BACKGROUND: Members of different sections of the genus Linum are characterized by wide variability in size, morphology and number of chromosomes in karyotypes. Since such variability is determined mainly by the amount and composition of repeated sequences, we conducted a comparative study of the repeatomes of species from four sections forming a clade of blue-flowered flax. Based on the results of high-throughput genome sequencing performed in this study as well as available WGS data, bioinformatic analyses of repeated sequences from 12 flax samples were carried out using a graph-based clustering method. RESULTS: It was found that the genomes of closely related species, which have a similar karyotype structure, are also similar in the repeatome composition. In contrast, the repeatomes of karyologically distinct species differed significantly, and no similar tandem-organized repeats have been identified in their genomes. At the same time, many common mobile element families have been identified in genomes of all species, among them, Athila Ty3/gypsy LTR retrotransposon was the most abundant. The 30-chromosome members of the sect. Linum (including the cultivated species L. usitatissimum) differed significantly from other studied species by a great number of satellite DNA families as well as their relative content in genomes. CONCLUSIONS: The evolution of studied flax species was accompanied by waves of amplification of satellite DNAs and LTR retrotransposons. The observed inverse correlation between the total contents of dispersed repeats and satellite DNAs allowed to suggest a relationship between both classes of repeating sequences. Significant interspecific differences in satellite DNA sets indicated a high rate of evolution of this genomic fraction. The phylogenetic relationships between the investigated flax species, obtained by comparison of the repeatomes, agreed with the results of previous molecular phylogenetic studies.
BACKGROUND: Members of different sections of the genus Linum are characterized by wide variability in size, morphology and number of chromosomes in karyotypes. Since such variability is determined mainly by the amount and composition of repeated sequences, we conducted a comparative study of the repeatomes of species from four sections forming a clade of blue-flowered flax. Based on the results of high-throughput genome sequencing performed in this study as well as available WGS data, bioinformatic analyses of repeated sequences from 12 flax samples were carried out using a graph-based clustering method. RESULTS: It was found that the genomes of closely related species, which have a similar karyotype structure, are also similar in the repeatome composition. In contrast, the repeatomes of karyologically distinct species differed significantly, and no similar tandem-organized repeats have been identified in their genomes. At the same time, many common mobile element families have been identified in genomes of all species, among them, Athila Ty3/gypsy LTR retrotransposon was the most abundant. The 30-chromosome members of the sect. Linum (including the cultivated species L. usitatissimum) differed significantly from other studied species by a great number of satellite DNA families as well as their relative content in genomes. CONCLUSIONS: The evolution of studied flax species was accompanied by waves of amplification of satellite DNAs and LTR retrotransposons. The observed inverse correlation between the total contents of dispersed repeats and satellite DNAs allowed to suggest a relationship between both classes of repeating sequences. Significant interspecific differences in satellite DNA sets indicated a high rate of evolution of this genomic fraction. The phylogenetic relationships between the investigated flax species, obtained by comparison of the repeatomes, agreed with the results of previous molecular phylogenetic studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Flax genome; Genus Linum; High-throughput sequencing; Repeatome
Authors: Zhiwen Wang; Neil Hobson; Leonardo Galindo; Shilin Zhu; Daihu Shi; Joshua McDill; Linfeng Yang; Simon Hawkins; Godfrey Neutelings; Raju Datla; Georgina Lambert; David W Galbraith; Christopher J Grassa; Armando Geraldes; Quentin C Cronk; Christopher Cullis; Prasanta K Dash; Polumetla A Kumar; Sylvie Cloutier; Andrew G Sharpe; Gane K-S Wong; Jun Wang; Michael K Deyholos Journal: Plant J Date: 2012-08-14 Impact factor: 6.417
Authors: Zhiyun Gong; Yufeng Wu; Andrea Koblízková; Giovana A Torres; Kai Wang; Marina Iovene; Pavel Neumann; Wenli Zhang; Petr Novák; C Robin Buell; Jirí Macas; Jiming Jiang Journal: Plant Cell Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 11.277
Authors: Leonardo Galindo-González; David Pinzón-Latorre; Erik A Bergen; Dustin C Jensen; Michael K Deyholos Journal: Plant Methods Date: 2015-03-14 Impact factor: 4.993
Authors: Sergio S Samoluk; Magdalena Vaio; Alejandra M Ortíz; Laura M I Chalup; Germán Robledo; David J Bertioli; Guillermo Seijo Journal: Planta Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 4.540
Authors: Lucas Costa; André Marques; Chris Buddenhagen; William Wayt Thomas; Bruno Huettel; Veit Schubert; Steven Dodsworth; Andreas Houben; Gustavo Souza; Andrea Pedrosa-Harand Journal: Ann Bot Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 5.040
Authors: Mert Dogan; Milan Pouch; Terezie Mandáková; Petra Hloušková; Xinyi Guo; Pieter Winter; Zuzana Chumová; Adriaan Van Niekerk; Klaus Mummenhoff; Ihsan A Al-Shehbaz; Ladislav Mucina; Martin A Lysak Journal: Front Plant Sci Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 5.753
Authors: Veit Herklotz; Aleš Kovařík; Volker Wissemann; Jana Lunerová; Radka Vozárová; Sebastian Buschmann; Klaus Olbricht; Marco Groth; Christiane M Ritz Journal: Front Plant Sci Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 5.753