4.0 Article

Reptile genomes open the frontier for comparative analysis of amniote development and regeneration

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
Volume 58, Issue 10-12, Pages 863-871

Publisher

UNIV BASQUE COUNTRY UPV-EHU PRESS
DOI: 10.1387/ijdb.140316kk

Keywords

reptile; genomics; gene expression; somitogenesis; regeneration

Funding

  1. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health [R21 AR064935]
  2. Arizona State University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Developmental genetic studies of vertebrates have focused primarily on zebrafish, frog and mouse models,which have clear application to medicine and well-developed genomic resources. In contrast, reptiles represent the most 'diverse amniote group, but have only recently begun to gather the attention of genome sequencing efforts. Extant reptilian groups last shared a common ancestor 280 million years ago and include lepidosaurs, turtles and crocodilians.This phylogenetic diversity is reflected in great morphological and behavioral diversity capturing the attention of biologists interested in mechanisms regulating developmental processes such as somitogenesis and spinal patterning, regeneration, the evolution of snake-like morphology, the formation of the unique turtle shell, and the convergent evolution of the four-chambered heart shared by mammals and archosaurs. The complete genome of the first non-avian reptile, the green anole lizard, was published in 2011 and has provided insights into the origin and evolution of amniotes. Since then, the genomes of multiple snakes, turtles, and crocodilians have also been completed. Here we will review the current diversity of available reptile genomes, with an emphasis on their evolutionary relationships, and will highlight how these genomes have and will continue to facilitate research in developmental and regenerative biology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available