4.2 Article

Occurrence and chromosome distribution of retroelements and NUPT sequences in Copaifera langsdorffii Desf. (Caesalpinioideae)

期刊

CHROMOSOME RESEARCH
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 515-524

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10577-010-9131-1

关键词

Copaifera; cp-rDNA-like; GC-rich bands; karyotype changes; rDNA; retroelements

资金

  1. Fundacao Araucaria
  2. CNPq
  3. CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Copaifera langsdorffii possesses 2n = 24 large meta- and submetacentric chromosomes (5.97-2.60 mu m) in comparison with other Caesalpinioideae trees. Chromosome banding revealed an abundance of GC-rich blocks with a few differences in the size and location of bands between different populations. Polymerase chain reaction and digestion with restriction enzyme RsaI were carried out in order to isolate repetitive DNAs, yielding three fragments of different size: (1) cp-rDNA-like, 109 bp (pCl03 clone); (2) Ty1-copia-like retroelement, 185 bp (pCl23 clone); and (3) Ty3-gypsy-like retroelement, 269 bp (pCl08 clone). The first clone produced unmistakable hybridization signals at subterminal and intercalary positions, coinciding with or adjacent to most of the GC-rich bands. The second clone (pCl23 clone) showed dispersed signals distributed throughout several chromosomes, while the pCl08 clone exhibited hybridization signals scattered and organized in blocks in all chromosomes of the complement. Fluorescent in situ hybridization and chromosome banding results allowed the detection of translocation events and unequal crossing-over involving 45S rDNA regions (pairs 7, 8, and 11). However, the most intriguing result was the insertion and subsequent overamplification of a cp-rDNA-like fragment and its distribution over the chromosomes of C. langsdorffii. Additionally, the results suggest that this segment behaves like satellite DNA. These different chromosome markers produced by cytomolecular techniques show that samples from different locations, although isolated, retain more karyotypic similarities than differences.

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

4.2
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