| Literature DB >> 18549478 |
Agnes P Chan1, Admasu Melake-Berhan, Kimberly O'Brien, Stephanie Buckley, Hui Quan, Dan Chen, Matthew Lewis, Jo Ann Banks, Pablo D Rabinowicz.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lycophyte Selaginella moellendorffii is a vascular plant that diverged from the fern/seed plant lineage at least 400 million years ago. Although genomic information for S. moellendorffii is starting to be produced, little is known about basic aspects of its molecular biology. In order to provide the first glimpse to the epigenetic landscape of this early divergent vascular plant, we used the methylation filtration technique. Methylation filtration genomic libraries select unmethylated DNA clones due to the presence of the methylation-dependent restriction endonuclease McrBC in the bacterial host.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18549478 PMCID: PMC2442089 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Figure 1Proportion of repetitive and low-copy sequences in the MF and WGS libraries. A: Proportion of all low-copy sequences (transcribed, gene-like and anonymous) are shown together (LC). Proportion of all repeats (All Rpts) and their break down into known (Known Rpts) and de novo repeats (de novo Rpts) are shown separately. The percentage of chloroplast (Chlor) sequences is calculated relative to the total number of sequences in each library. All the other percentages are calculated relative tot the total of non-chloroplast reads in each library. B: Percentages of MF and WGS reads matching the reference genome, classified by the number of hits. Any read showing 20 or more hits in the reference genome is considered a de novo identified repeat.
C+G content in different sequence classes
| %C+G total | %C+G in repeats | % C+G in low-copy DNA | % C+G in genes and EST hits | |
| MF | 47.9 | 50.9 | 47.8 | 49.7 |
| WGS | 46.2 | 47.5 | 45.8 | 49.6 |
Figure 2Proportions of repetitive sequences. Repeats are classified as matching the repeat databases (Known), identified de novo, matching the repeat databases but not identified de novo (Known only), identified de novo (de novo) but with no match in the repeat databases (de novo only), or that were identified de novo and also have a match in the repeat databases (de novo & known). Percentages are calculated relative to the total number of repetitive sequences.
Figure 3Gene and transcribed sequence content. Percentages of matches to the database of curated genes, matches to the NIAA protein database, matches to the S. moellendorffii EST assemblies (ESTs), the combination of matches to NIAA protein and EST assemblies databases, and the anonymous low copy-sequences are shown.
Figure 4. A: PCR products ran on agarose gels are shown. Five highly repeated WGS sequences (left panels) and 5 MF sequences (right panels) were amplified from HpaII-digested (bottom panels) or undigested (top panels) S. moellendorffii genomic DNA. B: HpaII digestion of the 5 PCR products obtained with HpaII-digested genomic DNA from panel A. From left to right, digested and undigested PCR products (in the same order as panel A, bottom left).