4.8 Article

Whole-genome comparison of endogenous retrovirus segregation across wild and domestic host species populations

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1815056115

关键词

endogenous retrovirus; host population; segregation; comparative genomics; evolution

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [VR-M 2015-02429]
  2. medical faculty at Uppsala University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although recent advances in sequencing and computational analyses have facilitated use of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) for deciphering coevolution among retroviruses and their hosts, sampling effects from different host populations present major challenges. Here we utilize available whole-genome data from wild and domesticated European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus sp.) populations, sequenced as DNA pools by paired-end Illumina technology, for identifying segregating reference as well as nonreference ERV loci, to reveal their variation along the host phylogeny and domestication history. To produce new viruses, retroviruses must insert a proviral DNA copy into the host nuclear DNA. Occasional proviral insertions into the host germline have been passed down through generations as inherited ERVs during millions of years. These ERVs represent retroviruses that were active at the time of infection and thus present a remarkable record of historical virus-host associations. To examine segregating ERVs in host populations, we apply a reference library search strategy for anchoring ERV-associated short-sequence read pairs from pooled wholegenome sequences to reference genome assembly positions. We show that most ERVs segregate along host phylogeny but also uncover radiation of some ERVs, identified as segregating loci among wild and domestic rabbits. The study targets pertinent issues regarding genome sampling when examining virus-host evolution from the genomic ERV record and offers improved scope regarding common strategies for single-nucleotide variant analyses in host population comparative genomics.

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