Cited by 44Chromosomal and Genetic VariationsGenome Rearrangement AlgorithmsGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities

Low Levels of LTR Retrotransposon Deletion by Ectopic Recombination in the Gigantic Genomes of Salamanders

Frahry, Matthew Blake, Sun, Cheng, Chong, Rebecca A., Mueller, Rachel Lockridge·2015·Journal of Molecular Evolution

Abstract

Across the tree of life, species vary dramatically in nuclear genome size. Mutations that add or remove sequences from genomes-insertions or deletions, or indels-are the ultimate source of this variation. Differences in the tempo and mode of insertion and deletion across taxa have been proposed to contribute to evolutionary diversity in genome size. Among vertebrates, most of the largest genomes are found within the salamanders, an amphibian clade with genome sizes ranging from ~14 to ~120 Gb. Salamander genomes have been shown to experience slower rates of DNA loss through small (i.e., <30 bp) deletions than do other vertebrate genomes. However, no studies have addressed DNA loss from salamander genomes resulting from larger deletions. Here, we focus on one type of large deletion-ectopic-recombination-mediated removal of LTR retrotransposon sequences. In ectopic recombination, double-strand breaks are repaired using a "wrong" (i.e., ectopic, or non-allelic) template sequence-typically another locus of similar sequence. When breaks occur within the LTR portions of LTR retrotransposons, ectopic-recombination-mediated repair can produce deletions that remove the internal transposon sequence and the equivalent of one of the two LTR sequences. These deletions leave a signature in the genome-a solo LTR sequence. We compared levels of solo LTRs in the genomes of four salamander species with levels present in five vertebrates with smaller genomes. Our results demonstrate that salama…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00239-014-9663-7

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frahry, M. B., Sun, C., Chong, R. A., & Mueller, R. L.
Affiliations
Colorado State University (US)
Corresponding author
Mueller, Rachel Lockridge
Venue
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Published
2015-01-22
Volume
80
Issue
2
Pages
120-129
ISSN
  • 0022-2844 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1432
OpenAlex
W2006039129
Cited by
44
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
4.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Molecular Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Keywords
LTR retrotransposons, ectopic recombination, solo LTRs, genome size evolution, salamanders, large deletions, DNA loss, transposon deletion, DNA double-strand break repair, transposable elements
MeSH terms
Animals, Base Sequence, Recombination, Genetic, Caudata, Genome, Sequence Deletion, Retroelements, Evolution, Molecular, Terminal Repeat Sequences, Genome Size

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review