Cited by 564Evolution and Genetic DynamicsFungal and yeast genetics researchGenome Rearrangement Algorithms

Characteristic genome rearrangements in experimental evolution of Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Open access
Dunham, Maitreya J., Badrane, Hassan, Ferea, Tracy, Adams, Julian, Brown, Patrick O., Rosenzweig, Frank, Botstein, David·2002·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Genome rearrangements, especially amplifications and deletions, have regularly been observed as responses to sustained application of the same strong selective pressure in microbial populations growing in continuous culture. We studied eight strains of budding yeast ( Saccharomyces cerevisiae ) isolated after 100–500 generations of growth in glucose-limited chemostats. Changes in DNA copy number were assessed at single-gene resolution by using DNA microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization. Six of these evolved strains were aneuploid as the result of gross chromosomal rearrangements. Most of the aneuploid regions were the result of translocations, including three instances of a shared breakpoint on chromosome 14 immediately adjacent to CIT1 , which encodes the citrate synthase that performs a key regulated step in the tricarboxylic acid cycle. Three strains had amplifications in a region of chromosome 4 that includes the high-affinity hexose transporters; one of these also had the aforementioned chromosome 14 break. Three strains had extensive overlapping deletions of the right arm of chromosome 15. Further analysis showed that each of these genome rearrangements was bounded by transposon-related sequences at the breakpoints. The observation of repeated, independent, but nevertheless very similar, chromosomal rearrangements in response to persistent selection of growing cells parallels the genome rearrangements that characteristically accompany tumor progression.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.242624799

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • An E. coli population with a rpoS deletion can still develop increased salt tolerance during laboratory evolution by uncoupling of rpoS dependent expression of the otsBA operon, which is important for trehalose synthesis.

    “It was shown that an E. coli population with a rpoS deletion can still develop increased salt tolerance during laboratory evolution by uncoupling of rpoS dependent expression of the otsBA operon, which is important for trehalose synthesis [82].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [28]Lashkari, D. A., DeRisi, J. L., McCusker, J. H., Namath, A. F., Gentile, C., Hwang, S. Y., Brown, P. O. & Davis, R. W. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 13057-13062.
  2. [41]Sugawara, N. & Szostak, J. W. (1983) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 80, 5675-5679.
  3. [46]Adams, J. & Oeller, P. W. (1986) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 83, 7124-7127.
  4. [49]Campbell, A. & Botstein, D. (1983) in Lambda II , eds. Hendrix, R., Roberts, J., Stahl, F. & Weisberg, R. (Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press, Plainview, NY), pp. 365-380.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dunham, M. J., Badrane, H., Ferea, T., Adams, J., Brown, P. O., Rosenzweig, F., & Botstein, D.
Affiliations
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Botstein, David
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2002-11-21
Volume
99
Issue
25
Pages
16144-16149
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2164832298
Cited by
564
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 25
FWCI
12.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Mathematics Enthusiast (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01hg000983-06)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (HG-00983)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM46406, R37GM046406, R01GM046406)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
Keywords
genome rearrangement, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, experimental evolution, aneuploidy, chromosomal translocation, DNA copy number, glucose-limited chemostat, chromosome 15 deletion, TCA cycle
MeSH terms
Aneuploidy, DNA Transposable Elements, DNA, Fungal, Gene Amplification, Genes, Fungal, Phenotype, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Selection, Genetic, Chromosomes, Fungal, Genome, Fungal, Gene Deletion, Gene Dosage, Evolution, Molecular, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis

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