4.1 Article

The library model for satellite DNA evolution: a case study with the rodents of the genus Ctenomys (Octodontidae) from the Ibera marsh, Argentina

Journal

GENETICA
Volume 138, Issue 11-12, Pages 1201-1210

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10709-010-9516-2

Keywords

Satellite DNA; Library model; Ctenomys

Funding

  1. Agencia Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas [PICT 3836/1]
  2. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas Argentina [PIP 5776]
  3. CONICET

Ask authors/readers for more resources

On the basement of the library model of satellite DNA evolution is the differential amplification of subfamilies through lineages diversification. However, this idea has rarely been explored from an experimental point of view. In the present work, we analyzed copy number and sequence variability of RPCS (repetitive PvuII Ctenomys sequence), the major satellite DNA present in the genomes of the rodents of the genus Ctenomys, in a closely related group of species and forms inhabiting the Ibera marsh in Argentina. We studied the dependence of these two parameters at the intrapopulation level because in the case of interbreeding genomes, differences in RPCS copy number are due to recent amplification/contraction events. We found an inverse relationship among RPCS copy number and sequence variability: amplifications lead to a decrease in sequence variability, by means of biased homogenization of the overall satellite DNA, prevailing few variants. On the contrary, the contraction events that involve tandems of homogeneous monomers contribute-by default-minor variants to become evident, which otherwise were undetectable. On the other hand, all the RPCS sequence variants are totally or partially shared by all the studied populations. As a whole, these results are comprehensible if these RPCS variants preexisted in the common ancestor of this Ctenomys group.

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