Literature DB >> 12446812

Patterns of insertion and deletion in contrasting chromatin domains.

Justin P Blumenstiel1, Daniel L Hartl, Elena R Lozovsky.   

Abstract

Transposable elements (TEs) play a fundamental role in the evolution of genomes. In Drosophila they are disproportionately represented in regions of low recombination, such as in heterochromatin. This pattern has been attributed to selection against repeated elements in regions of normal recombination, owing to either (1) the slightly deleterious position effects of TE insertions near or into genes, or (2) strong selection against chromosomal abnormalities arising from ectopic exchange between TE repeats. We have used defective non-long-terminal repeat (LTR) TEs that are "dead-on-arrival" (DOA) and unable to transpose in order to estimate spontaneous deletion rates in different constituents of chromatin. These elements have previously provided evidence for an extremely high rate of spontaneous deletion in Drosophila as compared with mammals, potentially explaining at least part of the differences in the genome sizes in these organisms. However, rates of deletion could be overestimated due to positive selection for a smaller likelihood of ectopic exchange. In this article, we show that rates of spontaneous deletion in DOA repeats are as high in heterochromatin and regions of euchromatin with low recombination as they are in regions of euchromatin with normal recombination. We have also examined the age distribution of five non-LTR families throughout the genome. We show that there is substantial variation in the historical pattern of transposition of these TEs. The overrepresentation of TEs in the heterochromatin is primarily due to their longer retention time in heterochromatin, as evidenced by the average time since insertion. Fragments inserted recently are much more evenly distributed in the genome. This contrast demonstrates that the accumulation of TEs in heterochromatin and in euchromatic regions of low recombination is not due to biased transposition but by greater probabilities of fixation in these regions relative to regions of normal recombination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12446812     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Biol Evol        ISSN: 0737-4038            Impact factor:   16.240


  38 in total

1.  Genome size evolution in pufferfish: a comparative analysis of diodontid and tetraodontid pufferfish genomes.

Authors:  Daniel E Neafsey; Stephen R Palumbi
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 9.043

2.  Degradation of the Repetitive Genomic Landscape in a Close Relative of Caenorhabditis elegans.

Authors:  Gavin C Woodruff; Anastasia A Teterina
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 16.240

3.  Ubiquitous selective constraints in the Drosophila genome revealed by a genome-wide interspecies comparison.

Authors:  Daniel L Halligan; Peter D Keightley
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2006-06-02       Impact factor: 9.043

4.  Insertion/deletion and nucleotide polymorphism data reveal constraints in Drosophila melanogaster introns and intergenic regions.

Authors:  Lino Ometto; Wolfgang Stephan; David De Lorenzo
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2005-01-16       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Evolution of a distinct genomic domain in Drosophila: comparative analysis of the dot chromosome in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila virilis.

Authors:  Wilson Leung; Christopher D Shaffer; Taylor Cordonnier; Jeannette Wong; Michelle S Itano; Elizabeth E Slawson Tempel; Elmer Kellmann; David Michael Desruisseau; Carolyn Cain; Robert Carrasquillo; Tien M Chusak; Katazyna Falkowska; Kelli D Grim; Rui Guan; Jacquelyn Honeybourne; Sana Khan; Louis Lo; Rebecca McGaha; Jevon Plunkett; Justin M Richner; Ryan Richt; Leah Sabin; Anita Shah; Anushree Sharma; Sonal Singhal; Fine Song; Christopher Swope; Craig B Wilen; Jeremy Buhler; Elaine R Mardis; Sarah C R Elgin
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  Alternative splicing: a missing piece in the puzzle of intron gain.

Authors:  Rosa Tarrío; Francisco J Ayala; Francisco Rodríguez-Trelles
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-05-07       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Mystery of intron gain.

Authors:  Alexei Fedorov; Scott Roy; Larisa Fedorova; Walter Gilbert
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2003-09-15       Impact factor: 9.043

8.  Genomic distribution of retrotransposons 297, 1731, copia, mdg1 and roo in the Drosophila melanogaster species subgroup.

Authors:  Julia Díaz-González; Ana Domínguez; Jesús Albornoz
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2009-12-11       Impact factor: 1.082

9.  Patterns of selection against transposons inferred from the distribution of Tc1, Tc3 and Tc5 insertions in the mut-7 line of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans.

Authors:  Carène Rizzon; Edwige Martin; Gabriel Marais; Laurent Duret; Laurent Ségalat; Christian Biémont
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Recurrent Gene Duplication Diversifies Genome Defense Repertoire in Drosophila.

Authors:  Mia T Levine; Helen M Vander Wende; Emily Hsieh; EmilyClare P Baker; Harmit S Malik
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 16.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.