4.8 Article

Independent rediploidization masks shared whole genome duplication in the sturgeon-paddlefish ancestor

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-38714-z

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Whole genome duplication (WGD) is an important event in evolution, generating new genes and potentially promoting survival during mass extinctions. Paddlefish and sturgeon, sister lineages, show genomic evidence of ancient WGD. Although the duplications appear to be independent, they actually stem from a shared WGD event over 200 million years ago, prior to the Permian-Triassic extinction. The shared WGD is masked by lineage divergence before the completion of rediploidization.
Whole genome duplication (WGD) is a dramatic evolutionary event generating many new genes and which may play a role in survival through mass extinctions. Paddlefish and sturgeon are sister lineages that both show genomic evidence for ancient WGD. Until now this has been interpreted as two independent WGD events due to a preponderance of duplicate genes with independent histories. Here we show that although there is indeed a plurality of apparently independent gene duplications, these derive from a shared genome duplication event occurring well over 200 million years ago, likely close to the Permian-Triassic mass extinction period. This was followed by a prolonged process of reversion to stable diploid inheritance (rediploidization), that may have promoted survival during the Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction. We show that the sharing of this WGD is masked by the fact that paddlefish and sturgeon lineage divergence occurred before rediploidization had proceeded even half-way. Thus, for most genes the resolution to diploidy was lineage-specific. Because genes are only truly duplicated once diploid inheritance is established, the paddlefish and sturgeon genomes are thus a mosaic of shared and non-shared gene duplications resulting from a shared genome duplication event.

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