Xiphophorus interspecies hybrids provide genetically controlled models of tumor formation. Spontaneous melanomas form in first-generation backcross (BC(1)) hybrids produced from backcrossing F(1) hybrids derived from the platyfish X. maculatus Jp 163 A and the swordtail X. helleri to the X. helleri parental strain (the Gordon-Kosswig hybrid cross). Nodular melanomas originate in the dorsal fin from cells constituting the spotted dorsal (Sd) pigment pattern. A parallel genetic cross, with X. maculatus Jp 163 B, exhibits the spotted side (Sp) pigment pattern instead of Sd, and produces BC(1) hybrids exhibiting a much lower frequency of spontaneous melanoma formation. These hybrids are susceptible to melanoma development if irradiated with UV light as fry. Other hybrids involving these two strains of X. maculatus and different swordtail and platyfish backcross parents also have been investigated as potential tumor models, and show differing susceptibilities to UV-induced and spontaneous melanomas. Genotyping of individual BC(1) hybrids from several Xiphophorus crosses has implicated a locus, CDKN2X (a Xiphophorus homologue of the mammalian CDKN2 gene family, residing on Xiphophorus linkage group V), in enhancing pigmentation and the susceptibility to spontaneous and UV-induced melanoma formation in BC(1) hybrids from some crosses, but not others. Homozygosity for X. helleri and X. couchianus CDKN2X alleles in BC(1) hybrids can predispose individuals to melanoma, but this susceptibility is modified in other crosses depending both on the contributing sex-linked pigment pattern locus from X. maculatus (Sd or Sp), and the genetic constitution of the backcross parent. Xiphophorus BC(1) hybrids constitute unique genetic models offering the potential to analyze the contributions of specific genes to spontaneous and induced tumor formation in different, but comparable genetic backgrounds.

The explosive expansion of gene maps of mouse and man has provided strong support for hypotheses first advanced from comparing fish and mammalian genomes that the vertebrate genome was derived from multiple ancestral tetraploidizations with subsequent preferential translocations among paralogous chromosomes. At least two genome duplication events have become widely accepted in lineages leading to vertebrates, and a third has been proposed either before, or after, divergence of fishes and tetrapods. Cytogenetic and comparative gene mapping studies suggest that teleost gene maps have diverged more slowly from gene arrangements in the vertebrate ancestor than have those of mammals. The recent assembly of extensive maps of >100 genes in three fish species, medaka (Beloniformes), Xiphophorus swordtails and platyfishes (Cyprinodontiformes), and zebrafish (Cypriniformes) and the development of less extensive maps in several other fish orders provides the first salient opportunity to assess homology of most or all chromosomes among fishes.

BackgroundChIP-Seq is a powerful method commonly used to study global protein-DNA interactions including both transcription factors and histone modifications. We have found that the choice of ChIP-Seq library preparation protocol plays an important role in overall ChIP-Seq data quality. However, very few studies have compared ChIP-Seq libraries prepared by different protocols using multiple targets and a broad range of input DNA levels.ResultsIn this study, we evaluated the performance of four ChIP-Seq library preparation protocols [NEB NEBNext Ultra II, Roche KAPA HyperPrep, Diagenode MicroPlex, and Bioo (now PerkinElmer) NEXTflex] on three target proteins, chosen to represent the three typical signal enrichment patterns in ChIP-Seq experiments: sharp peaks (H3K4me3), broad domains (H3K27me3) and punctate peaks with a protein binding motif (CTCF). We also tested a broad range of different input DNA levels from 0.10 to 10 ng for H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 experiments.ConclusionsOur results suggest that the NEB protocol may be better for preparing H3K4me3 (and potentially other histone modifications with sharp peak enrichment) libraries; the Bioo protocol may be better for preparing H3K27me3 (and potentially other histone modifications with broad domain enrichment) libraries, and the Diagenode protocol may be better for preparing CTCF (and potentially other transcription factors with well-defined binding motifs) libraries. For ChIP-Seq experiments using novel targets without a known signal enrichment pattern, the NEB protocol might be the best choice as it performed well for each of the three targets we tested across a wide array of input DNA levels.