4.8 Article

Contrasting evolutionary genome dynamics between domesticated and wild yeasts

期刊

NATURE GENETICS
卷 49, 期 6, 页码 913-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/ng.3847

关键词

-

资金

  1. ATIP-Avenir (CNRS/ INSERM)
  2. Fondation ARC pour la Recherche sur le Cancer [PJA20151203273, PDF20150602803, PDF20140601375]
  3. Marie Curie Career Integration Grants [322035]
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-16-CE12-0019, ANR-13-BSV6-0006-01, ANR-11-LABX-0028-01]
  5. Canceropole PACA (AAP)
  6. DuPont
  7. Wellcome Trust [WT098051]
  8. Vetenskapsradet (Swedish Research Council) [325-2014-4605]
  9. Labex SIGNALIFE program from Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-11-LABX-0028-01]
  10. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-13-BSV6-0006, ANR-16-CE12-0019] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Structural rearrangements have long been recognized as an important source of genetic variation, with implications in phenotypic diversity and disease, yet their detailed evolutionary dynamics remain elusive. Here we use long-read sequencing to generate end-to-end genome assemblies for 12 strains representing major subpopulations of the partially domesticated yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and its wild relative Saccharomyces paradoxus. These population-level high-quality genomes with comprehensive annotation enable precise definition of chromosomal boundaries between cores and subtelomeres and a high-resolution view of evolutionary genome dynamics. In chromosomal cores, S. paradoxus shows faster accumulation of balanced rearrangements (inversions, reciprocal translocations and transpositions), whereas S. cerevisiae accumulates unbalanced rearrangements (novel insertions, deletions and duplications) more rapidly. In subtelomeres, both species show extensive interchromosomal reshuffling, with a higher tempo in S. cerevisiae. Such striking contrasts between wild and domesticated yeasts are likely to reflect the influence of human activities on structural genome evolution.

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