.2. Plant Materials and Chromosome Preparation

For FISH mapping, the seeds of P. pseudocerasus and related species were used for chromosome preparations (Table 2). These included five taxa with significantly different phenotypes in Chinese cherry collected from Sichuan Province and Yunnan Province and maintained in Chongzhou city (Sichuan Province). Root tips were harvested from germinated seeds at 25 °C and pretreated with 2 mM 8-hydroxyquinoline for 4 h at 4 °C. Then, the cells were fixed in Carnoy’s fixative for 24 h at 4 °C. Chromosomes were prepared via the slide-drop method, as described in published protocols [41]. Finally, at least three slides with more than three well-spread mitotic metaphase chromosomes were used for the FISH experiments.

4.3. Chromosome-Specific Oligonucleotide Probe Development

The oligonucleotide probes were designed using Chorus software [64], following previous reports with minor modifications [26]. Briefly, the repetitive sequences from each contig of Chinese cherry were filtered using RepeatMasker (http://www.repeatmasker.org/, accessed on 8 January 2020), and the remaining sequences were then divided into oligos (50 nt) in a step size of 5 nt. Each oligo was aligned to the Chinese cherry draft genomes (unpublished) in order to filter out oligos with more than 75% similarity to other 50 nt sequences in the genome. It has been reported that a density of more than 1.5 oligos per kb can produce clear FISH signals on meiotic chromosomes [24]. Here, we adopted more than two oligos per kb to ensure clear signals. Subsequently, the selected oligonucleotide sequences were also aligned to the pseudochromosomes of P. avium [46], P. × yedoensis [65], P. salicina [48], P. armeniaca [49], P. dulcis [50], and P. persica [73] with Magic-BLAST (version = 1.5, default parameters) to investigate the homology of the oligonucleotide derived from P. pseudocerasus to other Prunus species. The genome assembly information is listed in Supplementary Table S5.

4.4. Repetitive and Single-Copy Oligo Probe Synthesis

Three oligo probes were designed from species-specific satellite sequences (monomer lengths 102 bp, 149 bp, and 159 bp) that we identified previously (Supplementary Figure S9, Supplementary Table S2) [61]. Additionally, the highly conserved 45S rDNA sequences were assembled in this study, and 5S rDNA sequences obtained from the 5S rDNA database (https://combio.pl/rrna, accessed on 3 October 2021) were also used to design probes with their highly conserved regions using FISH. Two prelabeled oligonucleotide probes spanned the 5S rDNA, and four prelabeled oligonucleotide probes spanned the 18S rDNA (Supplementary Material Table S2). These oligo probes were synthesized by Generay (Shanghai, China).
The oligonucleotide sequences that were selected on different chromosomes were flanked with specific internal primers (Table 1, Supplementary Table S1). Each flanking oligo also contained an external primer pair that could be used to simultaneously identify all chromosomes with a barcode-like signal, as reported previously [26]. The oligo pool was synthesized by Twist Biosciences (Twist, https://www.twistbioscience.com/, accessed on 1 March 2020). Primers containing 5’FAM or 5’TAMRA were synthesized by LoGenBio (Shanghai, China).

4.5. FISH and Karyotyping

The oligo probe derived from the repeated sequence was synthesized and prelabeled with FAM or TAMRA and thus could be directly used as a probe. The oligo pool of single-copy oligonucleotide sequences could be amplified using the PCR protocol with their external or internal primers to generate probes for FISH that can produce barcode signals or chromosome-specific signals [26]. The FISH procedure was conducted as described previously with slight modifications [17,26]. Briefly, 20 µL of hybridization mixture solution contained 50% (v/v) deionized formamide, 10% (w/v) dextran sulfate, 2 × SSC, and 50–80 ng of prelabeled oligo probes (100–200 ng for the single-copy oligo pool). The spread chromosomes were dehydrated in 100% ethanol, and then the probe mixture was added to the chromosome slide, covered with a coverslip, denatured for 5–8 min at 85 °C, and incubated at 37 °C (3–4 h for prelabeled oligo probes; 10–12 h for the nonrepetitive oligo library). Subsequently, the hybridized chromosomes were washed twice with 2 × SSC for 5 min at 37 °C and then for an additional 5 min at room temperature. Chromosomes were counterstained in 2 ng µL-1 DAPI (4’,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole) in Vectashield antifade medium (Solarbio, Beijing, China) after the slides were dried.
For sequential rounds of FISH, slides with high-quality metaphase chromosomes were retained after the first round of FISH and then washed three times with 1 × PBS for 10 min to remove the probes. Afterward, they were denatured again in 70% formamide at 75 °C for 3 min. The slides were sequentially dehydrated in 70%, 85%, and 100% ethanol at room temperature for 5 min and then rehybridized with different probes.
Images were captured with a DP-70 CCD camera attached to a BX53 fluorescence microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) using CellSens Standard Software. Image-Pro Plus software (Version = 6.0) was used to adjust the brightness and contrast and to measure the short and long arms in five complete metaphase cells to calculate the relative length of chromosomes.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms232113213/s1.

Author Contributions

X.W. designed and supervised the project. L.W. performed experiments, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. Y.F., Y.W., J.Z. and Q.C. performed some of the data analysis. Z.L., C.L., W.H., H.W., S.Y., Y.Z., Y.L. and H.T. provided support for picture processing, formal analysis, review, and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant No. 31672114 and 31801826], Sichuan Science and Technology Program [Grant No. 2019JDTD0010], Cherry Resources Sharing and Service Platform of Sichuan Province, National Undergraduate Innovation Training Program [Grant No. 202010626010], Sichuan Science and Technology Innovation Project [Grant No. 2021065], and Shuangzhi Project Innovation Team of Sichuan Agricultural University [Grant No. P202107].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We also thank American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://secure.aje.com/, accessed on 20 May 2022) for professional editing of the English services on this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhang, J.; Wang, Y.; Chen, T.; Chen, Q.; Wang, L.; Liu, Z.S.; Wang, H.; Xie, R.; He, W.; Li, M.; et al. Evolution of Rosaceae Plastomes Highlights Unique Cerasus Diversification and Independent Origins of Fruiting Cherry. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 736053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Tian, T.; Qiao, G.; Wen, Z.; Deng, B.; Qiu, Z.; Hong, Y.; Wen, X. Comparative transcriptome analysis reveals the molecular regulation underlying the adaptive mechanism of cherry (Cerasus pseudocerasus Lindl.) to shelter covering. BMC Plant Biol. 2020, 20, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Horvath, A.; Zanetto, A.; Christmann, H.; Laigret, F.; Tavaud, M. Origin of Sour Cherry (Prunus cerasus L.) Genomes. Acta Hortic. 2008, 795, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Schuster, M.; Schreibner, H. Genome Investigation in Sour Cherry, P. cerasus L. Acta Hortic. 2000, 538, 375–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, Y.; Du, H.-M.; Zhang, J.; Chen, T.; Chen, Q.; Tang, H.-R.; Wang, X.-R. Ploidy level of Chinese cherry (Cerasus pseudocerasus Lindl.) and comparative study on karyotypes with four Cerasus species. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 232, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hoden, R.G.J.; Zimmer, E.; Wen, J. A phylogenomic approach resolves the backbone of Prunus (Rosaceae) and identifies signals of hybridization and allopolyploidy. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2021, 160, 107118. [Google Scholar]
  7. Xiang, Y.; Huang, C.H.; Hu, Y.; Wen, J.; Li, S.; Yi, T.; Chen, H.; Xiang, J.; Ma, H. Evolution of Rosaceae Fruit Types Based on Nuclear Phylogeny in the Context of Geological Times and Genome Duplication. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2017, 34, 262–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Vimala, Y.; Lavania, S.; Lavania, U.C. Chromosome change and karyotype differentiation–implications in speciation and plant systematics. Nucleus 2021, 64, 33–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Marinho, M.A.O.; Sales-Melo, M.R.C.; Melo de Oliveira, M.B.; Maciel, V.E.d.O.; de Carvalho, R. Karyotype variation in 11 species of the Vernonieae Cass. tribe (Asteraceae Bercht. & J. Presl). Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. All Asp. Plant Biol. 2016, 151, 291–303. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dehury, S.; Dehery, S.K.; Das, A.B. Karyotype Variation in Eight Cultivars of Indian Dessert Banana (Musa acuminata L.) of Section Eumusa from Odisha, India. Caryologia 2021, 74, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rasouli, M. Cytogenetical Analysis of Iranian Wild Almond Species. J. Nuts 2014, 5, 63–67. [Google Scholar]
  12. Najafi, S. Karyosystematic Study on Some Almond and Peach Species Grown in Iran. YYU J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 35, 331–336. [Google Scholar]
  13. Shuster, M.; Ahne, R. Karyotype analysis of Prunusavium L. In Proceedings of the Eucarpia Symposium on Fruit Breeding and Genetics, Stuttgart, Germany, 17–29 June 1996. [Google Scholar]
  14. Jiang, J. Fluorescence in situ hybridization in plants: Recent developments and future applications. Chromosome Res. 2019, 27, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Han, Y.H.; Zhang, Z.H.; Liu, J.H.; Lu, J.Y.; Huang, S.W.; Jin, W.W. Distribution of the tandem repeat sequences and karyotyping in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2008, 122, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Deng, H.; Xiang, S.; Guo, Q.; Jin, W.; Cai, Z.; Liang, G. Molecular cytogenetic analysis of genome-specific repetitive elements in Citrus clementina Hort. Ex Tan. and its taxonomic implications. BMC Plant Biol. 2019, 19, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Du, P.; Li, L.; Liu, H.; Fu, L.; Qin, L.; Zhang, Z.; Cui, C.; Sun, Z.; Han, S.; Xu, J.; et al. High-resolution chromosome painting with repetitive and single-copy oligonucleotides in Arachis species identifies structural rearrangements and genome differentiation. BMC Plant Biol. 2018, 18, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sun, J.; Yu, L.; Cai, Z.; Zhang, A.; Jin, W.; Han, Y.; Li, Z. Comparative karyotype analysis among six species of Ipomoea based on two newly identified repetitive sequences. Genome 2019, 62, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tang, S.; Tang, Z.; Qiu, L.; Yang, Z.; Li, G.; Lang, T.; Zhu, W.; Zhang, J.; Fu, S. Developing New Oligo Probes to Distinguish Specific Chromosomal Segments and the A, B, D Genomes of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Using ND-FISH. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yamamoto, M.; Shimada, T.; Haji, T.; Mase, N.; Sato, Y. Physical Mapping of the 18S Ribosomal RNA Gene of Peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch) Chromosomes by Fluorescence in situ Hybridization. Breed. Sci. 1999, 49, 49–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Corredor, E.; Roman, M.; Garcia, E.; Perera, E.; Arus, P.; Naranjo, T. Physical mapping of rDNA genes establishes the karyotype of almond. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2004, 144, 219–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Maghuly, F.; Schmoellerl, B.; Temsch, E.M.; Laimer, M. Genome size, karyotyping and FISH physical mapping of 45S and 5S genes in two cherry rootstocks: Prunus subhirtella and Prunus incisa xserrula. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 149, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Nzweundji, J.G.; Ngwe, M.F.S.N.; Siljak-Yakovlev, S. Insights on cytogenetic of the only strict African representative of genus Prunus (P. africana): First genome size assessment, heterochromatin and rDNA chromosome pattern. Caryologia 2019, 72, 9–19. [Google Scholar]
  24. Han, Y.; Zhang, T.; Thammapichai, P.; Weng, Y.; Jiang, J. Chromosome-Specific Painting in Cucumis Species Using Bulked Oligonucleotides. Genetics 2015, 200, 771–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Zhao, Q.; Meng, Y.; Wang, P.; Qin, X.; Cheng, C.; Zhou, J.; Yu, X.; Li, J.; Lou, Q.; Jahn, M.; et al. Reconstruction of ancestral karyotype illuminates chromosome evolution in the genus Cucumis. Plant J. 2021, 107, 1243–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bi, Y.; Zhao, Q.; Yan, W.; Li, M.; Liu, Y.; Cheng, C.; Zhang, L.; Yu, X.; Li, J.; Qian, C.; et al. Flexible chromosome painting based on multiplex PCR of oligonucleotides and its application for comparative chromosome analyses in Cucumis. Plant J. 2019, 102, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Qu, M.; Li, K.; Han, Y.; Chen, L.; Li, Z.; Han, Y. Integrated Karyotyping of Woodland Strawberry (Fragaria vesca) with Oligopaint FISH Probes. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2017, 153, 158–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Qu, M.; Zhang, L.; Li, K.; Sun, J.; Li, Z.; Han, Y. Karyotypic stability of Fragaria (strawberry) species revealed by cross-species chromosome painting. Chromosome Res. 2021, 29, 285–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hou, L.; Xu, M.; Zhang, T.; Xu, Z.; Wang, W.; Zhang, J.; Yu, M.; Ji, W.; Zhu, C.; Gong, Z.; et al. Chromosome painting and its applications in cultivated and wild rice. BMC Plant Biol. 2018, 18, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Xin, H.; Zhang, T.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, P.; Xi, M.; Jiang, J. An extraordinarily stable karyotype of the woody Populus species revealed by chromosome painting. Plant J. 2019, 101, 253–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Albert, P.S.; Zhang, T.; Semrau, K.; Rouillard, J.M.; Kao, Y.H.; Wang, C.R.; Danilova, T.V.; Jiang, J.; Birchler, J.A. Whole-chromosome paints in maize reveal rearrangements, nuclear domains, and chromosomal relationships. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 1679–1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Braz, G.T.; do Vale Martins, L.; Zhang, T.; Albert, P.S.; Birchler, J.A.; Jiang, J. A universal chromosome identification system for maize and wild Zea species. Chromosome Res. 2020, 28, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Šimoníková, D.; Němečková, A.; Karafiátová, M.; Uwimana, B.; Swennen, R.; Doležel, J.; Hřibová, E. Chromosome Painting Facilitates Anchoring Reference Genome Sequence to Chromosomes In Situ and Integrated Karyotyping in Banana (Musa spp.). Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Šimoníková, D.; Němečková, A.; Čížková, J.; Brown, A.; Swennen, R.; Doležel, J.; Hřibová, E. Chromosome Painting in Cultivated Bananas and Their Wild Relatives (Musa spp.) Reveals Differences in Chromosome Structure. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 7915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. de Oliveira Bustamante, F.; do Nascimento, T.H.; Montenegro, C.; Dias, S.; do Vale Martins, L.; Braz, G.T.; Benko-Iseppon, A.M.; Jiang, J.; Pedrosa-Harand, A.; Brasileiro-Vidal, A.C. Oligo-FISH barcode in beans: A new chromosome identification system. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2021, 134, 3675–3686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Meng, Z.; Wang, Q.; Khurshid, H.; Raza, G.; Han, J.; Wang, B.; Wang, K. Chromosome Painting Provides Insights Into the Genome Structure and Evolution of Sugarcane. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 731664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yu, F.; Chai, J.; Li, X.; Yu, Z.; Yang, R.; Ding, X.; Wang, Q.; Wu, J.; Yang, X.; Deng, Z. Chromosomal Characterization of Tripidium arundinaceum Revealed by Oligo-FISH. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 8539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zaki, N.M.; Schwarzacher, T.; Singh, R.; Madon, M.; Wischmeyer, C.; Hanim Mohd Nor, N.; Zulkifli, M.A.; Heslop-Harrison, J.S.P. Chromosome identification in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) using in situ hybridization with massive pools of single copy oligonucleotides and transferability across Arecaceae species. Chromosome Res. 2021, 29, 373–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Song, X.; Song, R.; Zhou, J.; Yan, W.; Zhang, T.; Sun, H.; Xiao, J.; Wu, Y.; Xi, M.; Lou, Q.; et al. Development and application of oligonucleotide-based chromosome painting for chromosome 4D of Triticum aestivum L. Chromosome Res. 2020, 28, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Li, G.; Zhang, T.; Yu, Z.; Wang, H.; Yang, E.; Yang, Z. An efficient Oligo-FISH painting system for revealing chromosome rearrangements and polyploidization in Triticeae. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2020, 105, 978–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. He, L.; Zhao, H.; He, J.; Yang, Z.; Guan, B.; Chen, K.; Hong, Q.; Wang, J.; Liu, J.; Jiang, J. Extraordinarily conserved chromosomal synteny of Citrus species revealed by chromosome-specific painting. Plant J. 2020, 103, 2225–2235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chen, L.; Su, D.; Sun, J.; Li, Z.; Han, Y. Development of a set of chromosome-specific oligonucleotide markers and karyotype analysis in the Japanese morning glory Ipomoea nil. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 273, 109633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. He, L.; Braz, G.T.; Torres, G.A.; Jiang, J. Chromosome painting in meiosis reveals pairing of specific chromosomes in polyploid Solanum species. Chromosoma 2018, 127, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Yi, X.G.; Yu, X.Q.; Chen, J.; Zhang, M.; Liu, S.W.; Zhu, H.; Li, M.; Duan, Y.F.; Chen, L.; Wu, L.; et al. The genome of Chinese flowering cherry (Cerasus serrulata) provides new insights into Cerasus species. Hortic. Res. 2020, 7, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Tan, Q.; Li, S.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, M.; Wen, B.; Jiang, S.; Chen, X.; Fu, X.; Li, D.; Wu, H.; et al. Chromosome-level genome assemblies of five Prunus species and genome-wide association studies for key agronomic traits in peach. Hortic. Res. 2021, 8, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Wang, J.; Liu, W.; Zhu, D.; Hong, P.; Zhang, S.; Xiao, S.; Tan, Y.; Chen, X.; Xu, L.; Zong, X.; et al. Chromosome-scale genome assembly of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) cv. Tieton obtained using long-read and Hi-C sequencing. Hortic. Res. 2020, 7, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Huang, Z.; Shen, F.; Chen, Y.; Cao, K.; Wang, L. Chromosome-scale genome assembly and population genomics provide insights into the adaptation, domestication, and flavonoid metabolism of Chinese plum. Plant J. 2021, 108, 1174–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liu, C.; Feng, C.; Peng, W.; Hao, J.; Wang, J.; Pan, J.; He, Y. Chromosome-level draft genome of a diploid plum (Prunus salicina). Gigascience 2020, 9, giaa130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jiang, F.; Zhang, J.; Wang, S.; Yang, L.; Luo, Y.; Gao, S.; Zhang, M.; Wu, S.; Hu, S.; Sun, H.; et al. The apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) genome elucidates Rosaceae evolution and beta-carotenoid synthesis. Hortic. Res. 2019, 6, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Alioto, T.; Alexiou, K.G.; Bardil, A.; Barteri, F.; Castanera, R.; Cruz, F.; Dhingra, A.; Duval, H.; Fernandez, I.M.A.; Frias, L.; et al. Transposons played a major role in the diversification between the closely related almond and peach genomes: Results from the almond genome sequence. Plant J. 2020, 101, 455–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Brasileiro-Vidal, A.C.; Dos Santos-Serejo, J.A.; Soares Filho Wdos, S.; Guerra, M. A simple chromosomal marker can reliably distinguishes Poncirus from Citrus species. Genetica 2007, 129, 273–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. da Costa Silva, S.; Mendes, S.; Soares Filho, W.d.S.; Pedrosa-Harand, A. Chromosome homologies between Citrus and Poncirus—The comparative cytogenetic map of mandarin (Citrus reticulata). Tree Genet. Genomes 2014, 11, 811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rae Rho, I.; Hwang, Y.J.; Lee, H.I.; Lee, C.-H.; Lim, K.B. Karyotype analysis using FISH (fluorescence in situ hybridization) in Fragaria. Sci. Hortic. 2012, 136, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ren, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, J.; Staub, J.E.; Han, Y.; Cheng, Z.; Li, X.; Lu, J.; Miao, H.; Kang, H.; et al. An integrated genetic and cytogenetic map of the cucumber genome. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e5795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, Z.T.; Yang, S.Q.; Li, Z.A.; Zhang, Y.X.; Wang, Y.Z.; Cheng, C.Y.; Li, J.; Chen, J.F.; Lou, Q.F. Comparative chromosomal localization of 45S and 5S rDNAs and implications for genome evolution in Cucumis. Genome 2016, 59, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Tang, X.; de Boer, J.M.; van Eck, H.J.; Bachem, C.; Visser, R.G.; de Jong, H. Assignment of genetic linkage maps to diploid Solanum tuberosum pachytene chromosomes by BAC-FISH technology. Chromosome Res. 2009, 17, 899–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Tang, X. Chromosomal organizations of major repeat families on potato (Solanum tuberosum) and further exploring in its sequenced genome. Mol Genet Genom. 2014, 289, 1307–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Du, P.; Cui, C.; Liu, H.; Fu, L.; Li, L.; Dai, X.; Qin, L.; Wang, S.; Han, S.; Xu, J.; et al. Development of an oligonucleotide dye solution facilitates high throughput and cost-efficient chromosome identification in peanut. Plant Methods 2019, 15, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Xiao, Z.; Tang, S.; Qiu, L.; Tang, Z.; Fu, S. Oligonucleotides and ND-FISH Displaying Different Arrangements of Tandem Repeats and Identification of Dasypyrum villosum Chromosomes in Wheat Backgrounds. Molecules 2017, 22, 973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Lang, T.; Li, G.; Wang, H.; Yu, Z.; Chen, Q.; Yang, E.; Fu, S.; Tang, Z.; Yang, Z. Physical location of tandem repeats in the wheat genome and application for chromosome identification. Planta 2018, 249, 663–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wang, L.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Feng, Y.; Chen, Q.; Liu, Z.-S.; Liu, C.-L.; He, W.; Wang, H.; Yang, S.-F.; et al. Comparative Analysis of Transposable Elements and the Identification of Candidate Centromeric Elements in the Prunus Subgenus Cerasus and Its Relatives. Genes 2022, 13, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Braz, G.T.; He, L.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, T.; Semrau, K.; Rouillard, J.M.; Torres, G.A.; Jiang, J. Comparative Oligo-FISH Mapping: An Efficient and Powerful Methodology To Reveal Karyotypic and Chromosomal Evolution. Genetics 2018, 208, 513–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Liu, X.; Sun, S.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Gu, S.; Yu, H.; Yi, C.; Gu, M.; Jiang, J.; Liu, B.; et al. Dual-color oligo-FISH can reveal chromosomal variations and evolution in Oryza species. Plant J. 2019, 101, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Zhang, T.; Liu, G.; Zhao, H.; Braz, G.T.; Jiang, J. Chorus2: Design of genome-scale oligonucleotide-based probes for fluorescence in situ hybridization. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2021, 19, 1967–1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Shirasawa, K.; Esumi, T.; Hirakawa, H.; Tanaka, H.; Itai, A.; Ghelfi, A.; Nagasaki, H.; Isobe, S. Phased genome sequence of an interspecific hybrid flowering cherry, ‘Somei-Yoshino’ (Cerasus × yedoensis). DNA Res. 2019, 26, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Waminal, N.E.; Pellerin, R.J.; Kang, S.-H.; Kim, H.H. Chromosomal Mapping of Tandem Repeats Revealed Massive Chromosomal Rearrangements and Insights into Senna tora Dysploidy. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 629898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Balzano, E.; Pelliccia, F.; Giunta, S. Genome (in)stability at tandem repeats. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 113, 97–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Xiong, Z.; Gaeta, R.T.; Edger, P.P.; Cao, Y.; Zhao, K.; Zhang, S.; Pires, J.C. Chromosome inheritance and meiotic stability in allopolyploid Brassica napus. G3 Genes Genomes Genet. 2020, 11, jkaa011. [Google Scholar]
  69. Li, K.; Wang, H.; Wang, J.; Sun, J.; Li, Z.; Han, Y. Divergence between C. melo and African Cucumis Species Identified by Chromosome Painting and rDNA Distribution Pattern. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2016, 150, 150–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Van de Peer, Y.; Mizrachi, E.; Marchal, K. The evolutionary significance of polyploidy. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2017, 18, 411–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Younis, A.; Ramzan, F.; Hwang, Y.-J.; Lim, K.-B. FISH and GISH: Molecular cytogenetic tools and their applications in ornamental plants. Plant Cell Rep. 2015, 34, 1477–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jin, J.J.; Yu, W.B.; Yang, J.B.; Song, Y.; dePamphilis, C.W.; Yi, T.S.; Li, D.Z. GetOrganelle: A fast and versatile toolkit for accurate de novo assembly of organelle genomes. Genome Biol. 2020, 21, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Verde, I.; Jenkins, J.; Dondini, L.; Micali, S.; Pagliarani, G.; Vendramin, E.; Paris, R.; Aramini, V.; Gazza, L.; Rossini, L.; et al. The Peach v2.0 release: High-resolution linkage mapping and deep resequencing improve chromosome-scale assembly and contiguity. BMC Genom. 2017, 18, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijms 23 13213 g001 550
Figure 1. The structure between the 45S rDNA of P. pseudocerasus and its relatives.
Figure 1. The structure between the 45S rDNA of P. pseudocerasus and its relatives.
Ijms 23 13213 g001
Ijms 23 13213 g002 550
Figure 2. A phylogenetic tree of the genus Prunus was constructed based on complete 45S rDNA sequences. The ML phylogenetic tree was reconstructed using MEGAX with the “Tamura-Nei” model. Numbers at nodes are bootstrap values (as percentages) from 1000 replicates. Only values higher than 50% are shown. The 45S rDNA from the species Kageneckia angustifolia was used as an outgroup.
Figure 2. A phylogenetic tree of the genus Prunus was constructed based on complete 45S rDNA sequences. The ML phylogenetic tree was reconstructed using MEGAX with the “Tamura-Nei” model. Numbers at nodes are bootstrap values (as percentages) from 1000 replicates. Only values higher than 50% are shown. The 45S rDNA from the species Kageneckia angustifolia was used as an outgroup.
Ijms 23 13213 g002
Ijms 23 13213 g003 550
Figure 3. A model ideogram showing the locations of the single-copy oligo pool that produced the signals on the chromosomes of the Chinese cherry. Oligos were selected from 14 regions distributed on the pseudochromosome and colored red/green. The presence of six red and eight green regions showed that two different flanking external primer pairs could be amplified with their primers. The eight chromosomes could be distinguished based on the distribution pattern, i.e., the number and location of the red/green signals. Chromosome nomenclature followed pseudochromosomes in the draft genome of peach. The centromere positions on the eight chromosomes were determined based on the locations of centromere repeat sequences.
Figure 3. A model ideogram showing the locations of the single-copy oligo pool that produced the signals on the chromosomes of the Chinese cherry. Oligos were selected from 14 regions distributed on the pseudochromosome and colored red/green. The presence of six red and eight green regions showed that two different flanking external primer pairs could be amplified with their primers. The eight chromosomes could be distinguished based on the distribution pattern, i.e., the number and location of the red/green signals. Chromosome nomenclature followed pseudochromosomes in the draft genome of peach. The centromere positions on the eight chromosomes were determined based on the locations of centromere repeat sequences.
Ijms 23 13213 g003
Ijms 23 13213 g004 550
Figure 4. Accurate chromosome identification in metaphase spreads from Chinese cherry. (a1–e1) FISH mapping of the two single copy oligonucleotide probe sublibraries on chromosomes. P. pseudocerasus_HC (a1), P. pseudocerasus_BZ (b1), P. pseudocerasus_HF (c1), P. pseudocerasus_PJHH (d1), and P. pseudocerasus_FM2 (e1), respectively. (a2–e2) Homologous chromosomes were digitally excised from (a1–e1) and paired.
Figure 4. Accurate chromosome identification in metaphase spreads from Chinese cherry. (a1–e1) FISH mapping of the two single copy oligonucleotide probe sublibraries on chromosomes. P. pseudocerasus_HC (a1), P. pseudocerasus_BZ (b1), P. pseudocerasus_HF (c1), P. pseudocerasus_PJHH (d1), and P. pseudocerasus_FM2 (e1), respectively. (a2–e2) Homologous chromosomes were digitally excised from (a1–e1) and paired.
Ijms 23 13213 g004
Ijms 23 13213 g005 550
Figure 5. Chromosome identification in metaphase spreads of species closely related to Chinese cherry. (a) P. avium_Mazzard, (b) P. avium_Van, (c) P. yedoensis_DJYH, (d) P. campanulata_ZHYT, (e) P. cerasus_SYT, (f) P. humilis_Ouli, (g) P. tomentosa_red_fruit, (h) P. tomentosa_white_fruit, (i) P. salicina_SYL, (j) P. armeniaca_DGX, (k) P. dulcis_BT, and (l) P. persica_MT.
Figure 5. Chromosome identification in metaphase spreads of species closely related to Chinese cherry. (a) P. avium_Mazzard, (b) P. avium_Van, (c) P. yedoensis_DJYH, (d) P. campanulata_ZHYT, (e) P. cerasus_SYT, (f) P. humilis_Ouli, (g) P. tomentosa_red_fruit, (h) P. tomentosa_white_fruit, (i) P. salicina_SYL, (j) P. armeniaca_DGX, (k) P. dulcis_BT, and (l) P. persica_MT.
Ijms 23 13213 g005
Ijms 23 13213 g006 550
Figure 6. FISH of 5S rDNA and 45S rDNA accurately identified five Chinese cherries. (a1–e1) First round of FISH using two sets of oligo sublibrary probes on metaphase chromosomes for chromosome identification. P. pseudocerasus_HC (a1), P. pseudocerasus_BZ (b1), P. pseudocerasus_HF (c1), P. pseudocerasus_PJHH (d1), and P. pseudocerasus_FM2 (e1). (a2–e2) The same cells in (a1–e1) reprobed with using 5S rDNA (green) and 45S rDNA (red) probes.
Figure 6. FISH of 5S rDNA and 45S rDNA accurately identified five Chinese cherries. (a1–e1) First round of FISH using two sets of oligo sublibrary probes on metaphase chromosomes for chromosome identification. P. pseudocerasus_HC (a1), P. pseudocerasus_BZ (b1), P. pseudocerasus_HF (c1), P. pseudocerasus_PJHH (d1), and P. pseudocerasus_FM2 (e1). (a2–e2) The same cells in (a1–e1) reprobed with using 5S rDNA (green) and 45S rDNA (red) probes.
Ijms 23 13213 g006
Ijms 23 13213 g007 550
Figure 7. Variation in the distribution of 5S rDNA (green) and 45S rDNA (red) among Prunus. The phylogeny of the eleven species in this study was constructed based on 45S rDNA.
Figure 7. Variation in the distribution of 5S rDNA (green) and 45S rDNA (red) among Prunus. The phylogeny of the eleven species in this study was constructed based on 45S rDNA.
Ijms 23 13213 g007
Ijms 23 13213 g008 550
Figure 8. Ideogram of the karyotypes of P. pseudocerasus_HC (a), P. avium_Mazzard (b), and P. persica_MT (c). Chromosome nomenclature according to the genome P. persica.
Figure 8. Ideogram of the karyotypes of P. pseudocerasus_HC (a), P. avium_Mazzard (b), and P. persica_MT (c). Chromosome nomenclature according to the genome P. persica.
Ijms 23 13213 g008
Table
Table 1. Numbers of oligos and contig positions of 14 regions selected for oligo-FISH probe development.
Table 1. Numbers of oligos and contig positions of 14 regions selected for oligo-FISH probe development.
ContigsContigs Length (bp)Oligo NumberCorresponding ChromosomeRegion Length (bp)Density Oligos/kbPrimers Flanking Oligos *
Contig_272,252,3446790Chr_11,699,8073.99W1.F + P1.F—P1.R + W1.R
Contig_292,199,5507513Chr_12,141,3213.42W1.F + P1.F—P1.R + W1.R
Contig_252,290,1697413Chr_21,399,3775.30W2.F + P2.F—P2.R + W2.R
Contig_025,439,0596568Chr_31,594,4374.11W2.F + P3.F—P3.R + W2.R
Contig_094,505,1476618Chr_31,462,9694.41W2.F + P3.F—P3.R + W2.R
Contig_045,080,1086964Chr_41,480,8584.64W1.F + P4.F—P4.R + W1.R
Contig_017,149,1217960Chr_51,998,3873.98W1.F + P5.F—P5.R + W1.R
Contig_371,734,6907162Chr_51,676,0824.21W2.F + P5.F—P5.R + W2.R
Contig_451,603,9377120Chr_61,541,0984.45W2.F + P6.F—P6.R + W2.R
Contig_074,762,2817080Chr_61,765,1253.93W1.F + P6.F—P6.R + W1.R
Contig_342,027,0336780Chr_71,516,1584.52W1.F + P7.F—P7.R + W1.R
Contig_084,598,1595407Chr_71,598,1073.38W2.F + P7.F—P7.R + W2.R
Contig_202,726,9375146Chr_81,879,0602.71W1.F + P8.F—P8.R + W1.R
Contig_521,520,7986773Chr_81,418,1344.84W1.F + P8.F—P8.R + W1.R
* W1.F-W2.F and W1.R-W2.R represent external forward and reverse primers flanking oligos from specific segments, while P1.F-P8.F and P1.R-P8.R represent internal forward and reverse primers (Supplementary Table S1).
Table
Table 2. Plant materials used in this study for oligo-FISH on mitotic metaphase chromosomes.
Table 2. Plant materials used in this study for oligo-FISH on mitotic metaphase chromosomes.
SpeciesAccession Name or CodePloidyOrigin (Location)
True cherry
Prunus pseudocerasusHC; BZ; HF; PJHH; FM2 *2n = 4x = 32Chongzhou City, Sichuan Province, China
Prunus yedoensisDJYH2n = 2x = 16Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, China
Prunus campanulataZHYT2n = 2x = 16
Prunus aviumMazzard; Van2n = 2x = 16Zhengzhou Fruit Institute, Chinese Academy of Agriculture Sciences
Prunus cerasusSYT2n = 4x = 32
Dwarf cherry
Prunus humilisOuli2n = 2x = 16Zhengzhou Fruit Institute, Chinese Academy of Agriculture Sciences
Prunus tomentosared_fruit; white_fruit2n = 2x = 16
Closely related species
Prunus armeniacaDGX2n = 2x = 16Akesu, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China
Prunus dulcisBT2n = 2x = 16Luntai, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China
Prunus salicinaSYL2n = 2x = 16Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, China
Prunus persicaMT2n = 2x = 16
* represents that this accession is a pentaploid (2n = 5x = 40).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, L.; Feng, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Chen, Q.; Liu, Z.; Liu, C.; He, W.; Wang, H.; Yang, S.; et al. Accurate Chromosome Identification in the Prunus Subgenus Cerasus (Prunus pseudocerasus) and its Relatives by Oligo-FISH. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 13213. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232113213

AMA Style

Wang L, Feng Y, Wang Y, Zhang J, Chen Q, Liu Z, Liu C, He W, Wang H, Yang S, et al. Accurate Chromosome Identification in the Prunus Subgenus Cerasus (Prunus pseudocerasus) and its Relatives by Oligo-FISH. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022; 23(21):13213. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232113213

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Lei, Yan Feng, Yan Wang, Jing Zhang, Qing Chen, Zhenshan Liu, Congli Liu, Wen He, Hao Wang, Shaofeng Yang, and et al. 2022. "Accurate Chromosome Identification in the Prunus Subgenus Cerasus (Prunus pseudocerasus) and its Relatives by Oligo-FISH" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23, no. 21: 13213. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232113213

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop