4.8 Article

Low Species Barriers in Halophilic Archaea and the Formation of Recombinant Hybrids

Journal

CURRENT BIOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 15, Pages 1444-1448

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.05.056

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation [2007043]
  2. National Science Foundation [0919290, 0830024]
  3. Division Of Environmental Biology
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences [919290, 0830024] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Speciation of sexually reproducing organisms requires reproductive barriers. Prokaryotes reproduce asexually but often exchange DNA by lateral gene transfer mechanisms and recombination [1], yet distinct lineages are still observed. Thus, barriers to gene flow such as geographic isolation, genetic incompatibility or a physiological inability to transfer DNA represent potential underlying mechanisms behind preferred exchange groups observed in prokaryotes [2-6]. In Bacteria, experimental evidence showed that sequence divergence impedes homologous recombination between bacterial species [7-11] Here we study interspecies gene exchange in halophilic archaea that possess a parasexual mechanism of genetic exchange that is functional between species [12, 13]. In this process, cells fuse forming a diploid state containing the full genetic repertoire of both parental cells, which facilitates genetic exchange and recombination. Later, cells separate, occasionally resulting in hybrids of the parental strains [14]. We show high recombination frequencies between Haloferax volcanii and Haloferax mediterranei, two species that have an average nucleotide sequence identity of 86.6%. Whole genome sequencing of Haloferax interspecies hybrids revealed the exchange of chromosomal fragments ranging from 310Kb to 530Kb. These results show that recombination barriers may be more permissive in halophilic archaea than they are in bacteria.

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