» Articles » PMID: 31358560

Genome Size Evolution Differs Between Subgenera with Striking Differences in Male and Female Genome Size in

Overview
Journal G3 (Bethesda)
Date 2019 Jul 31
PMID 31358560
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Genome size varies across the tree of life, with no clear correlation to organismal complexity or coding sequence, but with differences in non-coding regions. Phylogenetic methods have recently been incorporated to further disentangle this enigma, yet most of these studies have focused on widely diverged species. Few have compared patterns of genome size change in closely related species with known structural differences in the genome. As a consequence, the relationship between genome size and differences in chromosome number or inter-sexual differences attributed to XY systems are largely unstudied. We hypothesize that structural differences associated with chromosome number and X-Y chromosome differentiation, should result in differing rates and patterns of genome size change. In this study, we utilize the subgenera within the to ask if patterns and rates of genome size change differ between closely related species with differences in chromosome numbers and states of the XY system. Genome sizes for males and females of 152 species are used to answer these questions (with 92 newly added or updated estimates). While we find no relationship between chromosome number and genome size or chromosome number and inter-sexual differences in genome size, we find evidence for differing patterns of genome size change between the subgenera, and increasing rates of change throughout time. Estimated shifts in rates of change in sex differences in genome size occur more often in and correspond to known neo-sex events.

Citing Articles

A genome resource for the marine annelid .

Mutemi K, Simakov O, Pan L, Santangeli L, Null R, Handberg-Thorsager M bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 38948846 PMC: 11213123. DOI: 10.1101/2024.06.21.600153.


CoreDetector: a flexible and efficient program for core-genome alignment of evolutionary diverse genomes.

Fruzangohar M, Moolhuijzen P, Bakaj N, Taylor J Bioinformatics. 2023; 39(11).

PMID: 37878789 PMC: 10663985. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad628.


Does the Pachytene Checkpoint, a Feature of Meiosis, Filter Out Mistakes in Double-Strand DNA Break Repair and as a side-Effect Strongly Promote Adaptive Speciation?.

Foe V Integr Org Biol. 2023; 4(1):obac008.

PMID: 36827645 PMC: 8998493. DOI: 10.1093/iob/obac008.


In-Depth Satellitome Analyses of 37 Drosophila Species Illuminate Repetitive DNA Evolution in the Drosophila Genus.

Lima L, Ruiz-Ruano F Genome Biol Evol. 2022; 14(5).

PMID: 35511582 PMC: 9113345. DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evac064.


Sex-specific aging in animals: Perspective and future directions.

Bronikowski A, Meisel R, Biga P, Walters J, Mank J, Larschan E Aging Cell. 2022; 21(2):e13542.

PMID: 35072344 PMC: 8844111. DOI: 10.1111/acel.13542.


References
1.
Mirsky A, RIS H . The desoxyribonucleic acid content of animal cells and its evolutionary significance. J Gen Physiol. 1951; 34(4):451-62. PMC: 2147229. DOI: 10.1085/jgp.34.4.451. View

2.
Tamura K, Subramanian S, Kumar S . Temporal patterns of fruit fly (Drosophila) evolution revealed by mutation clocks. Mol Biol Evol. 2003; 21(1):36-44. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msg236. View

3.
OMeara B, Ane C, Sanderson M, Wainwright P . Testing for different rates of continuous trait evolution using likelihood. Evolution. 2006; 60(5):922-33. View

4.
Sundstrom H, Webster M, Ellegren H . Is the rate of insertion and deletion mutation male biased?: Molecular evolutionary analysis of avian and primate sex chromosome sequences. Genetics. 2003; 164(1):259-68. PMC: 1462550. DOI: 10.1093/genetics/164.1.259. View

5.
Pandit M, White S, Pocock M . The contrasting effects of genome size, chromosome number and ploidy level on plant invasiveness: a global analysis. New Phytol. 2014; 203(2):697-703. DOI: 10.1111/nph.12799. View