Literature DB >> 18696026

The excess of small inverted repeats in prokaryotes.

Emmanuel D Ladoukakis1, Adam Eyre-Walker.   

Abstract

Recent analyses have shown that there is a large excess of perfect inverted repeats in many prokaryotic genomes but not in eukaryotic ones. This difference could be due to a genuine difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes or to differences in the methods and types of data analyzed--full genome versus protein coding sequences. We used simulations to show that the method used previously tends to underestimate the expected number of inverted repeats. However, this bias is not large and cannot explain the excess of inverted repeats observed in real data. In contrast, our method is unbiased. When both methods are applied to bacterial protein coding sequences they both detect an excess of inverted repeats, which is much lower than previously reported in whole prokaryotic genomes. This suggests that the reported large excess of inverted repeats is due to repeats found in intergenic regions. These repeats could be due to transcription factor binding sites, or other types of repetitive DNA, on opposite strands of the DNA sequence. In contrast, the smaller, but significant, excess of inverted repeats that we report in protein coding sequences may be due to sequence-directed mutagenesis (SDM). SDM is a process where one copy of a small, imperfect, inverted repeat corrects the other copy via strand misalignment, resulting in a perfect repeat and a series of mutations. We show by simulation that even very low levels of SDM, relative to the rate of point mutation, can generate a substantial excess of inverted repeats.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18696026     DOI: 10.1007/s00239-008-9151-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Evol        ISSN: 0022-2844            Impact factor:   2.395


  25 in total

1.  Sequence evolution in bacterial endosymbionts having extreme base compositions.

Authors:  M A Clark; N A Moran; P Baumann
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 16.240

2.  Origin and fate of repeats in bacteria.

Authors:  G Achaz; E P C Rocha; P Netter; E Coissac
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2002-07-01       Impact factor: 16.971

3.  Mechanisms of spontaneous mutation in DNA repair-proficient Escherichia coli.

Authors:  J A Halliday; B W Glickman
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1991 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.433

4.  Stability of an inverted repeat in a human fibrosarcoma cell.

Authors:  P R Kramer; J R Stringer; R R Sinden
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  1996-11-01       Impact factor: 16.971

Review 5.  DNA inverted repeats and human disease.

Authors:  J J Bissler
Journal:  Front Biosci       Date:  1998-03-27

6.  Systematic base composition variation around the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium, but not Mycoplasma pneumoniae.

Authors:  A R Kerr; J F Peden; P M Sharp
Journal:  Mol Microbiol       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 3.501

7.  Molecular basis of a mutational hot spot in the lysozyme gene of bacteriophage T4.

Authors:  Y Okada; G Streisinger; J E Owen; J Newton; A Tsugita; M Inouye
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1972-04-14       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Conformational studies of hairpin sequences from the ColE1 cruciform.

Authors:  N B Blatt; S E Osborne; R J Cain; G D Glick
Journal:  Biochimie       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.079

Review 9.  Transposable elements in prokaryotes.

Authors:  N Kleckner
Journal:  Annu Rev Genet       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 16.830

10.  Polymerase infidelity and frameshift mutation.

Authors:  L S Ripley; N B Shoemaker
Journal:  Basic Life Sci       Date:  1982
View more
  7 in total

1.  Deficiency of X-linked inverted duplicates with male-biased expression and the underlying evolutionary mechanisms in the Drosophila genome.

Authors:  Zhen-Xia Chen; Yong E Zhang; Maria Vibranovski; Jingchu Luo; Ge Gao; Manyuan Long
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2011-05-05       Impact factor: 16.240

2.  Assessing diversity of DNA structure-related sequence features in prokaryotic genomes.

Authors:  Yongjie Huang; Jan Mrázek
Journal:  DNA Res       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 4.458

3.  Short template switch events explain mutation clusters in the human genome.

Authors:  Ari Löytynoja; Nick Goldman
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 9.043

4.  The mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes of the haptophyte Chrysochromulina tobin contain unique repeat structures and gene profiles.

Authors:  Blake T Hovde; Shawn R Starkenburg; Heather M Hunsperger; Laina D Mercer; Chloe R Deodato; Ramesh K Jha; Olga Chertkov; Raymond J Monnat; Rose Ann Cattolico
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 3.969

5.  The Prevalence and Evolutionary Conservation of Inverted Repeats in Proteobacteria.

Authors:  Bar Lavi; Eli Levy Karin; Tal Pupko; Einat Hazkani-Covo
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 3.416

6.  Requirement or exclusion of inverted repeat sequences with cruciform-forming potential in Escherichia coli revealed by genome-wide analyses.

Authors:  Osamu Miura; Toshihiro Ogake; Takashi Ohyama
Journal:  Curr Genet       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 3.886

7.  Template switching in DNA replication can create and maintain RNA hairpins.

Authors:  Heli A M Mönttinen; Ari Löytynoja
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 11.205

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.