4.3 Article

rRNA Pseudogenes in Filamentous Ascomycetes as Revealed by Genome Data

期刊

G3-GENES GENOMES GENETICS
卷 7, 期 8, 页码 2695-2703

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1534/g3.117.044016

关键词

concerted evolution; genome sequencing; RIP; phylogeny; fungi

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31170017, 31400018, 30025002]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2013BAD16B013, 2007BAI32B03]
  3. Qinghai Science and Technology Department [2014-NS-524, 2014-NS-525]
  4. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KSCX2-YW-G-076, KSCX2-SW-101C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The nuclear ribosomal DNA (rDNA) is considered as a paradigm of concerted evolution. Components of the rDNA tandem repeats (45S) are widely used in phylogenetic studies of different organisms and the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region was recently selected as a fungal DNA bar code. However, rRNA pseudogenes, as one kind of escape from concerted evolution, were reported in a wide range of organisms, especially in plants and animals. Moreover, large numbers of 5S rRNA pseudogenes were identified in several filamentous ascomycetes. To study whether rDNA evolves in a strict concerted manner and test whether rRNA pseudogenes exist in more species of ascomycetes, intragenomic rDNA polymorphisms were analyzed using whole genome sequences. Divergent rDNA paralogs were found to coexist within a single genome in seven filamentous ascomycetes examined. A great number of paralogs were identified as pseudogenes according to the mutation and secondary structure analyses. Phylogenetic analyses of the three rRNA coding regions of the 45S rDNA repeats, i.e., 18S, 5.8S, and 28S, revealed an interspecies clustering pattern of those different rDNA paralogs. The identified rRNA pseudogenic sequences were validated using specific primers designed. Mutation analyses revealed that the repeat-induced point (RIP) mutation was probably responsible for the formation of those rRNA pseudogenes.

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

4.3
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