4.6 Article

Chimeric mitochondrial minichromosomes of the human body louse, Pediculus humanus: Evidence for homologous and non-homologous recombination

Journal

GENE
Volume 473, Issue 1, Pages 36-43

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2010.11.002

Keywords

Mitochondrial genome; mtDNA recombination; Chimeric molecule; Chromosome evolution; Microhomology; Human body louse

Funding

  1. ARC
  2. University of Queensland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The mitochondrial (mt) genome of the human body louse, Pediculus humanus, consists of 18 minichromosomes. Each minichromosome is 3 to 4 kb long and has 1 to 3 genes. There is unequivocal evidence for recombination between different mt minichromosomes in P. humanus. It is not known, however, how these minichromosomes recombine. Here, we report the discovery of eight chimeric mt minichromosomes in P. humanus. We classify these chimeric mt minichromosomes into two groups: Group I and Group II. Group I chimeric minichromosomes contain parts of two different protein-coding genes that are from different minichromosomes. The two parts of protein-coding genes in each Group I chimeric minichromosome are joined at a microhomologous nucleotide sequence; microhomologous nucleotide sequences are hallmarks of non-homologous recombination. Group II chimeric minichromosomes contain all of the genes and the non-coding regions of two different minichromosomes. The conserved sequence blocks in the non-coding regions of Group II chimeric minichromosomes resemble the recombination repeats in the non-coding regions of the mt genomes of higher plants. These repeats are essential to homologous recombination in higher plants. Our analyses of the nucleotide sequences of chimeric mt minichromosomes indicate both homologous and non-homologous recombination between minichromosomes in the mitochondria of the human body louse. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available