Two different methods of calculating insertion profiles of long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposons in the genome are compared, analysing six retrotransposon lineages in Populus trichocarpa. The first method consists of aligning the two long terminal repeats of an element and translating nucleotide differences into years, based on nucleotide synonymous substitution rate. The second method infers proliferation time profile of a group of retrotransposons by analysing pairwise genetic distances between reverse transcriptase (RT)-encoding sequences that belong to paralogous elements of the same group and translating them into insertion dates using the same mutation rate as for the first method. The two methods gave quite different results, probably because they are related to different populations of retrotransposons. The RTbased method can provide reliable insertion profiles; the method based on LTRs can be used to date individual elements and to obtain reliable profiles related to the most recent evolutionary periods. We suggest that both methods should be used to evaluate the dynamics of the retrotransposon component of a genome.

A comparison of methods for LTR-retrotransposon insertion time profiling in the Populus trichocarpa genome

MASCAGNI, FLAVIA
Co-primo
;
USAI, GABRIELE
Co-primo
;
L. Natali;A. Cavallini
;
T. Giordani
Ultimo
2018-01-01

Abstract

Two different methods of calculating insertion profiles of long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposons in the genome are compared, analysing six retrotransposon lineages in Populus trichocarpa. The first method consists of aligning the two long terminal repeats of an element and translating nucleotide differences into years, based on nucleotide synonymous substitution rate. The second method infers proliferation time profile of a group of retrotransposons by analysing pairwise genetic distances between reverse transcriptase (RT)-encoding sequences that belong to paralogous elements of the same group and translating them into insertion dates using the same mutation rate as for the first method. The two methods gave quite different results, probably because they are related to different populations of retrotransposons. The RTbased method can provide reliable insertion profiles; the method based on LTRs can be used to date individual elements and to obtain reliable profiles related to the most recent evolutionary periods. We suggest that both methods should be used to evaluate the dynamics of the retrotransposon component of a genome.
2018
Mascagni, Flavia; Usai, Gabriele; Natali, L.; Cavallini, A.; Giordani, T.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2018 Mascagni et al CARYOLOGIA.pdf

solo utenti autorizzati

Descrizione: Articolo principale
Tipologia: Versione finale editoriale
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 931.24 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
931.24 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/911345
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 12
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 13
social impact