4.8 Article

Distribution of short paired duplications in mammalian genomes

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0403727101

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [5T32CA09311, 5R01CA81152, R01 CA081152, 5P30CA45508, 2R01CA078544, R01 CA078544, T32 CA009311, P30 CA045508] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHGRI NIH HHS [5R21HG02606] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mammalian genomes are densely populated with long duplicated sequences. In this paper, we demonstrate the existence of doublets, short duplications between 25 and 100 bp, distinct from previously described repeats. Each doublet is a pair of exact matches, separated by some distance. The distribution of these intermatch distances is strikingly nonrandom. An unexpectedly high number of doublets have matches either within 100 bp (adjacent) or at distances tightly concentrated approximate to1,000 bp apart (nearby). We focus our study on these proximate doublets. First, they tend to have both matches on the same strand. By comparing nearby doublets shared in human and chimpanzee, we can also see that these doublets seem to arise by an insertion event that produces a copy without markedly affecting the surrounding sequence. Most doublets in humans are shared with chimpanzee, but many new pairs arose after the divergence of the species. Doublets found in human but not chimpanzee are most often composed of almost tandem matches, whereas older doublets (found in both species) are more likely to have matches spaced by approximate to1 kb, indicating that the nearly tandem doublets may be ore dynamic. The spacing of doublets is highly conserved. So far, we have found clearly recognizable doublets in the followin genomes: Homo sapiens, Mus musculus, Arabidopsis thaliana, and Caenorhabditis elegans, indicating that the mechanism generating these doublets is widespread. A mechanism that generates short local duplications while conserving polarity could have a profound impact on the evolution of regulatory and proteincoding sequences.

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