4.3 Article

Genome Evolution in the Eremothecium Clade of the Saccharomyces Complex Revealed by Comparative Genomics

期刊

G3-GENES GENOMES GENETICS
卷 1, 期 7, 页码 539-548

出版社

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/g3.111.001032

关键词

whole-genome sequencing; genome evolution; ancestral gene order; GC content; mating type locus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We used comparative genomics to elucidate the genome evolution within the pre-whole-genome duplication genus Eremothecium. To this end, we sequenced and assembled the complete genome of Eremothecium cymbalariae, a filamentous ascomycete representing the Eremothecium type strain. Genome annotation indicated 4712 gene models and 143 tRNAs. We compared the E. cymbalariae genome with that of its relative, the riboflavin overproducer Ashbya (Eremothecium) gossypii, and the reconstructed yeast ancestor. Decisive changes in the Eremothecium lineage leading to the evolution of the A. gossypii genome include the reduction from eight to seven chromosomes, the downsizing of the genome by removal of 10% or 900 kb of DNA, mostly in intergenic regions, the loss of a TY3-Gypsy-type transposable element, the re-arrangement of mating-type loci, and a massive increase of its GC content. Key species-specific events are the loss of MNN1-family of mannosyltransferases required to add the terminal fourth and fifth alpha-1,3-linked mannose residue to O-linked glycans and genes of the Ehrlich pathway in E. cymbalariae and the loss of ZMM-family of meiosis-specific proteins and acquisition of riboflavin overproduction in A. gossypii. This reveals that within the Saccharomyces complex genome, evolution is not only based on genome duplication with subsequent gene deletions and chromosomal rearrangements but also on fungi associated with specific environments (e. g. involving fungal-insect interactions as in Eremothecium), which have encountered challenges that may be reflected both in genome streamlining and their biosynthetic potential.

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

4.3
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