4.8 Article

Evolution of diverse mechanisms for protecting chromosome ends by Drosophila TART telomere retrotransposons

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1015926107

关键词

chromosome end protection; promoter evolution; pseudo-LTR promoter; perfect nonterminal repeat; antisense RNA

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [GM50315]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The retrotransposons HeT-A, TART, and TAHRE, which maintain Drosophila telomeres, transpose specifically onto chromosome ends to form long arrays that extend the chromosome and compensate for terminal loss. Because they transpose by target-primed reverse transcription, each element is oriented so that its 5' end serves as the extreme end of the chromosome until another element transposes to occupy the terminal position. Thus 5' sequences are at risk for terminal erosion while the element is at the chromosome end. Here we report that TART elements in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila virilis show species-specific innovations in promoter architecture that buffer loss of sequence exposed at chromosome ends. The two elements have evolved different ways to effect this protection. The D. virilis TART (TART(vir)) promoter is found in the 3' UTR of the element directly upstream of the element transcribed. Transcription starts within the upstream element so that a Tag of extra sequence is added to the 5' end of the newly transcribed RNA. This Tag provides expendable sequence to buffer end erosion of essential 5' sequence after the RNA is reverse transcribed onto the chromosome. In contrast, the D. melanogaster TART (TART(mel)) promoter initiates transcription deep within the 5' UTR, but the element is able to replace and extend the 5' UTR sequence by copying sequence from its 3' UTR, we believe while being reverse transcribed onto the chromosome end. Astonishingly, end-protection in TART(vir) and HeT-Amel are essentially identical (using Tags), whereas HeT-Avir is clearly protected from end erosion by an as-yet-unspecified program.

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