4.8 Article

The Arabidopsis lyrata genome sequence and the basis of rapid genome size change

期刊

NATURE GENETICS
卷 43, 期 5, 页码 476-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ng.807

关键词

-

资金

  1. Office of Science of the US Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF) [DEB-0723860, DEB-0723935, MCB-0618433, IOS-0744579]
  3. NIH [GM057994]
  4. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [GABI-DUPLO 0315055]
  5. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  6. Institute for the Promotion of Innovation through Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT)
  7. Inter-University Network for Fundamental Research [P6/25]
  8. Austria Academy of Sciences
  9. Max Planck Society
  10. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
  11. Direct For Biological Sciences
  12. Division Of Integrative Organismal Sys [0744579] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  13. Division Of Environmental Biology
  14. Direct For Biological Sciences [0723935] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the 207-Mb genome sequence of the North American Arabidopsis lyrata strain MN47 based on 8.3x dideoxy sequence coverage. We predict 32,670 genes in this outcrossing species compared to the 27,025 genes in the selfing species Arabidopsis thaliana. The much smaller 125-Mb genome of A. thaliana, which diverged from A. lyrata 10 million years ago, likely constitutes the derived state for the family. We found evidence for DNA loss from large-scale rearrangements, but most of the difference in genome size can be attributed to hundreds of thousands of small deletions, mostly in noncoding DNA and transposons. Analysis of deletions and insertions still segregating in A. thaliana indicates that the process of DNA loss is ongoing, suggesting pervasive selection for a smaller genome. The high-quality reference genome sequence for A. lyrata will be an important resource for functional, evolutionary and ecological studies in the genus Arabidopsis.

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