4.6 Article

Epigenetic regulation of subgenome dominance following whole genome triplication in Brassica rapa

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 211, 期 1, 页码 288-299

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.13884

关键词

Brassica rapa; hybrid vigor; small RNAs; subgenome dominance; transposon elements

资金

  1. 973 program [2012CB113900, 2013CB127000]
  2. 863 program [2012AA100101]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31301771]
  4. National Science and Technology Ministry [2014BAD01B09]
  5. Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
  6. Key Laboratory of Biology and Genetic Improvement of Horticultural Crops, Ministry of Agriculture, P. R. China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Subgenome dominance is an important phenomenon observed in allopolyploids after whole genome duplication, in which one subgenome retains more genes as well as contributes more to the higher expressing gene copy of paralogous genes. To dissect the mechanism of subgenome dominance, we systematically investigated the relationships of gene expression, transposable element (TE) distribution and small RNA targeting, relating to the multicopy paralogous genes generated from whole genome triplication in Brassica rapa. The subgenome dominance was found to be regulated by a relatively stable factor established previously, then inherited by and shared among B. rapa varieties. In addition, we found a biased distribution of TEs between flanking regions of paralogous genes. Furthermore, the 24-nt small RNAs target TEs and are negatively correlated to the dominant expression of individual paralogous gene pairs. The biased distribution of TEs among subgenomes and the targeting of 24-nt small RNAs together produce the dominant expression phenomenon at a subgenome scale. Based on these findings, we propose a bucket hypothesis to illustrate subgenome dominance and hybrid vigor. Our findings and hypothesis are valuable for the evolutionary study of polyploids, and may shed light on studies of hybrid vigor, which is common to most species.

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

4.6
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