4.8 Article

Reconstruction of monocotelydoneous proto-chromosomes reveals faster evolution in plants than in animals

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0902350106

Keywords

grasses; paleogenomics

Funding

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-05-BLANC-0258-01]
  2. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
  3. USDA Barley CAP, U. K.-LINKAGOUEB
  4. National Science Foundation [0321756]
  5. USDA-CSREES-NRI [2006-55606-16722]
  6. Selman A. Waksman Chair in Molecular Genetics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Paleogenomics seeks to reconstruct ancestral genomes from the genes of today's species. The characterization of paleo-duplications represented by 11,737 orthologs and 4,382 paralogs identified in five species belonging to three of the agronomically most important subfamilies of grasses, that is, Ehrhartoideae (rice) Panicoideae (sorghum, maize), and Pooideae (wheat, barley), permitted us to propose a model for an ancestral genome with a minimal size of 33.6 Mb structured in five proto-chromosomes containing at least 9,138 predicted proto-genes. It appears that only four major evolutionary shuffling events (alpha, beta, gamma, and delta) explain the divergence of these five cereal genomes during their evolution from a common paleo-ancestor. Comparative analysis of ancestral gene function with rice as a reference indicated that five categories of genes were preferentially modified during evolution. Furthermore, alignments between the five grass proto-chromosomes and the recently identified seven eudicot proto-chromosomes indicated that additional very active episodes of genome rearrangements and gene mobility occurred during angiosperm evolution. If one compares the pace of primate evolution of 90 million years (233 species) to 60 million years of the Poaceae (10,000 species), change in chromosome structure through speciation has accelerated significantly in plants.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available