4.0 Article

The intergenic region of the histone h2a gene supports two major lineages of Trypanosoma rangeli

期刊

BIOMEDICA
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 410-418

出版社

INST NACIONAL SALUD
DOI: 10.7705/biomedica.v27i3.203

关键词

trypanosoma/genetics; DNA; intergenic; genes; histones/genetics; conserved sequence; phylogeny

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. Trypanosoma rangeli has been classified in the KP1 (+) and KP1 (-) subpopulations, based on the mini-exon gene and kinetoplast DNA minicircle amplification profiles. Objective. The intergenic region of the histone h2a gene was compared between KP1(+) and KP1 (-) strains of T. rangeli to substantiate this classification. Materials and methods. The amplification, cloning and sequencing of the h2a gene intergenic region was undertaken for the Tre and 5048 [KP1(-)] strains for comparison with the Choachi [KP1 (+)] strain. These sequences, along with those previously reported for the KP1 (+) and KP1 (-) H14 and C23 strains, were used to reconstruct phylogenetic trees based on the neighbor-joining, maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood methods. The Y strain of Trypanosoma cruzi was chosen as the outgroup. Results. Intra-specific heterogeneity was observed in the size of the gene region under study, supported by bootstarp values of 85% (neigh bor-joining), 66% (maximum parsimony) and 57% (maximum likelihood). The KP1(-) strains were grouped apart, clearly differentiated from the KP1 (+) strains. The latter demonstrated a higher intra-specific heterogeneity, both in sequence length and composition. In addition, a closer phylogenetic relationship between T. rangeli and T. cruzi was found to be more closely related to one another than to T. rangeli and Trypanosoma brucei. Conclusion. Phylogenetic analyses of analyzed strains based on the intergenic region of the h2a genes supported the T. rangeli grouping in two major subpopulations known as KP1 (+) and KP1 (-) strains. However, a higher number of strains are needed to confirm this finding.

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

4.0
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