4.6 Article

RIPCAL: a tool for alignment-based analysis of repeat-induced point mutations in fungal genomic sequences

期刊

BMC BIOINFORMATICS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-9-478

关键词

-

资金

  1. Grains Research & Development Corporation (Barton, ACT, 2600, Australia)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Repeat-induced point mutation (RIP) is a fungal-specific genome defence mechanism that alters the sequences of repetitive DNA, thereby inactivating coding genes. Repeated DNA sequences align between mating and meiosis and both sequences undergo C:G to T:A transitions. In most fungi these transitions preferentially affect CpA di-nucleotides thus altering the frequency of certain di-nucleotides in the affected sequences. The majority of previously published in silico analyses were limited to the comparison of ratios of pre- and post-RIP di-nucleotides in putatively RIP-affected sequences - so-called RIP indices. The analysis of RIP is significantly more informative when comparing sequence alignments of repeated sequences. There is, however, a dearth of bioinformatics tools available to the fungal research community for alignment-based RIP analysis of repeat families. Results: We present RIPCAL http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/ripcal, a software tool for the automated analysis of RIP in fungal genomic DNA repeats, which performs both RIP index and alignment-based analyses. We demonstrate the ability of RIPCAL to detect RIP within known RIP-affected sequences of Neurospora crassa and other fungi. We also predict and delineate the presence of RIP in the genome of Stagonospora nodorum - a Dothideomycete pathogen of wheat. We show that RIP has affected different members of the S. nodorum rDNA tandem repeat to different extents depending on their genomic contexts. Conclusion: The RIPCAL alignment-based method has considerable advantages over RIP indices for the analysis of whole genomes. We demonstrate its application to the recently published genome assembly of S. nodorum.

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