1978
DOI: 10.1159/000130860
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

G-band patterns of six species of mice belonging to subgenus <i>Mus</i>

Abstract: The G-band patterns of six species and one subspecies in the subgenus Mus were compared. Other than the differences in the amount and distribution of C-bands, all species had the same bands.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
12
1
2

Year Published

1980
1980
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
12
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…No differences were found between the banding pattern of Malagasy mice and previous results published by Hsu et al (1978) for several species (domesticus, molossinus, caroli, cervicolor, cookii, booduga) belonging to subgenus Mus which has a karyotype known to be highly conservative; the presence of an HSR (homogeneously staining region) is not detected in Malagasy mice, but has been observed in different 'domesticus' populations by Hü bner et al (1994).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 44%
“…No differences were found between the banding pattern of Malagasy mice and previous results published by Hsu et al (1978) for several species (domesticus, molossinus, caroli, cervicolor, cookii, booduga) belonging to subgenus Mus which has a karyotype known to be highly conservative; the presence of an HSR (homogeneously staining region) is not detected in Malagasy mice, but has been observed in different 'domesticus' populations by Hü bner et al (1994).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 44%
“…Chromo somal variations within the genus Sigmodon is characterized by tandem and centric fu sions (E lder, 1980). In the genus Mus, the Old World equivalent of Peromyscus, some species have maintained identical karyotypes (Hsu et al, 1978), while in M. musculus, a minimum of 27 centric fusions have been established with no inversions or heterochromatic additions (Cappana et al, 1976). From these examples, one can see that the prob ability of such variations in frequency of certain types of rearrangements in rodents is not easily explained by stochastic pro cesses, and karyotypic orthoselection, as defined by W hitp.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, the inversion system on chromosome 17 may provide a unique opportunity to study the phenomenon of inversion polymorphisms in natural populations of house mice. Classical cytogenetic investigations failed to detect these inversions (38,39) and have been generally unsuccessful in discovering rearrangements among species of Mus (40). However, inversions have been visualized by comparative in situ hybridizations with probes for loci within the proximal and distal inversions (41).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%