Literature DB >> 9294192

Compositional differences within and between eukaryotic genomes.

S Karlin1, J Mrázek.   

Abstract

Eukaryotic genome similarity relationships are inferred using sequence information derived from large aggregates of genomic sequences. Comparisons within and between species sample sequences are based on the profile of dinucleotide relative abundance values (The profile is rho*XY = f*XY/f*Xf*Y for all XY, where f*X denotes the frequency of the nucleotide X and f*XY denotes the frequency of the dinucleotide XY, both computed from the sequence concatenated with its inverted complement). Previous studies with respect to prokaryotes and this study document that profiles of different DNA sequence samples (sample size >/=50 kb) from the same organism are generally much more similar to each other than they are to profiles from other organisms, and that closely related organisms generally have more similar profiles than do distantly related organisms. On this basis we refer to the collection (rho*XY) as the genome signature. This paper identifies rho*XY extremes and compares genome signature differences for a diverse range of eukaryotic species. Interpretations on the mechanisms maintaining these profile differences center on genome-wide replication, repair, DNA structures, and context-dependent mutational biases. It is also observed that mitochondrial genome signature differences between species parallel the corresponding nuclear genome signature differences despite large differences between corresponding mitochondrial and nuclear signatures. The genome signature differences also have implications for contrasts between rodents and other mammals, and between monocot and dicot plants, as well as providing evidence for similarities among fungi and the diversity of protists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9294192      PMCID: PMC23344          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.94.19.10227

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  18 in total

1.  Similarities and dissimilarities of phage genomes.

Authors:  B E Blaisdell; A M Campbell; S Karlin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1996-06-11       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Rates of nucleotide substitution in primates and rodents and the generation-time effect hypothesis.

Authors:  W H Li; D L Ellsworth; J Krushkal; B H Chang; D Hewett-Emmett
Journal:  Mol Phylogenet Evol       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 4.286

3.  What drives codon choices in human genes?

Authors:  S Karlin; J Mrázek
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1996-10-04       Impact factor: 5.469

Review 4.  Mitochondrial DNA maintenance in vertebrates.

Authors:  G S Shadel; D A Clayton
Journal:  Annu Rev Biochem       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 23.643

5.  Mitochondrial DNA damage is more extensive and persists longer than nuclear DNA damage in human cells following oxidative stress.

Authors:  F M Yakes; B Van Houten
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1997-01-21       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Compositional biases of bacterial genomes and evolutionary implications.

Authors:  S Karlin; J Mrázek; A M Campbell
Journal:  J Bacteriol       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.490

7.  Chloroplast and nuclear gene sequences indicate late Pennsylvanian time for the last common ancestor of extant seed plants.

Authors:  L Savard; P Li; S H Strauss; M W Chase; M Michaud; J Bousquet
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1994-05-24       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Pervasive CpG suppression in animal mitochondrial genomes.

Authors:  L R Cardon; C Burge; D A Clayton; S Karlin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1994-04-26       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 9.  Computational DNA sequence analysis.

Authors:  S Karlin; L R Cardon
Journal:  Annu Rev Microbiol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 15.500

Review 10.  Dinucleotide relative abundance extremes: a genomic signature.

Authors:  S Karlin; C Burge
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 11.639

View more
  96 in total

1.  Genome-scale compositional comparisons in eukaryotes.

Authors:  A J Gentles; S Karlin
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 9.043

2.  Genome signature comparisons among prokaryote, plasmid, and mitochondrial DNA.

Authors:  A Campbell; J Mrázek; S Karlin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1999-08-03       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Whole-genome trees based on the occurrence of folds and orthologs: implications for comparing genomes on different levels.

Authors:  J Lin; M Gerstein
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 9.043

4.  Distribution of hammerhead and hammerhead-like RNA motifs through the GenBank.

Authors:  G Ferbeyre; V Bourdeau; M Pageau; P Miramontes; R Cedergren
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 9.043

Review 5.  Through a genome, darkly: comparative analysis of plant chromosomal DNA.

Authors:  Graham J King
Journal:  Plant Mol Biol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.076

6.  Neutral substitutions occur at a faster rate in exons than in noncoding DNA in primate genomes.

Authors:  Sankar Subramanian; Sudhir Kumar
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 9.043

7.  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

8.  Estimating changes in mutational mechanisms of evolution.

Authors:  Rissa Ota; David Penny
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.395

9.  Normal and compound poisson approximations for pattern occurrences in NGS reads.

Authors:  Zhiyuan Zhai; Gesine Reinert; Kai Song; Michael S Waterman; Yihui Luan; Fengzhu Sun
Journal:  J Comput Biol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.479

10.  Counting stem cells: methodological constraints.

Authors:  Leonid V Bystrykh; Evgenia Verovskaya; Erik Zwart; Mathilde Broekhuis; Gerald de Haan
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 28.547

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.