Literature DB >> 20601587

Fragile regions and not functional constraints predominate in shaping gene organization in the genus Drosophila.

Marcin von Grotthuss1, Michael Ashburner, José M Ranz.   

Abstract

During evolution, gene repatterning across eukaryotic genomes is not uniform. Some genomic regions exhibit a gene organization conserved phylogenetically, while others are recurrently involved in chromosomal rearrangement, resulting in breakpoint reuse. Both gene order conservation and breakpoint reuse can result from the existence of functional constraints on where chromosomal breakpoints occur or from the existence of regions that are susceptible to breakage. The balance between these two mechanisms is still poorly understood. Drosophila species have very dynamic genomes and, therefore, can be very informative. We compared the gene organization of the main five chromosomal elements (Muller's elements A-E) of nine Drosophila species. Under a parsimonious evolutionary scenario, we estimate that 6116 breakpoints differentiate the gene orders of the species and that breakpoint reuse is associated with approximately 80% of the orthologous landmarks. The comparison of the observed patterns of change in gene organization with those predicted under different simulated modes of evolution shows that fragile regions alone can explain the observed key patterns of Muller's element A (X chromosome) more often than for any other Muller's element. High levels of fragility plus constraints operating on approximately 15% of the genome are sufficient to explain the observed patterns of change and conservation across species. The orthologous landmarks more likely to be under constraint exhibit both a remarkable internal functional heterogeneity and a lack of common functional themes with the exception of the presence of highly conserved noncoding elements. Fragile regions rather than functional constraints have been the main determinant of the evolution of the Drosophila chromosomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20601587      PMCID: PMC2909571          DOI: 10.1101/gr.103713.109

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genome Res        ISSN: 1088-9051            Impact factor:   9.043


  76 in total

1.  KEGG: kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes.

Authors:  M Kanehisa; S Goto
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2000-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

2.  An AT-rich sequence in human common fragile site FRA16D causes fork stalling and chromosome breakage in S. cerevisiae.

Authors:  Haihua Zhang; Catherine H Freudenreich
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 17.970

3.  Dynamics of mammalian chromosome evolution inferred from multispecies comparative maps.

Authors:  William J Murphy; Denis M Larkin; Annelie Everts-van der Wind; Guillaume Bourque; Glenn Tesler; Loretta Auvil; Jonathan E Beever; Bhanu P Chowdhary; Francis Galibert; Lisa Gatzke; Christophe Hitte; Stacey N Meyers; Denis Milan; Elaine A Ostrander; Greg Pape; Heidi G Parker; Terje Raudsepp; Margarita B Rogatcheva; Lawrence B Schook; Loren C Skow; Michael Welge; James E Womack; Stephen J O'brien; Pavel A Pevzner; Harris A Lewin
Journal:  Science       Date:  2005-07-22       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 4.  Similar gene expression profiles do not imply similar tissue functions.

Authors:  Itai Yanai; Jan O Korbel; Stephanie Boue; Shannon K McWeeney; Peer Bork; Martin J Lercher
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2006-02-09       Impact factor: 11.639

5.  How malleable is the eukaryotic genome? Extreme rate of chromosomal rearrangement in the genus Drosophila.

Authors:  J M Ranz; F Casals; A Ruiz
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 9.043

6.  Birth of a metabolic gene cluster in yeast by adaptive gene relocation.

Authors:  Simon Wong; Kenneth H Wolfe
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2005-06-12       Impact factor: 38.330

7.  A global control region defines a chromosomal regulatory landscape containing the HoxD cluster.

Authors:  François Spitz; Federico Gonzalez; Denis Duboule
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2003-05-02       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 8.  Breakpoint clusters: reason or consequence?

Authors:  Andrey A Bystritskiy; Sergey V Razin
Journal:  Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.807

9.  Temporal patterns of fruit fly (Drosophila) evolution revealed by mutation clocks.

Authors:  Koichiro Tamura; Sankar Subramanian; Sudhir Kumar
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2003-08-29       Impact factor: 16.240

Review 10.  Chromosome fragile sites.

Authors:  Sandra G Durkin; Thomas W Glover
Journal:  Annu Rev Genet       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 16.830

View more
  31 in total

Review 1.  Making a long story short: noncoding RNAs and chromosome change.

Authors:  J D Brown; S E Mitchell; R J O'Neill
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 3.821

2.  A molecular perspective on a complex polymorphic inversion system with cytological evidence of multiply reused breakpoints.

Authors:  D J Orengo; E Puerma; M Papaceit; C Segarra; M Aguadé
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 3.821

3.  Local adaptation and the evolution of inversions on sex chromosomes and autosomes.

Authors:  Tim Connallon; Colin Olito; Ludovic Dutoit; Homa Papoli; Filip Ruzicka; Lengxob Yong
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  Quantified effects of chromosome-nuclear envelope attachments on 3D organization of chromosomes.

Authors:  Nicholas Allen Kinney; Alexey V Onufriev; Igor V Sharakhov
Journal:  Nucleus       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 4.197

5.  Dense gene physical maps of the non-model species Drosophila subobscura.

Authors:  Dorcas J Orengo; Eva Puerma; Montserrat Papaceit; Carmen Segarra; Montserrat Aguadé
Journal:  Chromosome Res       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 5.239

6.  Gene alterations at Drosophila inversion breakpoints provide prima facie evidence for natural selection as an explanation for rapid chromosomal evolution.

Authors:  Yolanda Guillén; Alfredo Ruiz
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 3.969

7.  Testing chromosomal phylogenies and inversion breakpoint reuse in Drosophila. The martensis cluster revisited.

Authors:  Carlos F Prada; Alejandra Delprat; Alfredo Ruiz
Journal:  Chromosome Res       Date:  2011-03-11       Impact factor: 5.239

8.  Family size and turnover rates among several classes of small non-protein-coding RNA genes in Caenorhabditis nematodes.

Authors:  Paul Po-Shen Wang; Ilya Ruvinsky
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2012-03-30       Impact factor: 3.416

9.  Characterization of genomic regulatory domains conserved across the genus Drosophila.

Authors:  Virginia Sahagun; José M Ranz
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.416

10.  Females and males contribute in opposite ways to the evolution of gene order in Drosophila.

Authors:  Carlos Díaz-Castillo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.