4.4 Article

Diversity and evolution of the transposable element repertoire in arthropods with particular reference to insects

期刊

BMC EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12862-018-1324-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Leibniz Graduate School on Genomic Biodiversity Research
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG) [MI 649/16-1, NI1387/3-1]
  3. National Institutes of Health [U54 HG003273]
  4. European Research Council (ERC-CoG) [616346]
  5. European Research Council (ERC) [616346] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundTransposable elements (TEs) are a major component of metazoan genomes and are associated with a variety of mechanisms that shape genome architecture and evolution. Despite the ever-growing number of insect genomes sequenced to date, our understanding of the diversity and evolution of insect TEs remains poor.ResultsHere, we present a standardized characterization and an order-level comparison of arthropod TE repertoires, encompassing 62 insect and 11 outgroup species. The insect TE repertoire contains TEs of almost every class previously described, and in some cases even TEs previously reported only from vertebrates and plants. Additionally, we identified a large fraction of unclassifiable TEs. We found high variation in TE content, ranging from less than 6% in the antarctic midge (Diptera), the honey bee and the turnip sawfly (Hymenoptera) to more than 58% in the malaria mosquito (Diptera) and the migratory locust (Orthoptera), and a possible relationship between the content and diversity of TEs and the genome size.ConclusionWhile most insect orders exhibit a characteristic TE composition, we also observed intraordinal differences, e.g., in Diptera, Hymenoptera, and Hemiptera. Our findings shed light on common patterns and reveal lineage-specific differences in content and evolution of TEs in insects. We anticipate our study to provide the basis for future comparative research on the insect TE repertoire.

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

4.4
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