Pavel Veselý1, Petr Bureš, Petr Šmarda. 1. Department of Botany and Zoology, Masaryk University, Kotlářská 2, CZ-61137, Brno, Czech Republic.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The genome size of an organism is determined by its capacity to tolerate genome expansion, given the species' life strategy and the limits of a particular environment, and the ability for retrotransposon suppression and/or removal. In some giant-genomed bulb geophytes, this tolerance is explained by their ability to pre-divide cells in the dormant stages or by the selective advantage of larger cells in the rapid growth of their fleshy body. In this study, a test shows that the tendency for genome size expansion is a more universal feature of geophytes, and is a subject in need of more general consideration. METHODS: Differences in monoploid genome sizes were compared using standardized phylogenetically independent contrasts in 47 sister pairs of geophytic and non-geophytic taxa sampled across all the angiosperms. The genome sizes of 96 species were adopted from the literature and 53 species were newly measured using flow cytometry with propidium iodide staining. KEY RESULTS: The geophytes showed increased genome sizes compared with their non-geophytic relatives, regardless of the storage organ type and regardless of whether or not vernal geophytes, polyploids or annuals were included in the analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The universal tendency of geophytes to possess a higher genome size suggests the presence of a universal mechanism allowing for genome expansion. It is assumed that this is primarily due to the nutrient and energetic independence of geophytes perhaps allowing continuous synthesis of DNA, which is known to proceed in the extreme cases of vernal geophytes even in dormant stages. This independence may also be assumed as a reason for allowing large genomes in some parasitic plants, as well as the nutrient limitation of small genomes of carnivorous plants.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The genome size of an organism is determined by its capacity to tolerate genome expansion, given the species' life strategy and the limits of a particular environment, and the ability for retrotransposon suppression and/or removal. In some giant-genomed bulb geophytes, this tolerance is explained by their ability to pre-divide cells in the dormant stages or by the selective advantage of larger cells in the rapid growth of their fleshy body. In this study, a test shows that the tendency for genome size expansion is a more universal feature of geophytes, and is a subject in need of more general consideration. METHODS: Differences in monoploid genome sizes were compared using standardized phylogenetically independent contrasts in 47 sister pairs of geophytic and non-geophytic taxa sampled across all the angiosperms. The genome sizes of 96 species were adopted from the literature and 53 species were newly measured using flow cytometry with propidium iodide staining. KEY RESULTS: The geophytes showed increased genome sizes compared with their non-geophytic relatives, regardless of the storage organ type and regardless of whether or not vernal geophytes, polyploids or annuals were included in the analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The universal tendency of geophytes to possess a higher genome size suggests the presence of a universal mechanism allowing for genome expansion. It is assumed that this is primarily due to the nutrient and energetic independence of geophytes perhaps allowing continuous synthesis of DNA, which is known to proceed in the extreme cases of vernal geophytes even in dormant stages. This independence may also be assumed as a reason for allowing large genomes in some parasitic plants, as well as the nutrient limitation of small genomes of carnivorous plants.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cx-value; Genome size evolution; energy reserves; ephemeroids; flow cytometry; life form; spring geophytes; storage organ
Authors: Douglas E Soltis; Victor A Albert; Jim Leebens-Mack; Charles D Bell; Andrew H Paterson; Chunfang Zheng; David Sankoff; Claude W Depamphilis; P Kerr Wall; Pamela S Soltis Journal: Am J Bot Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.844
Authors: Ana Paula Moraes; Thaissa Brogliato Junqueira Engel; Eliana R Forni-Martins; Fábio de Barros; Leonardo P Felix; Juliano Sarmento Cabral Journal: Ann Bot Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 5.040
Authors: Maïté S Guignard; Richard A Nichols; Robert J Knell; Andy Macdonald; Catalina-Andreea Romila; Mark Trimmer; Ilia J Leitch; Andrew R Leitch Journal: New Phytol Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 10.151
Authors: Sílvia Catarino; Miguel Brilhante; Anyse Pereira Essoh; Alberto B Charrua; Josefa Rangel; Guilherme Roxo; Eromise Varela; Margarida Moldão; Ana Ribeiro-Barros; Salomão Bandeira; Mónica Moura; Pedro Talhinhas; Maria M Romeiras Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Mehrdad Akbarzadeh; Katrijn Van Laere; Leen Leus; Jan De Riek; Johan Van Huylenbroeck; Stefaan P O Werbrouck; Emmy Dhooghe Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 4.096