CARYOLOGIA Vol. 56, no. 2: 227-231, 2003 New methods for comparison of chromosomes within and between species JULIE ANNE PLUMMER 1, 2, FUCHENG SHAN 1, NICHOLAS GALWEY 1, 3 and GUIJUN YAN 1 1 Plant Biology, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia. 2 Current Address: Oxagen Ltd, 91 Milton Park, Abbingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 4RY, United Kingdom. Abstract - A new method (called New Relative Length) was developed for comparison of chromosome size when both paired and unpaired chromosomes are present. All chromosomes were used in the calculation. A method of graphical display of karyotype data (called a Karyotype Graph), plotting New Relative Length on the vertical axis and arm ratio on the horizontal axis was used to indicate sampling error, to pair chromosomes and to match similar chromosomes in related species. Terms for Chromosome Size were also defined namely Small, Medium or Large depending on New Relative Length as a proportion of total chromosome length. These terms could also be used to compare chromosomes within species and between related species. INTRODUCTION The standard karyotype descriptions of relative length and arm ratio work well where chromosomes can readily be paired. They were designed for comparisons within species where there is little variation between genotypes. However, these measurements are difficult to use where chromosomes do not pair or for comparisons between related taxa with different karyotypes. Changes in chromosome morphology reflect evolution and it would therefore be advantageous to have a system whereby karyotypes of related genotypes and species could be compared. This paper proposes such a system. Boronia is a genus of the family Rutaceae with considerable variation in chromosome number and morphology. Diploid chromosome numbers vary from 14 to 72 (SMITH-WHITE 1954; STACE et al. 1993). Intraspecific variation in chromosome number (SMITH-WHITE 1954; ASTARINI et al. 1999) and morphology is also present, including * Corresponding author: fax +61 8 9380 1108; e-mail: jplummer@cyllene.uwa.edu.au different chromosome length and centromere position and the presence of unpaired chromosomes (YAN et al. 2001). In genera where the evolutionary relationships are disputed, such as Boronia (SMITH-WHITE 1954; WILSON 1971; WESTON et al. 1984; STACE et al. 1993), a means to assess differences in chromosome morphology between taxa would help to elucidate the inheritance of genetic material and the relationships between species. Therefore Boronia was used to test the value of the new methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS Observations were made on metaphase cells in which individual chromosomes were clearly distinguishable. A single genotype of Boronia heterophylla Red and one of B. molloyae were examined. A minimum of ten mitotic cells were used to determine chromosome number. Photographs of the 5 best individual cells were enlarged for karyotyping. Chromosomes were placed in pairs arranged in order of size and numbered from 1 (largest) to 2n (smallest; 2n = diploid number). Individual chromosome length, and long and short arm length were measured.
228 PLUMMER, SHAN, GALWEY and YAN Traditional relative length (e.g. LEVAN et al. 1964; STEBBINS 1971) is calculated for pairs of chromosomes and the calculations are not designed for unpaired chromosomes. New Relative Length was calculated individually for each chromosomes within a nucleus, and was given by (chromosome length of the individual chromosome / total length of all chromosomes) x 100. Arm ratio (long arm length/short arm length; LEVAN et al. 1964) was also calculated for each chromosome. To indicate variation due to sampling errors and to pair chromosomes within a genotype, arm ratio was plotted against New Relative Length for four sets of chromosomes in B. heterophylla Red. To indicate similarities between species the mean values for B. heterophylla Red and B. molloyae were presented in a separate graph, which we called a Karyotype Graph. For comparisons across genotypes, categories of Chromosome Size using the New Relative Length were developed. Total chromosome length was arbitrarily set at 100 so that if all chromosomes were of equal length, each was 100/2n long, where n = haploid number. Chromosomes of Small New Relative Length (S) were defined as between 100/(2 x 2n) and 100/(1.5 x 2n), those of Medium New Relative Length (M) were in the range 100/(1.5 x 2n) to 100/(0.75 x 2n) with a mid-point of 100/2n, and those of Large New Relative Length (L) were in the range 100/(0.75 x 2n) to 100/(0.5 x 2n). This notation can be extended to define smaller and larger chromosome categories if required. For example, a category of Very Small can be created by defining a new boundary using a divisor twice as large as that used to define the outer boundary of the Small category (i.e. outer limit of Very Small =100/2 x 2 x 2n). Similarly a category of Very large can be created by defining a new boundary using a devisor which is half as big as the outer boundary of the Large category (i.e. outer limit of Very Large = 100/0.5 x 0.5 x 2n). Further categories can be created by repeating this pattern. For species with pairs of chromosomes New Relative Length is half the traditional relative length. There are equivalent values for Small (100/2n to 100/1.5n) Medium (100/1.5n to 100/0.75n with a midpoint of 100/n) and Large (100/0.75n to 100/0.5n) chromosomes specified above. a b 1 µm c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 B. heterophylla Red b 1 µm c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B. molloyae Fig. 1 Karyotypes of Boronia heterophylla Red and B. molloyae. a) Chromosomes in nucleus at metaphase of mitosis; b) karyotype of chromosomes; c) idiogram of chromosomes.
COMPARISON OF CHROMOSOMES WITHIN AND BETWEEN SPECIES 229 In comparing karyotypes both the length of chromosomes and the position of the centromere are used. Each chromosome thus has two values represented by the mean of a series of observations. If chromosomes within a genotype are similar, condensation errors can sometimes make it difficult to determine which chromosome is which. Graphical presentation of the two values simultaneously permits resolution of some of these ambiguities, and hence fuller identification of pairs of chromosomes. Identification of pairs is by inspection: a statistical test of the confidence of this identification is not attempted here. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION LEVAN et al. (1964) introduced standardized definitions of arm ratio when they numerically set limits for the use of the terms median, submedian, subterminal and terminal. We have extended this concept here to include standardized definitions of New Relative Length and Chromosome Size. There are 15 chromosomes in Boronia heterophylla Red (Fig. 1). Traditional relative length was therefore difficult to calculate taking account of the odd chromosome, however New Relative Length indicated the length of all chromosomes (Fig. 2). The largest chromosome was single with a New Relative Length of 9.2. All other chromosomes could be grouped into seven pairs in which mean New Relative Length ranged from 8.0 to 4.8. Condensation errors resulted in a range of values for each chromosome. The largest range in New Relative Length for a chromosome was 5.6-7.8 (Chromosome 11 in Fig. 2) with a mean of 6.4 across the four cells presented. Chromosome 11 was paired with Chromosome 10 (range 6.0-7.1, mean = 6.4). The smallest range was 6.3-6.7 for Chromosome 7, with a mean of 6.5, and this was paired with Chromosome 6 (Fig. 2; range 6.3-7.6, mean = 6.8). Arm ratios also varied between cells. The smallest range in arm ratios was 1.0-1.2 for the single Chromosome 1 (Fig. 2), with a mean of 1.1. The largest range was 4.8 5.5 for Chromosome 12, with a mean of 5.1, and this was paired with Chromosome 13 (Fig. 2; range 4.7 5.0, mean = 4.8). Three pairs of chromosomes were subterminal, three were submetacentric and one was metacentric, according to the classification of LEVAN et al. (1964). However, the numerical com- Fig. 2 Identification of similar chromosomes in Boronia heterophylla Red using individual measurements of New Relative Length and Arm Ratio. For clarity only measurements of four cells are included. Note: paired chromosomes are represented by matching solid and hollow symbols; small and large symbols represent different chromosomes.
230 PLUMMER, SHAN, GALWEY and YAN Fig. 3 Small (100/(2 x 2n) to 100/(1.5 x 2n)), Medium (100/(1.5 x 2n) to 100/(0.75 x 2n)) and Large (100/(0.75 x 2n) and 100/ (0.5 x 2n)) category boundaries for New Relative Length for chromosomes of Boronia molloyae (2n=16) and B. heterophylla Red (2n=15). 2n = total or diploid chromosome number. Category boundaries for standard relative length are indicated in parentheses. parisons of arm length given above better indicate relatedness of chromosomes, especially when New Relative Length is considered simultaneously (Fig. 2). Differences in observed chromosome length and arm ratio were possibly due to differences in chromosome condensation rates and to arms bending up or down in the cell preparation which can only be viewed in two dimensions. Graphical presentation of the numerical range of New Relative Lengths and arm ratios indicates whether or not further replication is required. Fig. 4 Karyotype Graph of mean values for New Relative Lengths and arm ratios of two species from the genus Boronia, section Boronia, series Boronia (WILSON 1998; Wilson pers. comm.): B. heterophylla Red and B. molloyae.
COMPARISON OF CHROMOSOMES WITHIN AND BETWEEN SPECIES 231 Boronia molloyae has a diploid number of 16 (Fig. 1; SMITH-WHITE 1954) and B. heterophylla Red has 2n=15 (Fig. 1; ASTARINI et al. 1999). If all chromosomes were of average and equal length within these taxa then the New Relative Length of all B. molloyae chromosomes would be 100/2 x 16 = 6.3 and that of B. heterophylla Red 100/2 x 15 = 6.7 (Fig. 3). These values represent the center point of Medium length chromosomes. Chromosomes within each species were classified as Small, Medium or Large based on New Relative Length (Fig. 3). Comparisons of chromosomes between species can then refer to the presence and number of Small, Medium and Large Chromosomes. The New Relative Length range for Large chromosomes was 8.9 13.3 in B. heterophylla Red and 8.3 12.5 in B. molloyae. Hence B. heterophylla had a single Large chromosome (9.2) and B. molloyae a pair of chromosomes (8.1 and 8.4) just on the Medium/Large border (Fig. 3, 4). All other chromosomes in both species were Medium. Thus species of Boronia contained some similar and some dissimilar chromosomes. Again these could be identified by simultaneous comparison of graphically presented New Relative Length and arm ratio (Fig. 4). A relative length is used only within a karyotype to avoid errors generated by different stages of condensation. Comparison of relative length between species assumes that the total DNA content is similar within a taxonomic group, such as a genus (STEBBINS 1971). It is relatively common for chromosome arms to cross over, with small rearrangements conserving the DNA compliment. However, this may not be the case following complicated rearrangements of arms. Where chromosomes are large enough to examine and distinguish easily, different species and even genotypes within species can be given distinct karyotypes. These methods will provide a significant extension to the current methods (STEBBINS 1971; LEVAN et al. 1964) of presenting such data and comparing chromosomes between taxa. Acknowledgements We thank the Australian Research Council - Small Grants scheme for financial assistance. REFERENCES ASTARINI I.A., YAN G. and PLUMMER J.A., 1999 Interspecific hybridisation of Boronias. Aust. J. Bot., 47: 851-864. LEVAN A., FREDGA K. and SANDBERG A.A., 1964 Nomenclature for centromeric position on chromosomes. Hereditas, 52: 201-220. SMITH-WHITE S., 1954 Chromosome numbers in the Boronieae (Rutaceae) and their bearing on the evolutionary development of the tribe in the Australian Flora. Aust. J. Bot., 2: 287-303. STACE H.M., ARMSTRONG J.A. and JAMES S.H., 1993 Cytoevolutionary patterns in Rutaceae. Plant Syst. Evol., 187: 1-28. STEBBINS G.L., 1971 Chromosomal evolution in higher plants. Edward Arnold, London. WESTON P.H., CAROLIN R.C. and ARMSTRONG J.A., 1984 A clastidic analysis of Boronia Sm. and Boronella Baill. (Rutaceae). Aust. J. Bot., 32: 187-203. WILSON P.G., 1971 Taxonomic note on the family Rutaceae principally of Western Australia. Nuytsia, 1: 197-207., 1998 New names and new taxa in the genus Boronia (Rutaceae) from Western Australia, with notes on seed characters. Nuytsia, 12: 119-154. YAN G., SHAN F. and PLUMMER J.A., 2001 Genomic relationships within Boronia (Rutaceae) as revealed by karyotype analysis and RAPD molecular markers. Plant Syst. Evol., 233: 147-161. Received December 11, 2002; accepted February 17, 2003