What’s in a genome? The C-value enigma and the evolution of eukaryotic genome content

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 370, Issue 1678, 2015, Pages

  Elliott, Tyler A ^a   Gregory, T Ryan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

Author keywords

C value; Genes; Genome sequencing; Genome size; Introns; Transposable elements

Indexed keywords

BACTERIUM; CELLS AND CELL COMPONENTS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EUKARYOTE; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; GENETIC STRUCTURE; GENOME; GENOMICS; METABOLISM; PROKARYOTE;

EUKARYOTA; PROKARYOTA;

DNA;

ANIMAL; EUKARYOTIC CELL; EVOLUTION; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; GENETIC VARIATION; GENETICS; GENOME SIZE; GENOMICS; PLANT; PROCEDURES;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; DNA; EUKARYOTIC CELLS; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME SIZE; GENOMICS; PLANTS;

EID: 84940697836     PISSN: 09628436     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0331     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Volff J-N, Altenbuchner J. 2000 A new beginning with new ends: linearisation of circular chromosomes during bacterial evolution. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 186, 143-150. (doi:10.1111/j.1574- 6968.2000.tb09095.x)
2. Okada K, Iida T, Kita-Tsukamoto K, Honda T. 2005 Vibrios commonly possess two chromosomes. J. Bacteriol. 187, 752-757. (doi:10.1128/JB.187.2. 752-757.2005)
3. Han K et al. 2013 Extraordinary expansion of a Sorangium cellulosum genome from an alkaline milieu. Sci. Rep. 3, 2101. (doi:10.1038/srep02101)
4. Corradi N, Pombert J-F, Farinelli L, Didier ES, Keeling PJ. 2010 The complete sequence of the smallest known nuclear genome from the microsporidian Encephalitozoon intestinalis. Nat. Commun. 1, 77. (doi:10.1038/ncomms1082)
5. Pellicer J, Fay M, Leitch IJ. 2010 The largest eukaryotic genome of them all? Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 164, 10-15. (doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010. 01072.x)
6. Thomas CA. 1971 The genetic organization of chromosomes. Ann. Rev. Genet. 5, 237-256. (doi:10.1146/annurev.ge.05.120171.001321)
7. Doolittle WF, Brunet TDP, Linquist S, Gregory TR. 2014 The distinction between 'function' and 'effect' in genome biology. Genome Biol. Evol. 6, 1234-1237. (doi:10.1093/gbe/evu098)
8. Gregory TR. 2001 Coincidence, coevolution, or causation? DNA content, cell size, and the C-value enigma. Biol. Rev. 76, 65-101. (doi:10.1111/j. 1469-185X.2000.tb00059.x)
9. Gregory TR. 2005 Synergy between sequence and size in large-scale genomics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6, 699-708. (doi:10.1038/nrg1674)
10. Bennett MD, Leitch IJ. 2012 Plant DNA C-values database (release 6.0, December 2012). See http:// www.kew.org/cvalues/.
11. Gregory TR. 2015 Animal Genome Size Database. See http://www.genomesize.com.
12. Kullman B, Tamm H, Kullman K. 2005 Fungal Genome Size Database. See http://www.zbi.ee/ fungal-genomesize/ (accessed April 2015).
13. Garcia S et al. 2014 Recent updates and developments to plant genome size databases. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 1-8. (doi:10.1093/nar/gkt1195)
14. Bennett MD, Leitch IJ. 2005 Genome size evolution in plants. In The evolution of the genome (ed. TR Gregory), pp. 89-162. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
15. Gregory TR. 2005 Genome size evolution in animals. In The evolution of the genome (ed. TR Gregory), pp. 3-87. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
16. Nystedt B et al. 2013 The Norway spruce genome sequence and conifer genome evolution. Nature 497, 579-584. (doi:10.1038/nature12211)
17. Felsenstein J. 1985 Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125, 1-15. (doi:10.1086/284325)
18. Midford PE, Garland T, Maddison WP. 2011 PDAP,PDTREE package for Mesquite, v. 1.16. See http://mesquiteprojectorg/pdap_mesquite/.
19. Maddison WP, Maddison DR. 2008 MESQUITE: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. See http:// mesquiteproject.org.
20. Maddison DR, Schulz K-S (eds) 2007 The Tree of Life Web Project. See http://tolweb.org (accessed August 2014).
21. Purvis A, Garland T. 1993 Polytomies in comparative analyses of continuous characters. Syst. Biol. 42, 569-575. (doi:10.2307/2992489)
22. Hardie DC, Gregory TR, Hebert PDN. 2002 From pixels to picograms: a beginners' guide to genome quantification by Feulgen image analysis densitometry. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 50, 735-749. (doi:10.1177/002215540205000601)
23. Treangen TJ, Salzberg SL. 2012 Repetitive DNA and next-generation sequencing, computational challenges and solutions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13, 36-44. (doi:10.1038/nrg3117)
24. Koga A. 2012 Under-representation of repetitive sequences in whole-genome shotgun sequence databases: an illustration using a recently acquired transposable element. Genome 55, 172-175. (doi:10.1139/g11-088)
25. Dufresne F, Jeffery N. 2011 A guided tour of large genome size in animals: what we know and where we are heading. Genome 19, 925-938. (doi:10. 1007/s10577-011-9248-x)
26. Claverie J-M. 2001 What if there are only 30,000 human genes? Science 291, 1255-1257. (doi:10. 1126/science.1058969)
27. Hahn MW, Wray GA. 2002 The G-value paradox. Evol. Dev. 4, 73-75. (doi:10.1046/j.1525-142X. 2002.01069.x)
28. Hou Y, Lin S. 2009 Distinct gene number-genome size relationships for eukaryotes and noneukaryotes: gene content estimation for dinoflagellate genomes. PLoS ONE 4, e6978. (doi:10. 1371/journal.pone.0006978)
29. Friar JL, Goldman T, Perez-Mercader J. 2012 Genome sizes and the Benford distribution. PLoS ONE 7, e36624. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036624)
30. Prokopowich CD, Gregory TR, Crease TJ. 2003 The correlation between rDNA copy number and genome size in eukaryotes. Genome 46, 48-50. (doi:10.1139/G02-103)
31. Gregory TR, DeSalle R. 2005 Comparative genomics in prokaryotes. In The evolution of the genome (ed. TR Gregory), pp. 585-675. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
32. Lynch M, Conery JS. 2003 The origins of genome complexity. Science 302, 1401-1403. (doi:10.1126/ science.1089370)
33. Vinogradov AE. 1999 Intron-genome size relationship on a large evolutionary scale. J. Mol. Evol. 49, 376-384. (doi:10.1007/PL00006561)
34. Waltari E, Edwards SV. 2002 Evolutionary dynamics of intron size, genome size, and physiological correlates in archosaurs. Am. Nat. 160, 539-552. (doi:10.1086/342079)
35. Wendel JF, Cronn RC, Alvarez I, Liu B, Small RL, Senchina DS. 2002 Intron size and genome size in plants. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19, 2346-2352. (doi:10. 1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004062)
36. Zhang Q, Edwards SV. 2012 The evolution of intron size in amniotes: a role for powered flight? Genome Biol. Evol. 4, 1033-1043. (doi:10.1093/gbe/evs070)
37. Kidwell MG, Lisch DR. 2000 Transposable elements and host genome evolution. Trends Ecol Evol. 15, 95-99. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01817-0)
38. Kidwell MG. 2002 Transposable elements and the evolution of genome size in eukaryotes. Genetica 115, 49-63. (doi:10.1023/A:1016072014259)
39. Biémont C. 2010 A brief history of the status of transposable elements: from junk DNA to major players in evolution. Genetics 186, 1085-1093. (doi:10.1534/genetics.110.124180)
40. Michael TP. 2014 Plant genome size variation, bloating and purging DNA. Brief. Function. Genomics 13, 308-317. (doi:10.1093/bfgp/elu005)
41. Kazazian HH. 2004 Mobile elements: drivers of genome evolution. Science 303, 1626-1632. (doi:10.1126/science.1089670)
42. Biémont C, Vieira C. 2006 Genetics: junk DNA as an evolutionary force. Nature 443, 521-524. (doi:10. 1038/443521a)
43. Callinan PA, Beltzer MA. 2006 Retrotransposable elements and human disease. In Genome and disease (ed. J-N Volff ), pp. 104-115. Basel, Switzerland: Karger.
44. Hancks DC, Kazazian HH. 2012 Active human retrotransposons: variation and disease. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 22, 191-203. (doi:10.1016/j.gde.2012. 02.006)
45. Muotri AR, Marchetto MCN, Coufal NG, Gage FH. 2007 The necessary junk: new functions for transposable elements. Hum. Mol. Genet. 16, R159-R167. (doi:10.1093/hmg/ddm196)
46. Gregory TR. 2005 Macroevolution and the genome. In The evolution of the genome (ed. TR Gregory), pp. 679-729. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
47. Elliott TA, Gregory TR. 2015 Do larger genomes contain more diverse transposable elements? BMC Evol. Biol. 15, 69. (doi:10.1186/s12862-015- 0339-8)
48. Kelly LJ, Leitch IJ. 2011 Exploring giant plant genomes with next-generation sequencing technology. Chromosome Res. 19, 939-953. (doi:10.1007/s10577-011-9246-z)
49. Metcalfe C, Casane D. 2013 Accommodating the load: the transposable element content of very large genomes. Mob. Genet. Elem. 3, e24775. (doi:10.4161/mge.24775)
50. Metcalfe CJ, Filée J, Germon I, Joss J, Casane D. 2012 Evolution of the Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri) genome: a major role for CR1 and L2 LINE elements. Mol. Biol. Evol. 29, 3529-3539. (doi:10.1093/molbev/mss159)
51. Smith JJ et al. 2009 Genic regions of a large salamander genome contain long introns and novel genes. BMC Genomics 10, 19. (doi:10.1186/1471-2164-10-19)
52. Sun C, Shepard DB, Chong RA, López Arriaza J, Hall K, Castoe TA, Feschotte C, Pollock DD, Mueller RL. 2012 LTR retrotransposons contribute to genomic gigantism in plethodontid salamanders. Genome Biol. Evol. 4, 168-183. (doi:10.1093/gbe/evr139)
53. Frahry MB, Sun C, Chong RA, Mueller RL. 2015 Low levels of LTR retrotransposon deletion by ectopic recombination in the gigantic genomes of salamanders. J. Mol. Evol. 80, 120-129. (doi:10. 1007/s00239-014-9663-7)
54. Kovach A et al. 2010 The Pinus taeda genome is characterized by diverse and highly diverged repetitive sequences. BMC Genomics 11, 420. (doi:10.1186/1471-2164-11-420)
55. Wegrzyn JL et al. 2014 Unique features of the loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) megagenome revealed through sequence annotation. Genetics 196, 891-909. (doi:10.1534/genetics.113.159996)
56. Ambrožová K, Mandáková T, Bureš P, Neumann P, Leitch IJ, Koblížková A, Macas J, Lysak MA. 2011 Diverse retrotransposon families and AT-rich satellite DNA revealed in giant genomes of Fritillaria lilies. Ann. Bot. 107, 255-268. (doi:10.1093/aob/mcq235)
57. Kelly LJ et al. In press. Analysis of the giant genomes of Fritillaria (Liliaceae) indicates that a lack of DNA removal characterizes extreme expansions in genome size. New Phytol. (doi:10.1111/nph.13471)
58. Vinogradov AE. 1998 Genome size and GC-percent in vertebrates as determined by flow cytometry: the triangular relationship. Cytometry 31, 100-109. (doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0320(19980201)31: 2,100::AID-CYTO5.3.0.CO;2-Q)
59. Šmarda P, Bureš P, Horová L, Leitch IJ, Mucina L, Pacini E, Tichý L, Grulich V, Rotreklová O. 2014 Ecological and evolutionary significance of genomic GC content diversity in monocots. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E4096-E4102. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1321152111)
60. Huddleston J et al. 2014 Reconstructing complex regions of genomes using long-read sequencing technology. Genome Res. 24, 688-696. (doi:10. 1101/gr.168450.113)
61. Lee H, Gurtowski J, Yoo S, Marcus S, McCombie WR, Schatz M. 2014 Error correction and assembly complexity of single molecule sequencing reads. See http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/06/18/ 006395.
62. McCoy RC, Taylor RW, Blauwkamp TA, Kelley JL, Kertesz M, Pushkarev D, Petrov DA, Fiston-Lavier A-S. 2014 Illumina TruSeq synthetic long-reads empower de novo assembly and resolve complex, highly-repetitive transposable elements. PLoS ONE 9, e106689. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106689)
63. Lucas SJ, Akpinar BA, Šimková H, Kubaláková M, Doležel J, Budak H. 2014 Next-generation sequencing of flow-sorted wheat chromosome 5D reveals lineage-specific translocations and widespread gene duplications. BMC Genomics 15, 1080. (doi:10.1186/1471-2164-15-1080)
64. Neale DB et al. 2014 Decoding the massive genome of loblolly pine using haploid DNA and novel assembly strategies. Genome Biol. 15, R59. (doi:10. 1186/gb-2014-15-3-r59)
65. Zhang H, Dawe RK. 2012 Total centromere size and genome size are strongly correlated in ten grass species. Chromosome Res. 20, 403-412. (doi:10. 1007/s10577-012-9284-1)