4.1 Article

Ty1/copia- and Ty3/gypsy-like DNA sequences in Helianthus species

期刊

CHROMOSOMA
卷 111, 期 3, 页码 192-200

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s00412-002-0196-2

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two repeated DNA sequences isolated from a partial genomic DNA library of Helianthus annuus, pHaS13 and pHaS211, were shown to represent portions of the int gene of a Ty3/gypsy retroelement and of the RNase-H gene of a Ty1/copia retroelement, respectively. Southern blotting patterns obtained by hybridizing the two probes to BgIII- or DraI-digested genomic DNA from different Helianthus species showed pHaS13 and pHaS211 were parts of dispersed repeats at least 8 and 7 kb in length, respectively, that were conserved in all species studied. Comparable hybridization patterns were obtained in all species with pHaS13. By contrast, the patterns obtained by hybridizing pHaS211 clearly differentiated annual species from perennials. The frequencies of pHaS13- and pHaS211-related sequences in different species were 4.3x10(4)-1.3x10(5) copies and 9.9X10(2)- 8.1X10(3) copies per picogram of DNA, respectively. The frequency of pHaS13-related sequences varied widely within annual species, while no significant difference was observed among perennial species. Conversely, the frequency variation of pHaS211-related sequences was as large within annual species as within perennials. Sequences of both families were found to be dispersed along the length of all chromosomes in all species studied. However, Ty3/gypsy-like sequences were localized preferentially at the centromeric regions, whereas Ty1/ copia-like sequences were less represented or absent around the centromeres and plentiful at the chromosome ends. These findings suggest that the two sequence families played a role in Helianthus genome evolution and species divergence, evolved independently in the same genomic backgrounds and in annual or perennial species, and acquired different possible functions in the host genomes.

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

4.1
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