4.6 Article

Telomere-centric genome repatterning determines recurring chromosome number reductions during the evolution of eukaryotes

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 205, 期 1, 页码 378-389

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.12985

关键词

Arabidopsis; centromere; chromosome number reduction; genome repatterning; grasses; polyploidy; telomere

资金

  1. China National Science Foundation [30971611, 31170212]
  2. China-Hebei NSF for Talented Young Scholar
  3. China-Hebei 100 Scholars Supporting Project
  4. New Century 100 Creative Talents Project
  5. US National Science Foundation [ACI1339727, MCB-1021718]
  6. J. S. Guggenheim Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Whole-genome duplication (WGD) is central to the evolution of many eukaryotic genomes, in particular rendering angiosperm (flowering plant) genomes much less stable than those of animals. Following repeated duplication/triplication(s), angiosperm chromosome numbers have usually been restored to a narrow range, as one element in a diploidization' process that re-establishes diploid heredity. In several angiosperms affected by WGD, we show that chromosome number reduction (CNR) is best explained by intra- and/or inter-chromosomal crossovers to form new chromosomes that utilize the existing telomeres of invaded' and centromeres of invading' chromosomes, the alternative centromeres and telomeres being lost. Comparison with the banana (Musa acuminata) genome supports a fusion model' for the evolution of rice (Oryza sativa) chromosomes 2 and 3, implying that the grass common ancestor had seven chromosomes rather than the five implied by a fission model.' The invading' and invaded' chromosomes are frequently homoeologs, originating from duplication of a common ancestral chromosome and with greater-than-average DNA-level correspondence to one another. Telomere-centric CNR following recursive WGD in plants is also important in mammals and yeast, and may be a general mechanism of restoring small linear chromosome numbers in higher eukaryotes.

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