4.6 Article

Heteroplasmy in the Mitochondrial Genomes of Human Lice and Ticks Revealed by High Throughput Sequencing

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073329

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP0662755, DP120100240]
  2. Australian Government [ACSRF00980]
  3. Australian Research Council [DP0662755] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The typical mitochondrial (mt) genomes of bilateral animals consist of 37 genes on a single circular chromosome. The mt genomes of the human body louse, Pediculus humanus, and the human head louse, Pediculus capitis, however, are extensively fragmented and contain 20 minichromosomes, with one to three genes on each minichromosome. Heteroplasmy, i.e. nucleotide polymorphisms in the mt genome within individuals, has been shown to be significantly higher in the mt cox1 gene of human lice than in humans and other animals that have the typical mt genomes. To understand whether the extent of heteroplasmy in human lice is associated with mt genome fragmentation, we sequenced the entire coding regions of all of the mt minichromosomes of six human body lice and six human head lice from Ethiopia, China and France with an Illumina HiSeq platform. For comparison, we also sequenced the entire coding regions of the mt genomes of seven species of ticks, which have the typical mitochondrial genome organization of bilateral animals. We found that the level of heteroplasmy varies significantly both among the human lice and among the ticks. The human lice from Ethiopia have significantly higher level of heteroplasmy than those from China and France (P-t<0.05). The tick, Amblyomma cajennense, has significantly higher level of heteroplasmy than other ticks (P-t<0.05). Our results indicate that heteroplasmy level can be substantially variable within a species and among closely related species, and does not appear to be determined by single factors such as genome fragmentation.

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

4.6
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