4.8 Article

Study of intrachromosomal duplications among the eukaryote genomes

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 18, 期 12, 页码 2280-2288

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003774

关键词

genome dynamics; evolution; duplication; eukaryotes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Complete eukaryote chromosomes were investigated for intrachromosomal duplications of nucleotide sequences. The analysis was performed by looking for nonexact repeats on two complete genomes, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Caenorhabditis elegans, and four partial ones, Drosphila melanogaster, Plasmodium falciparum, Arabidopsis thaliana, and Homo sapiens. Through this analysis, we show that all eukaryote chromosomes exhibit similar characteristics for their intrachromosomal repeats, suggesting similar dynamics: many direct repeats have their two copies physically close together, and these close direct repeats are more similar and shorter than the other repeats. On the contrary, there are almost no close inverted repeats. These results support a model for the dynamics of duplication. This model is based on a continuous genesis of tandem repeats and implies that most of the distant and inverted repeats originate from these tandem repeats by further chromosomal rearrangements (insertions, inversions, and deletions). Remnants of these predicted rearrangements have been brought out through fine analysis of the chromosome sequence. Despite these dynamics, shared by all eukaryotes, each genome exhibits its own style of intrachromosomal duplication: the density of repeated elements is similar in all chromosomes issued from the same genome, but is different between species. This density was further related to the relative rates of duplication, deletion, and mutation proper to each species. One should notice that the density of repeats in the X chromosome of C. elegans is much lower than in the autosomes of that organism, suggesting that the exchange between homologous chromosomes is important in the duplication process.

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