Literature DB >> 16301296

Quantifying ascertainment bias and species-specific length differences in human and chimpanzee microsatellites using genome sequences.

Edward J Vowles1, William Amos.   

Abstract

Surveys of variability of homologous microsatellite loci among species reveal an ascertainment bias for microsatellite length where microsatellite loci isolated in one species tend to be longer than homologous loci in related species. Here, we take advantage of the availability of aligned human and chimpanzee genome sequences to compare length difference of homologous microsatellites for loci identified in humans to length difference for loci identified in chimpanzees. We are able to quantify ascertainment bias for a range of motifs and microsatellite lengths. Because ascertainment bias should not exist if a microsatellite selected in one species is as likely to be longer as it is to be shorter than its homologue, we propose that the nature of ascertainment bias can provide evidence for understanding how microsatellites evolve. We show that bias is greater for longer microsatellites but also that many long microsatellites have short homologues. These results are consistent with the notion that growth of long microsatellites is constrained by an upper length boundary that, when reached, sometimes results in large deletions. By evaluating ascertainment bias separately for interrupted and uninterrupted repeats we also show that long microsatellites tend to become interrupted, thereby contributing a second component of ascertainment bias. Having accounted for ascertainment bias, in agreement with results published elsewhere, we find that microsatellites in humans are longer on average than those in chimpanzees. This length difference is similar among repeat motifs but surprisingly comprises two roughly equal components, one associated with the repeats themselves and one with the flanking sequences. The differences we find can only be explained if microsatellites are both evolving directionally under a biased mutation process and are doing so at different rates in different closely related species.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16301296     DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msj065

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


  20 in total

1.  Large tandem, higher order repeats and regularly dispersed repeat units contribute substantially to divergence between human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes.

Authors:  Vladimir Paar; Matko Glunčić; Ivan Basar; Marija Rosandić; Petar Paar; Mislav Cvitković
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2010-11-20       Impact factor: 2.395

2.  Microsatellite length differences between humans and chimpanzees at autosomal Loci are not found at equivalent haploid Y chromosomal Loci.

Authors:  Manfred Kayser; Edward J Vowles; Dennis Kappei; William Amos
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2006-06-18       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  The genome-wide determinants of human and chimpanzee microsatellite evolution.

Authors:  Yogeshwar D Kelkar; Svitlana Tyekucheva; Francesca Chiaromonte; Kateryna D Makova
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2007-11-21       Impact factor: 9.043

4.  Factors influencing ascertainment bias of microsatellite allele sizes: impact on estimates of mutation rates.

Authors:  Biao Li; Marek Kimmel
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2013-08-14       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Replication slippage versus point mutation rates in short tandem repeats of the human genome.

Authors:  Danilo Pumpernik; Borut Oblak; Branko Borstnik
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomics       Date:  2007-10-10       Impact factor: 3.291

6.  Estimation for general birth-death processes.

Authors:  Forrest W Crawford; Vladimir N Minin; Marc A Suchard
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 5.033

7.  Conservation of human microsatellites across 450 million years of evolution.

Authors:  Emmanuel Buschiazzo; Neil J Gemmell
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2010-02-08       Impact factor: 3.416

8.  Utility of sequenced genomes for microsatellite marker development in non-model organisms: a case study of functionally important genes in nine-spined sticklebacks (Pungitius pungitius).

Authors:  Takahito Shikano; Jetty Ramadevi; Yukinori Shimada; Juha Merilä
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 3.969

9.  Genome-wide analysis of microsatellite polymorphism in chicken circumventing the ascertainment bias.

Authors:  Mikael Brandström; Hans Ellegren
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2008-03-20       Impact factor: 9.043

10.  Global microsatellite content distinguishes humans, primates, animals, and plants.

Authors:  C L Galindo; L J McIver; J F McCormick; M A Skinner; Y Xie; R A Gelhausen; K Ng; N M Kumar; H R Garner
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2009-08-28       Impact factor: 16.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.