4.1 Article

Identification of non-autonomous non-LTR retrotransposons in the genome of Trypanosoma cruzi

Journal

MOLECULAR AND BIOCHEMICAL PARASITOLOGY
Volume 124, Issue 1-2, Pages 73-78

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0166-6851(02)00167-6

Keywords

Ingi; LITc; non-LTR retrotransposon; RIME; Trypanosoma brucei; Trypanosoma cruzi

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [U01-AI45038, U01 AI045038] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As observed for most eukaryotic cells, trypanosomatids contains non-LTR retrotransposons randomly inserted in the nuclear genome. Autonomous retroelements which, code for their own transposition, have been characterized in Trypanosoma brucei (ingi) and Trypanosoma cruzi (L1Tc), whereas non-autonomous retroelements have only been characterized in T brucei (RIME). Here, we have characterized in the genome of Trypanosoma cruzi four complete copies of a non-autonomous non-LTR retrotransposon, called NARTc. This 0.26 kb NARTc element has the characteristics of non-LTR retrotransposons: the presence a poly(dA) tail and of a short flanking duplicated motif. Analysis of the Genome Survey Sequence databases indicated that the Trypanosoma cruzi haploid genome contains about 140 NARTc copies and about twice as many L1Tc copies. Interestingly, the NARTc and L1Tc retroelements share, with the Trypanosoma brucei ingi and RIME retrotransposons, a common sequence (the first 45 bp with 91% identity), whereas the remaining sequences are very divergent. This suggests that these four trypanosome non-LTR retrotransposons were derived from the same common ancester and the sequence of their 5'-extremity may have a functional role. In addition, the genome of Leishmania major contains the same conserved motif present in the trypanosome retroelements, whicle no transposable elements have been detected so far in Leishmania sp. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. 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

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available