4.0 Article

Extremely High Copy Numbers and Polymorphisms of the rDNA Operon Estimated from Single Cell Analysis of Oligotrich and Peritrich Ciliates

Journal

PROTIST
Volume 164, Issue 3, Pages 369-379

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.protis.2012.11.006

Keywords

Ciliophora; copy number; intragenomic variability; rDNA; quantitative PCR; sequence polymorphism

Categories

Funding

  1. CAS
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [40976099, 41176143]
  3. Natural Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of Shandong [JQ201210]
  4. FANEDD [2007B27]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The copy number and sequence variation of the ribosomal DNA (rDNA) operon are of functional significance in evolution and ecology of organisms. However, the relationship between copy number and sequence variation of rDNA in protists has been rarely studied. Here we quantified rDNA copy numbers of oligotrich and peritrich ciliate species using single-cell quantitative PCR. We also examined the rDNA sequence variation by using single-cell PCR, cloning, and sequencing of multiple clones. We found that the rDNA copy numbers per cell were extremely high and different among even congeners, with the highest record of about 310,000. There was substantial intraindividual haplotype diversity and nucleotide diversity for the rDNA markers, with sequence differences primarily characterized by single nucleotide polymorphisms. Haplotype and nucleotide diversity was positively correlated to the rDNA copy number. Our findings provide evidence that: (1) ciliates generally have much higher rDNA copy numbers than other protists and fungi, which could lead to overestimation of the relative abundance of ciliates in environmental samples when rDNA sequence-based methodologies are used; and that (2) the rDNA might not always evolve in a strictly concerted manner in ciliates, which may raise problems in rDNA-based inference of species richness and phylogeny. (C) 2012 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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