4.7 Review

Dissecting genome reduction and trait loss in insect endosymbionts

Journal

ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Volume 1389, Issue 1, Pages 52-75

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nyas.13222

Keywords

insect endosymbionts; mutualism; genome reduction; trait loss

Funding

  1. FEDER funds [BFU2015-64322-C2-2-R]
  2. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (Spain) [BFU2015-64322-C2-2-R]
  3. European Commission (Marie Curie ) [FP7 PITN-GA-2010264774-SYMBIOMICS]
  4. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (Mexico) doctoral scholarship [CONACYT 327211/381508]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Symbiosis has played a major role in eukaryotic evolution beyond the origin of the eukaryotic cell. Thus, organisms across the tree of life are associated with diverse microbial partners, conferring to the host new adaptive traits that enable it to explore new niches. This is the case for insects thriving on unbalanced diets, which harbor mutualistic intracellular microorganisms, mostly bacteria that supply them with the required nutrients. As a consequence of the lifestyle change, from free-living to host-associated mutualist, a bacterium undergoes many structural and metabolic changes, of which genome shrinkage is the most dramatic. The trend toward genome size reduction in endosymbiotic bacteria is associated with large-scale gene loss, reflecting the lack of an effective selection mechanism to maintain genes that are rendered superfluous by the constant and rich environment provided by the host. This genomer-eduction syndrome is so strong that it has generated the smallest bacterial genomes found to date, whose gene contents are so limited that their status as cellular entities is questionable. The recent availability of data on several endosymbiotic bacteria is enabling us to form a comprehensive picture of the genome-reduction process and the phenotypic consequences for the dwindling symbiont.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available