4.5 Article

Evolution of the Largest Mammalian Genome

期刊

GENOME BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 1711-1724

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evx113

关键词

whole genome duplication; repetitive DNA; mammals; Rodentia; Caviomorpha; Octodontidae

资金

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada [RGPIN/283102-2012, RGPIN-2015-04477]
  2. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas [PICT 2253, PIP CONICET 11220150100258, PICT Agencia 2015-1636, PICT-E 0193]
  3. United States National Science Foundation [DEB 1441737]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genome of the red vizcacha rat (Rodentia, Octodontidae, Tympanoctomys barrerae) is the largest of all mammals, and about double the size of their close relative, the mountain vizcacha rat Octomys mimax, even though the lineages that gave rise to these species diverged from each other only about 5Ma. The mechanism for this rapid genome expansion is controversial, and hypothesized to be a consequence of whole genome duplication or accumulation of repetitive elements. To test these alternative but nonexclusive hypotheses, we gathered and evaluated evidence from whole transcriptome and whole genome sequences of T. barrerae and O. mimax. We recovered support for genome expansion due to accumulation of a diverse assemblage of repetitive elements, which represent about one half and one fifth of the genomes of T. barrerae and O. mimax, respectively, but we found no strong signal of whole genome duplication. In both species, repetitive sequences were rare in transcribed regions as compared with the rest of the genome, and mostly had no close match to annotated repetitive sequences from other rodents. These findings raise new questions about the genomic dynamics of these repetitive elements, their connection to widespread chromosomal fissions that occurred in the T. barrerae ancestor, and their fitness effects-including during the evolution of hypersaline dietary tolerance in T. barrerae.

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

4.5
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