4.8 Article

Deciphering the Diploid Ancestral Genome of the Mesohexaploid Brassica rapa

期刊

PLANT CELL
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 1541-1554

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1105/tpc.113.110486

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Program on Key Basic Research Projects [2012CB113900, 2013CB127000]
  2. National High Technology R&D Program of China [2012AA100101]
  3. Czech Science Foundation [P501/12/G090]
  4. European Regional Development Fund [CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0068]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genus Brassica includes several important agricultural and horticultural crops. Their current genome structures were shaped by whole-genome triplication followed by extensive diploidization. The availability of several crucifer genome sequences, especially that of Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa), enables study of the evolution of the mesohexaploid Brassica genomes from their diploid progenitors. We reconstructed three ancestral subgenomes of B. rapa (n = 10) by comparing its whole-genome sequence to ancestral and extant Brassicaceae genomes. All three B. rapa paleogenomes apparently consisted of seven chromosomes, similar to the ancestral translocation Proto-Calepineae Karyotype (tPCK; n = 7), which is the evolutionarily younger variant of the Proto-Calepineae Karyotype (n = 7). Based on comparative analysis of genome sequences or linkage maps of Brassica oleracea, Brassica nigra, radish (Raphanus sativus), and other closely related species, we propose a two-step merging of three tPCK-like genomes to form the hexaploid ancestor of the tribe Brassiceae with 42 chromosomes. Subsequent diversification of the Brassiceae was marked by extensive genome reshuffling and chromosome number reduction mediated by translocation events and followed by loss and/or inactivation of centromeres. Furthermore, via interspecies genome comparison, we refined intervals for seven of the genomic blocks of the Ancestral Crucifer Karyotype (n = 8), thus revising the key reference genome for evolutionary genomics of crucifers.

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