4.8 Article

Repeated Whole-Genome Duplication, Karyotype Reshuffling, and Biased Retention of Stress-Responding Genes in Buckler Mustard

期刊

PLANT CELL
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 17-27

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1105/tpc.15.00791

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation
  2. Czech Science Foundation [13-10159S]
  3. European Social Fund [CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0037, CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0189]
  4. Velux Stiftung [705]
  5. Swiss National Science Foundation [PZ00P3-131950]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Whole-genome duplication (WGD) is usually followed by gene loss and karyotype repatterning. Despite evidence of new adaptive traits associated with WGD, the underpinnings and evolutionary significance of such genome fractionation remain elusive. Here, we use Buckler mustard (Biscutella laevigata) to infer processes that have driven the retention of duplicated genes after recurrent WGDs. In addition to the beta- and alpha-WGD events shared by all Brassicaceae, cytogenetic and transcriptome analyses revealed two younger WGD events that occurred at times of environmental changes in the clade of Buckler mustard (Biscutelleae): a mesopolyploidy event from the late Miocene that was followed by considerable karyotype reshuffling and chromosome number reduction and a neopolyploidy event during the Pleistocene. Although a considerable number of the older duplicates presented signatures of retention under positive selection, the majority of retained duplicates arising from the younger mesopolyploidy WGD event matched predictions of the gene balance hypothesis and showed evidence of strong purifying selection as well as enrichment in gene categories responding to abiotic stressors. Retention of large stretches of chromosomes for both genomic copies supported the hypothesis that cycles of WGD and biased fractionation shaped the genome of this stress-tolerant polypolyloid, promoting the adaptive recruitment of stress-responding genes in the face of environmental challenges.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据