Literature DB >> 19412437

Patterns of insertion and deletion in Mammalian genomes.

Yanhui Fan1, Wenjuan Wang, Guoji Ma, Lijing Liang, Qi Shi, Shiheng Tao.   

Abstract

Nucleotide insertions and deletions (indels) are responsible for gaps in the sequence alignments. Indel is one of the major sources of evolutionary change at the molecular level. We have examined the patterns of insertions and deletions in the 19 mammalian genomes, and found that deletion events are more common than insertions in the mammalian genomes. Both the number of insertions and deletions decrease rapidly when the gap length increases and single nucleotide indel is the most frequent in all indel events. The frequencies of both insertions and deletions can be described well by power law.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Insertion; deletion; gap; indel; mammalian genome.

Year:  2007        PMID: 19412437      PMCID: PMC2671719          DOI: 10.2174/138920207783406479

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Genomics        ISSN: 1389-2029            Impact factor:   2.236


INTRODUCTION

With the successful completion of the genome sequencing projects, the challenge is now to understand the instructions encoded in the genomes. The comparative genomic analysis by cross-species alignment of mammalian genomes is one of the most powerful ways to decipher the evolutionary process of mammalian genomes. One major aim of genomics research is to identify differences between genomes of species or individuals. The differences of genomes require genetic variation. One mechanism that increases genetic variation is mutation. There are many kinds of mutations. A mutation in which one “letter” of the genetic code is changed to another is a point mutation. Lengths of DNA be deleted or inserted in a gene means a deletion or insertion, respectively. Finally, genes or parts of genes can become inverted or duplicated. Previous researches unveiled that insertions and deletions, instead of substitutions, comprise the majority of the genomic divergence [1-4]. Therefore, the study of the patterns of insertion and deletion is necessary to understand the mammalian evolution. By examining the homologous protein sequences, de Jong and Rydén (1981) observed that deletions of amino acids occurred about four times more frequently than insertions [5]. Deletion events also outnumbered insertions for processed pseudogenes [6-9]. Deletions are about twice as frequent as insertions for nuclear DNA, and in mitochondrial DNA, deletions occur at a slightly higher frequency than insertions [10]. Deletion events are also found more common than insertions in both mouse and rat [11-13]. There were several studies that focused on the size distribution of insertions and deletions. The exhaustive matching of the protein sequence database found that a power law with an exponent of 1.7 approximates quite closely the observed gap (insertion and deletion) length distribution [14]. The studies of pseudogenes suggested that the size distribution of insertions and deletions can be empirically described by power law [7, 9]. Qian and Goldstein (2001) examined gaps occured in FSSP database [15], using alignments based on their common structures, and they fitted the probability distribution of gap length to a quadruple exponential function [16]. Goonesekere and Lee (2004) examined the pattern of gaps of 3992 structurally aligned protein domain pairs in SCOP database [17], they found that the distributions of the logarithm of the probability of gaps varies linearly with the length of gap with a break at the gap of length 3 [18]. In this research, the multiple alignments of 19 mammalian genomes were used to analyze the patterns of insertions and deletions. We tested whether deletions always occur more frequently than insertions. Then we studied the length distributions of insertions and deletions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The multiple alignments of 28 vertebrate species were downloaded from UCSC Genome Bioinformatics website [19]. Table shows the genome assemblies that were included in the 28-way multiple alignments. Table shows the data used in this research. The 28-way multiple alignments were built as follows. Firstly, lineage-specific repeats were removed prior to alignment, then pairwise alignments with the human genome were generated for each species using BLASTZ [20] from repeat-masked genomic sequence. Pairwise alignments were then linked into chains using AXTCHAIN [21] that finds maximally scoring chains of gapless subsections of the alignments organized in a k-dimensional tree. Then CHAINNET [21] was used to produce an alignment net. The resulting best-in-genome pairwise alignments were progressively aligned using MULTIZ [22], based on the phylogenetic tree [23], as Fig. () shows, to produce multiple alignments. Only the multiple alignments of 19 mammalian species were studied. The triple alignments of human, chicken and one of the other 18 mammalian species were used to assign the insertions and deletions to human or the other mammalian species by the parsimony principle, using chicken as outgroup. In this study, there were four events inferred as insertions or deletions (Fig. ). The probability of an insertion or deletion of length k was calculated by equation 1 where fk is the probability of the insertion or deletion with the gap length k, Nk is the number of the insertion or deletion that has the gap length k. Then the power law can be defined as equation 2 [9].

RESULTS

Fig. () shows the length distributions of the insertions and deletions of the 18 mammalian genomes. Deletions occur more frequently than insertions over all gap lengths. However, in opossum, insertions occur more frequently than deletions except the gap of length 2. The ratio of deletions to insertions varies from 0.85 to 12.82 (Table ). Only in the opossum the ratio is less than 1. In rabbit, the deletions are extremely more than insertions. The total lengths of deletions are larger than insertions, except for hedgehog, elephant, tenrec and opossum. Both the number of insertions and deletions decrease rapidly with the increases of gap length. The single nucleotide insertion and deletion are the most frequent in all events. The percentage of single nucleotide insertions varies from 28.63% to 71.00%, and the percentage of single nucleotide deletions varies from 26.54% to 46.74% (Table ). The probability of insertions and deletions, as a function of gap length, fits power law equation given above very well. Regression analysis of the data, using SPSS 15.0 [24], gave the values of a, b and R2 (Table ). SPSS was also used to perform the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness-of-fit tailored to power law distributions. Table shows the results of the test. Fig. () shows the plots of parameters k and fk for deletions. Fig. () shows the plots of k and fk for insertions.

DISCUSSION

Nucleotide substitution, insertion and deletion (indel) events are the major driving forces that have shaped genomes [9]. Furthermore, recent researches found that insertions and deletions, instead of substitutions, are the major path to the genomic divergence [1-4]. Therefore, the study of the patterns of insertion and deletion in the genomes is essentially important. Previous studies found that there was preponderance of deletions over insertions [5-13]. From the extensive genome data used in this study, we have shown that deletions occur more frequently than insertions in genomes. Although insertions are more frequent than deletions in opossum, it is not significant. Therefore, deletions occur more frequently than insertions can be regarded as a general genomic feature. Single nucleotide insertion and deletion are the most frequent in all events, and the frequency of insertions and deletions decrease quickly as the gap length increases. The high occurrence of single nucleotide gaps was also observed in the study of 22 human and 30 rodents processed pseudogenes [6], 78 human processed pseudogenes [7], 1726 human ribosomal protein pseudogene sequences [9], noncoding nucleotide sequences of primates [10], Escherichia coli [25], chloroplast noncoding nucleotide sequence of nine monocot plants [26]. Therefore, the high percent of single nucleotide insertion and deletion seems to be a common phenomenon in the genomic evolution. Benner et al. (1993) studied the alignments of homologous protein sequence pairs and concluded that the distribution of the gap length follows power law distribution [14]. Gu and Li (1995) aligned 78 human processed pseudogenes, the human functional genes and the reference, they found the size distributions of insertions and deletions fitted to power law very well [7]. Recently, Zhang and Gerstein (2003) examined the patterns of insertions and deletions in 1726 processed ribosomal protein pseudogenes and found that the frequencies of both insertions and deletions followed characteristic power law behavior associated with the length of the gaps [9]. In this study, the probability distributions of insertions and deletions in the 18 mammalian genomes can both be described by power law distribution. The results suggest that the gap penalty should be log-affine [27], i.e., g(k)=a+bk+clnk, where g(k) is the gap penalty for insertion or deletion, k is the length of the insertion or deletion.
Table 1

Genome Assemblies Included in the 28-way Multiple Alignments

OrganismSpeciesRelease DateUCSC Version
human Homo sapiens Mar 2006 hg18
chimpanzee Pan troglodytes Mar 2006 panTro2
rhesus Macaca mulatta Jan 2006 rheMac2
bushbaby Otolemur garnetti Dec 2006 otoGar1
tree shrew Tupaia belangeri Dec 2006 tupBel1
mouse Mus musculus Feb 2006 mm8
ratRattus norvegicus Nov 2004 rn4
guinea pig Cavia porcellus Oct 2005 cavPor2
rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus May 2005 oryCun1
shrew Sorex araneus June 2006 sorAra1
hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus June 2006 eriEur1
dogCanis familiaris May 2005 canFam2
catFelis catus Mar 2006 felCat3
horse Equus caballus Feb 2007 equCab1
cowBos taurus Aug 2006 bosTau3
armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus May 2005 dasNov1
elephant Loxodonta africana May 2005 loxAfr1
tenrecEchinops telfairi July 2005echTel1
opossum Monodelphis domestica Jan 2006 monDom4
platypus Ornithorhychus anatinus Mar 2007 ornAna1
lizard Anolis carolinensis Feb 2007 anoCar1
chicken Gallus gallus May 2006 galGal3
frog Xenopus tropicalis Aug 2005 xenTro2
fugu Takifugu rubripes Oct 2004 fr2
tetraodon Tetraodon nigroviridis Feb 2004 tetNig1
stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Feb 2006 gasAcu1
medaka Oryzias latipes Apr 2006 oryLat1
zebrafish Danio rerio Mar 2006 danRer4
Table 2

The Details about the Data

NameLast ModifiedSizeNameLast ModifiedSize
chr1.maf.gz2007-5-30 17:09 822M chr13.maf.gz2007-5-30 17:27 338M
chr2.maf.gz2007-5-30 17:52 878M chr14.maf.gz2007-5-30 17:31 321M
chr3.maf.gz2007-5-30 18:04 735M chr15.maf.gz2007-5-30 17:34 289M
chr4.maf.gz2007-5-30 18:10 636M chr16.maf.gz2007-5-30 17:37 278M
chr5.maf.gz2007-5-30 18:16 641M chr17.maf.gz2007-5-30 17:40 284M
chr6.maf.gz2007-5-30 18:22 609M chr18.maf.gz2007-5-30 17:42 271M
chr7.maf.gz2007-5-30 18:28 528M chr19.maf.gz2007-5-30 17:44 140M
chr8.maf.gz2007-5-30 18:33 499M chr20.maf.gz2007-5-30 17:54 219M
chr9.maf.gz2007-5-30 18:37 418M chr21.maf.gz2007-5-30 17:56 110M
chr10.maf.gz2007-5-30 17:14 475M chr22.maf.gz2007-5-30 17:57 107M
chr11.maf.gz2007-5-30 17:19 474M chrX.maf.gz2007-5-30 18:41 405M
chr12.maf.gz2007-5-30 17:24 460M chrY.maf.gz2007-5-30 18:41 23M
Table 3

Ratios of Deletions to Insertions and the Percentage of the Single Nucleotide Gap

OrganismRNRLP
InsertionDeletion
chimpanzee 1.26 : 1 1.32 : 1 28.63% 26.54%
Rhesus 1.34 : 1 1.20 : 1 32.52% 32.50%
Bushbaby 1.48 : 1 1.10 : 1 42.44% 46.13%
tree shrew 1.66 : 1 1.03 : 1 40.53% 45.93%
Mouse 1.78 : 1 1.24 : 1 35.31% 40.87%
Rat 1.87 : 1 1.32 : 1 36.14% 41.17%
guinea pig 1.69 : 1 1.26 : 1 40.50% 42.21%
Rabbit 12.82 : 1 17.26 : 1 71.00% 46.74%
Shrew 1.54 : 1 1.04 : 1 38.82% 41.77%
Hedgehog 1.34 : 1 0.96 : 1 39.44% 40.20%
Dog 1.72 : 1 1.26 : 1 39.80% 43.72%
Cat 1.34 : 1 1.11 : 1 43.33% 43.19%
Horse 1.54 : 1 1.18 : 1 38.89% 45.64%
Cow 1.49 : 1 1.03 : 1 38.38% 42.67%
Armadillo 1.43 : 1 1.20 : 1 42.88% 43.35%
Elephant 1.21 : 1 0.93 : 1 41.78% 44.28%
Tenrec 1.29 : 1 0.92 : 1 39.88% 43.03%
Opossum 0.85 : 1 0.60 : 1 29.27% 32.74%

RN denotes the ratio between the total number of deletions and insertions.

RL denotes the ratio between the total length of deletions and insertions.

P denotes the percentage of the single nucleotide insertion or deletion.

Table 4

Estimates of the Parameters

OrganismabR2D*P-value**
DelInsDelInsDelInsDelInsDelIns
chimpanzee 0.369 0.381 1.059 1.0960.9750.9760.1000.1001.0 1.0
Rhesus 0.442 0.414 1.259 1.1930.9740.9840.1000.1001.0 1.0
Bushbaby 0.528 0.492 1.537 1.4340.9930.9890.1000.1001.0 1.0
tree shrew 0.572 0.481 1.624 1.4000.9900.9890.1000.1001.0 1.0
Mouse 0.528 0.464 1.492 1.3240.9860.9740.1000.1001.0 1.0
Rat 0.532 0.470 1.502 1.3420.9860.9750.1000.1001.0 1.0
guinea pig 0.546 0.500 1.538 1.4330.9850.9860.1000.1001.0 1.0
Rabbit 0.547 0.510 1.573 1.8830.9890.9770.1000.1001.0 1.0
Shrew 0.550 0.474 1.539 1.3720.9810.9890.1000.1001.0 1.0
Hedgehog 0.529 0.474 1.487 1.3760.9810.9880.1000.1001.0 1.0
Dog 0.557 0.476 1.569 1.3840.9830.9890.1000.1001.0 1.0
Cat 0.534 0.487 1.526 1.4360.9870.9920.1000.1001.0 1.0
Horse 0.557 0.486 1.591 1.3930.9920.9840.1000.1001.0 1.0
Cow 0.542 0.475 1.530 1.3690.9850.9860.1000.1001.0 1.0
Armadillo 0.539 0.502 1.536 1.4570.9890.9900.1000.1001.0 1.0
Elephant 0.532 0.491 1.527 1.4330.9900.9940.1000.1001.0 1.0
Tenrec 0.515 0.482 1.487 1.3980.9940.9880.1000.1001.0 1.0
Opossum 0.473 0.391 1.325 1.1230.9620.9790.1000.1001.0 1.0

The maximum difference between the cumulative distributions in the KS-test.

The P-value of the KS-test.

All data analyses were performed using SPSS version 15.0 (SPSS 2006).

  26 in total

1.  Patterns of nucleotide substitution, insertion and deletion in the human genome inferred from pseudogenes.

Authors:  Zhaolei Zhang; Mark Gerstein
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2003-09-15       Impact factor: 16.971

2.  Evolution's cauldron: duplication, deletion, and rearrangement in the mouse and human genomes.

Authors:  W James Kent; Robert Baertsch; Angie Hinrichs; Webb Miller; David Haussler
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-09-19       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Frequency of gaps observed in a structurally aligned protein pair database suggests a simple gap penalty function.

Authors:  Nalin C W Goonesekere; Byungkook Lee
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2004-05-20       Impact factor: 16.971

4.  Aligning multiple genomic sequences with the threaded blockset aligner.

Authors:  Mathieu Blanchette; W James Kent; Cathy Riemer; Laura Elnitski; Arian F A Smit; Krishna M Roskin; Robert Baertsch; Kate Rosenbloom; Hiram Clawson; Eric D Green; David Haussler; Webb Miller
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 9.043

5.  Mutational specificity of the dnaE173 mutator associated with a defect in the catalytic subunit of DNA polymerase III of Escherichia coli.

Authors:  J Y Mo; H Maki; M Sekiguchi
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1991-12-20       Impact factor: 5.469

6.  Majority of divergence between closely related DNA samples is due to indels.

Authors:  Roy J Britten; Lee Rowen; John Williams; R Andrew Cameron
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-04-02       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Genome sequence of the Brown Norway rat yields insights into mammalian evolution.

Authors:  Richard A Gibbs; George M Weinstock; Michael L Metzker; Donna M Muzny; Erica J Sodergren; Steven Scherer; Graham Scott; David Steffen; Kim C Worley; Paula E Burch; Geoffrey Okwuonu; Sandra Hines; Lora Lewis; Christine DeRamo; Oliver Delgado; Shannon Dugan-Rocha; George Miner; Margaret Morgan; Alicia Hawes; Rachel Gill; Robert A Holt; Mark D Adams; Peter G Amanatides; Holly Baden-Tillson; Mary Barnstead; Soo Chin; Cheryl A Evans; Steve Ferriera; Carl Fosler; Anna Glodek; Zhiping Gu; Don Jennings; Cheryl L Kraft; Trixie Nguyen; Cynthia M Pfannkoch; Cynthia Sitter; Granger G Sutton; J Craig Venter; Trevor Woodage; Douglas Smith; Hong-Mei Lee; Erik Gustafson; Patrick Cahill; Arnold Kana; Lynn Doucette-Stamm; Keith Weinstock; Kim Fechtel; Robert B Weiss; Diane M Dunn; Eric D Green; Robert W Blakesley; Gerard G Bouffard; Pieter J De Jong; Kazutoyo Osoegawa; Baoli Zhu; Marco Marra; Jacqueline Schein; Ian Bosdet; Chris Fjell; Steven Jones; Martin Krzywinski; Carrie Mathewson; Asim Siddiqui; Natasja Wye; John McPherson; Shaying Zhao; Claire M Fraser; Jyoti Shetty; Sofiya Shatsman; Keita Geer; Yixin Chen; Sofyia Abramzon; William C Nierman; Paul H Havlak; Rui Chen; K James Durbin; Amy Egan; Yanru Ren; Xing-Zhi Song; Bingshan Li; Yue Liu; Xiang Qin; Simon Cawley; Kim C Worley; A J Cooney; Lisa M D'Souza; Kirt Martin; Jia Qian Wu; Manuel L Gonzalez-Garay; Andrew R Jackson; Kenneth J Kalafus; Michael P McLeod; Aleksandar Milosavljevic; Davinder Virk; Andrei Volkov; David A Wheeler; Zhengdong Zhang; Jeffrey A Bailey; Evan E Eichler; Eray Tuzun; Ewan Birney; Emmanuel Mongin; Abel Ureta-Vidal; Cara Woodwark; Evgeny Zdobnov; Peer Bork; Mikita Suyama; David Torrents; Marina Alexandersson; Barbara J Trask; Janet M Young; Hui Huang; Huajun Wang; Heming Xing; Sue Daniels; Darryl Gietzen; Jeanette Schmidt; Kristian Stevens; Ursula Vitt; Jim Wingrove; Francisco Camara; M Mar Albà; Josep F Abril; Roderic Guigo; Arian Smit; Inna Dubchak; Edward M Rubin; Olivier Couronne; Alexander Poliakov; Norbert Hübner; Detlev Ganten; Claudia Goesele; Oliver Hummel; Thomas Kreitler; Young-Ae Lee; Jan Monti; Herbert Schulz; Heike Zimdahl; Heinz Himmelbauer; Hans Lehrach; Howard J Jacob; Susan Bromberg; Jo Gullings-Handley; Michael I Jensen-Seaman; Anne E Kwitek; Jozef Lazar; Dean Pasko; Peter J Tonellato; Simon Twigger; Chris P Ponting; Jose M Duarte; Stephen Rice; Leo Goodstadt; Scott A Beatson; Richard D Emes; Eitan E Winter; Caleb Webber; Petra Brandt; Gerald Nyakatura; Margaret Adetobi; Francesca Chiaromonte; Laura Elnitski; Pallavi Eswara; Ross C Hardison; Minmei Hou; Diana Kolbe; Kateryna Makova; Webb Miller; Anton Nekrutenko; Cathy Riemer; Scott Schwartz; James Taylor; Shan Yang; Yi Zhang; Klaus Lindpaintner; T Dan Andrews; Mario Caccamo; Michele Clamp; Laura Clarke; Valerie Curwen; Richard Durbin; Eduardo Eyras; Stephen M Searle; Gregory M Cooper; Serafim Batzoglou; Michael Brudno; Arend Sidow; Eric A Stone; J Craig Venter; Bret A Payseur; Guillaume Bourque; Carlos López-Otín; Xose S Puente; Kushal Chakrabarti; Sourav Chatterji; Colin Dewey; Lior Pachter; Nicolas Bray; Von Bing Yap; Anat Caspi; Glenn Tesler; Pavel A Pevzner; David Haussler; Krishna M Roskin; Robert Baertsch; Hiram Clawson; Terrence S Furey; Angie S Hinrichs; Donna Karolchik; William J Kent; Kate R Rosenbloom; Heather Trumbower; Matt Weirauch; David N Cooper; Peter D Stenson; Bin Ma; Michael Brent; Manimozhiyan Arumugam; David Shteynberg; Richard R Copley; Martin S Taylor; Harold Riethman; Uma Mudunuri; Jane Peterson; Mark Guyer; Adam Felsenfeld; Susan Old; Stephen Mockrin; Francis Collins
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-04-01       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Occurrence and consequences of coding sequence insertions and deletions in Mammalian genomes.

Authors:  Martin S Taylor; Chris P Ponting; Richard R Copley
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 9.043

9.  Deletions in processed pseudogenes accumulate faster in rodents than in humans.

Authors:  D Graur; Y Shuali; W H Li
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 2.395

10.  Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC class I regions unveils insertions/deletions as the major path to genomic divergence.

Authors:  Tatsuya Anzai; Takashi Shiina; Natsuki Kimura; Kazuyo Yanagiya; Sakae Kohara; Atsuko Shigenari; Tetsushi Yamagata; Jerzy K Kulski; Taeko K Naruse; Yoshifumi Fujimori; Yasuhito Fukuzumi; Masaaki Yamazaki; Hiroyuki Tashiro; Chie Iwamoto; Yumi Umehara; Tadashi Imanishi; Alice Meyer; Kazuho Ikeo; Takashi Gojobori; Seiamak Bahram; Hidetoshi Inoko
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-06-10       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  12 in total

1.  Problems and solutions for estimating indel rates and length distributions.

Authors:  Reed A Cartwright
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2008-11-28       Impact factor: 16.240

2.  Genome-wide characterization of insertion and deletion variation in chicken using next generation sequencing.

Authors:  Yiyuan Yan; Guoqiang Yi; Congjiao Sun; Lujiang Qu; Ning Yang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-18       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Measuring Accelerated Rates of Insertions and Deletions Independent of Rates of Nucleotide Substitution.

Authors:  Omar Navarro Leija; Sanju Varghese; Mira V Han
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 2.395

4.  Using the Neandertal genome to study the evolution of small insertions and deletions in modern humans.

Authors:  Manjusha Chintalapati; Michael Dannemann; Kay Prüfer
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 3.260

5.  Solving the master equation for Indels.

Authors:  Ian H Holmes
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 3.169

6.  Indel detection from Whole Genome Sequencing data and association with lipid metabolism in pigs.

Authors:  Daniel Crespo-Piazuelo; Lourdes Criado-Mesas; Manuel Revilla; Anna Castelló; Ana I Fernández; Josep M Folch; Maria Ballester
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-06-27       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Exploring insertions and deletions (indels) of MSRB3 gene and their association with growth traits in four Chinese indigenous cattle breeds.

Authors:  Mingli Wu; Shipeng Li; Guoliang Zhang; Yingzhi Fan; Yuan Gao; Yongzhen Huang; Xianyong Lan; Chuzhao Lei; Yun Ma; Ruihua Dang
Journal:  Arch Anim Breed       Date:  2019-07-25

8.  General continuous-time Markov model of sequence evolution via insertions/deletions: local alignment probability computation.

Authors:  Kiyoshi Ezawa
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2016-09-27       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 9.  Another Round of "Clue" to Uncover the Mystery of Complex Traits.

Authors:  Shefali Setia Verma; Marylyn D Ritchie
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 4.096

10.  Genetic Analysis of Four Sexual Differentiation Process Proteins (isp4/SDPs) in Chaetomium thermophilum and Thermomyces lanuginosus Reveals Their Distinct Roles in Development.

Authors:  Xiang-Li Xie; Yi Wei; Yan-Yue Song; Guan-Ming Pan; Li-Na Chen; Gang Wang; Shi-Hong Zhang
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2020-01-06       Impact factor: 5.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.