» Articles » PMID: 14668370

Patterns of Selection Against Transposons Inferred from the Distribution of Tc1, Tc3 and Tc5 Insertions in the Mut-7 Line of the Nematode Caenorhabditis Elegans

Overview
Journal Genetics
Specialty Genetics
Date 2003 Dec 12
PMID 14668370
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To identify the factors (selective or mutational) that affect the distribution of transposable elements (TEs) within a genome, it is necessary to compare the pattern of newly arising element insertions to the pattern of element insertions that have been fixed in a population. To do this, we analyzed the distribution of recent mutant insertions of the Tc1, Tc3, and Tc5 elements in a mut-7 background of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans and compared it to the distribution of element insertions (presumably fixed) within the sequenced genome. Tc1 elements preferentially insert in regions with high recombination rates, whereas Tc3 and Tc5 do not. Although Tc1 and Tc3 both insert in TA dinucleotides, there is no clear relationship between the frequency of insertions and the TA dinucleotide density. There is a strong selection against TE insertions within coding regions: the probability that a TE will be fixed is at least 31 times lower in coding regions than in noncoding regions. Contrary to the prediction of theoretical models, we found that the selective pressure against TE insertions does not increase with the recombination rate. These findings indicate that the distribution of these three transposon families in the genome of C. elegans is determined essentially by just two factors: the pattern of insertions, which is a characteristic of each family, and the selection against insertions within coding regions.

Citing Articles

Bioinformatics and Machine Learning Approaches to Understand the Regulation of Mobile Genetic Elements.

Giassa I, Alexiou P Biology (Basel). 2021; 10(9).

PMID: 34571773 PMC: 8465862. DOI: 10.3390/biology10090896.


Degradation of the Repetitive Genomic Landscape in a Close Relative of Caenorhabditis elegans.

Woodruff G, Teterina A Mol Biol Evol. 2020; 37(9):2549-2567.

PMID: 32359146 PMC: 7475029. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msaa107.


Coevolution between transposable elements and recombination.

Kent T, Uzunovic J, Wright S Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2017; 372(1736).

PMID: 29109221 PMC: 5698620. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2016.0458.


Natural Variation in the Distribution and Abundance of Transposable Elements Across the Caenorhabditis elegans Species.

Laricchia K, Zdraljevic S, Cook D, Andersen E Mol Biol Evol. 2017; 34(9):2187-2202.

PMID: 28486636 PMC: 5850821. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msx155.


Evolution of a transposon in Daphnia hybrid genomes.

Vergilino R, Elliott T, Desjardins-Proulx P, Crease T, Dufresne F Mob DNA. 2013; 4(1):7.

PMID: 23384095 PMC: 3575242. DOI: 10.1186/1759-8753-4-7.


References
1.
Ketting R, Haverkamp T, van Luenen H, Plasterk R . Mut-7 of C. elegans, required for transposon silencing and RNA interference, is a homolog of Werner syndrome helicase and RNaseD. Cell. 1999; 99(2):133-41. DOI: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81645-1. View

2.
Tomilin N . Control of genes by mammalian retroposons. Int Rev Cytol. 1998; 186:1-48. DOI: 10.1016/s0074-7696(08)61050-5. View

3.
Wicks S, de Vries C, van Luenen H, Plasterk R . CHE-3, a cytosolic dynein heavy chain, is required for sensory cilia structure and function in Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev Biol. 2000; 221(2):295-307. DOI: 10.1006/dbio.2000.9686. View

4.
Nuzhdin S . Sure facts, speculations, and open questions about the evolution of transposable element copy number. Genetica. 2000; 107(1-3):129-37. View

5.
Jurka J . Repbase update: a database and an electronic journal of repetitive elements. Trends Genet. 2000; 16(9):418-20. DOI: 10.1016/s0168-9525(00)02093-x. View