4.8 Article

Microcolinearity and genome evolution in the AdhA region of diploid and polyploid cotton (Gossypium)

期刊

PLANT JOURNAL
卷 50, 期 6, 页码 995-1006

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2007.03102.x

关键词

genome size; genome evolution; transposable elements; c-value; Gossypium; cotton

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genome sizes vary by several orders of magnitude, driven by mechanisms such as illegitimate recombination and transposable element proliferation. Prior analysis of the CesA region in two cotton genomes that diverged 5-10 million years ago (Ma), and acquired a twofold difference in genome size, revealed extensive local conservation of genic and intergenic regions, with no evidence of the global genome size difference. The present study extends the comparison to include BAC sequences surrounding the gene encoding alcohol dehydrogenase A (AdhA) from four cotton genomes: the two co-resident genomes (A(T) and D-T) of the allotetraploid, Gossypium hirsutum, as well as the model diploid progenitors, Gossypium arboreum (A) and Gossypium raimondii (D). In contrast to earlier work, evolution in the AdhA region reflects, in a microcosm, the overall difference in genome size, with a nearly twofold difference in aligned sequence length. Most size differences may be attributed to differential accumulation of retroelements during divergence of the genome diploids from their common ancestor, but in addition there has been a biased accumulation of small deletions, such that those in the smaller D genome are on average twice as large as those in the larger A genome. The data also provide evidence for the global phenomenon of 'genomic downsizing' in polyploids shortly after formation. This in part reflects a higher frequency of small deletions post-polyploidization, and increased illegitimate recombination. In conjunction with previous work, the data here confirm the conclusion that genome size evolution reflects many forces that collectively operate heterogeneously among genomic regions.

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