4.6 Article

Comparisons with Caenorhabditis (∼100 Mb) and Drosophila (∼175 Mb) using flow cytometry show genome size in Arabidopsis to be ∼157 Mb and thus ∼25 % larger than the Arabidopsis genome initiative estimate of ∼125 Mb

期刊

ANNALS OF BOTANY
卷 91, 期 5, 页码 547-557

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcg057

关键词

DNA C-value; flow cytometry; genome size; Arabidopsis thaliana; Caenorhabditis elegans; Drosophila melanogaster

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent genome sequencing papers have given genome sizes of 180 Mb for Drosophila melanogaster Iso-1 and 125 Mb for Arabidopsis thaliana Columbia. The former agrees with early cytochemical estimates, but numerous cytometric estimates of around 170 Mb imply that a genome size of 125 Mb for arabidopsis is an underestimate. In this study, nuclei of species pairs were compared directly using flow cytometry. Co-run Columbia and Iso-1 female gave a 2C peak for arabidopsis only approx. 15 % below that for drosophila, and 16C endopolyploid Columbia nuclei had approx. 15 % more DNA than 2C chicken nuclei (with greater than or equal to2280 Mb). Caenorhabditis elegans Bristol N2 (genome size approx. 100 Mb) co-run with Columbia or Iso-1 gave a 2C peak for drosophila approx. 75 % above that for 2C C. elegans, and a 2C peak for arabidopsis approx. 57 % above that for C. elegans. This confirms that 1C in drosophila is approx. 175 Mb and, combined with other evidence, leads us to conclude that the genome size of arabidopsis is not approx. 125 Mb, but probably approx. 157 Mb. It is likely that the discrepancy represents extra repeated sequences in unsequenced gaps in heterochromatic regions. Complete sequencing of the arabidopsis genome until no gaps remain at telomeres, nucleolar organizing regions or centromeres is still needed to provide the first precise angiosperm C-value as a benchmark calibration standard for plant genomes, and to ensure that no genes have been missed in arabidopsis, especially in centromeric regions, which are clearly larger than once imagined. (C) 2003 Annals of Botany Company.

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

4.6
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