4.8 Article

Fitness costs of Doc expression are insufficient to stabilize its copy number in Drosophila melanogaster

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 800-804

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msg087

关键词

Doc; retrotransposon; SSAP; gene expression; ectopic recombination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The stable coexistence of transposable elements (TEs) with their host genome over long periods of time suggests TEs have to impose some deleterious effect upon their host fitness. Three mechanisms have been proposed to account for the deleterious effect caused by TEs: host gene interruptions by TE insertions, chromosomal rearrangements by TE-induced ectopic recombination, and costly TE expression. However, the relative importance of these mechanisms remains controversial. Here, we test specifically if TE expression accounts for the host fitness cost imposed by TE insertions. In the retrotransposon Doc, expression requires binding of the host RNA polymerase to the internal promoter. If expression of Doc elements is deleterious to their host, Doc copies with promoters would be more strongly selected against and would persist in the population for shorter periods of time compared with Docs lacking promoters. We tested this prediction using sequence-specific amplified polymorphism (SSAP) analyses. We compared the populations of these two types of Doc elements in two sets of lines of Drosophila melanogaster: selection-free isogenic lines accumulating new Doc insertions and isogenized isofemale lines sampled from a natural population. We found that (1) there is no difference in the proportion of promoter-bearing and promoter-lacking copies between sets of lines, and (2) the site occupancy distribution of promoter-bearing copies does not skew toward lower frequency compared with that of promoter-lacking copies. Thus, selection against promoter-bearing copies does not appear to be stronger than that of promoter-lacking copies. Our results show that expression is not playing a major role in stabilizing Doc copy numbers.

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