4.7 Article

Mitochondrial genome characterization of the family Trigonidiidae (Orthoptera) reveals novel structural features and nad1 transcript ends

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-55740-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Beijing [5182031]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [U1812401]
  3. Karst Science Research Center of Guizhou Province [U1812401]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31400325]
  5. Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program (CAAS-ASTIP-2015-IAR)
  6. earmarked fund for Modern Agro-Industry Technology Research System in China [CARS-44]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Trigonidiidae, a family of crickets, comprises 981 valid species with only one mitochondria! genome (mitogenome) sequenced to date. To explore mitogenome features of Trigonidiidae, six mitogenomes from its two subfamilies (Nemobiinae and Trigonidiinae) were determined. Two types of gene rearrangements involving a trnN-trnS1-trnE inversion and a trnV shuffling were shared by Trigonidiidae. A long intergenic spacer was observed between trnQ and trnM in Trigonidiinae (210-369 bp) and Nemobiinae (80-216 bp), which was capable of forming extensive stem-loop secondary structures in Trigonidiinae but not in Nemobiinae. The anticodon of tmS/was TCT in Trigonidiinae, rather than GCT in Nemobiinae and other related subfamilies. There was no overlap between nad4 and nad4l in Dianemobius, as opposed to a conserved 7-bp overlap commonly found in insects. Furthermore, combined comparative analysis and transcript verification revealed that nad1 transcripts ended with a U, corresponding to the T immediately preceding a conserved motif GAGAC in the superfamily Grylloidea, plus poly-A tails. The resultant UAA served as a stop codon for species lacking full stop codons upstream of the motif. Our findings gain novel understanding of mitogenome structural diversity and provide insight into accurate mitogenome annotation.

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

4.7
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