4.5 Article

Shared Subgenome Dominance Following Polyploidization Explains Grass Genome Evolutionary Plasticity from a Seven Protochromosome Ancestor with 16K Protogenes

期刊

GENOME BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 12-33

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evt200

关键词

synteny; evolution; genome; dominance; duplication; ancestor

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-09-JCJC-0058-01, ANR-2011-BSV6-00801]
  2. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-09-JCJC-0058] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Modern plant genomes are diploidized paleopolyploids. We revisited grass genome paleohistory in response to the diploidization process through a detailed investigation of the evolutionary fate of duplicated blocks. Ancestrally duplicated genes can be conserved, deleted, and shuffled, defining dominant (bias toward duplicate retention) and sensitive (bias toward duplicate erosion) chromosomal fragments. We propose a new grass genome paleohistory deriving from an ancestral karyotype structured in seven protochromosomes containing 16,464 protogenes and following evolutionary rules where 1) ancestral shared polyploidizations shaped conserved dominant (D) and sensitive (S) subgenomes, 2) subgenome dominance is revealed by both gene deletion and shuffling from the S blocks, 3) duplicate deletion/movement may have been mediated by single-/double-stranded illegitimate recombination mechanisms, 4) modern genomes arose through centromeric fusion of protochromosomes, leading to functional monocentric neochromosomes, 5) the fusion of two dominant blocks leads to supradominant neochromosomes (D + D = D) with higher ancestral gene retention compared with D + S = D (i.e., fusion of blocks with opposite sensitivity) or even S + S = S (i.e., fusion of two sensitive ancestral blocks). A new user-friendly online tool named PlantSyntenyViewer, available at http://urgi.versailles.inra.fr/synteny-cereal, presents the refined comparative genomics data.

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

4.5
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