Investigation of Loss and Gain of Introns in the Compact Genomes of Pufferfishes (Fugu and Tetraodon)
Open accessAbstract
We have investigated intron evolution in the compact genomes of 2 closely related species of pufferfishes, Fugu rubripes and Tetraodon nigroviridis, that diverged about 32 million years ago (MYA). Analysis of 148,028 aligned intron positions in 13,547 gene pairs using human as an outgroup identified 57 and 24 intron losses in Tetraodon and fugu lineages, respectively, and no gain in either lineage. For comparison, we analyzed 144,545 intron positions in 12,866 orthologous pairs of genes in human and mouse that diverged about 61 MYA using dog as an outgroup and identified 51 intron losses in mouse and 3 losses in human and no gain. The rate of intron loss in Tetraodon is higher than that in fugu, mouse, and human but lower than the previous estimates for other eukaryotes. The introns lost in pufferfishes and mammals are significantly shorter than the mean size of introns in the genome. One intron deleted in fugu and another in Tetraodon have left behind 6 and 3 nucleotides, respectively, suggesting that they were lost due to genomic deletions. Such losses of introns are likely to be the result of a higher rate of DNA deletions experienced by the genomes of pufferfishes compared with mammals. The shorter generation time of Tetraodon compared with fugu, and the rich diversity and higher activity of transposable elements in pufferfishes compared with mammals, may be responsible for the higher rate of intron loss in Tetraodon. Our findings indicate that overall very little intron turnover has occurred in pufferfishes and mammals during recent evolution and that intron gain is an extremely rare event in vertebrate evolution.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Genome compaction in pufferfishes combines TE/repeat reduction via suppression of transposable-element activity along with genome-wide intron shortening rather than intron loss.
“Genome compaction in pufferfishes likewise combines TE/repeat reduction via suppression of transposable-element activity (31) along with genome-wide intron shortening rather than intron loss (30, 31, 71)”
From Convergent genome streamlining accompanies independent miniaturization in the world’s smallest fishes (2026) · cites this paper as [71]
The section on pufferfish genome compaction says compaction was accomplished mainly by shortening introns and intergenic regions, not by a higher rate of loss of entire introns. The Discussion also reports fewer TE copies in pufferfishes than in mammals, but explicitly says TE activity is higher in pufferfishes; it does not support reduction through suppression of TE activity. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Sea Anemone Genome Reveals Ancestral Eumetazoan Gene Repertoire and Genomic Organization
Putnam, N. H., Srivastava, M., Hellsten, U., Dirks, B., Chapman, J., Salamov, A., Terry, A., Shapiro, H., Lindquist, E., Kapitonov, V. V., et al. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1139158 · Cited by 1,555 · see citing works
Paleontological Evidence to Date the Tree of Life
Benton, M. J., & Donoghue, P. C. J. (2006) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msl150 · Cited by 916 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sudasinghe, H., Matschiner, M., Britz, R., Conway, K. W., Tan, H. H., Salzburger, W., Peichel, C. L., & Rüber, L. (2026) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2614605123
- Authors
- Loh, Y.-H., Brenner, S., & Venkatesh, B.
- Affiliations
- Agency for Science, Technology and Research (SG)
- ORCID
- Venkatesh, B.
- Venue
- Molecular Biology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-01-10
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 526-535
- ISSN
- 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-1719
- OpenAlex
- W2042475203
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 6.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Molecular Biology and Evolution (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Science, Technology and Research
- National University of Singapore
- Biomedical Research Council
- 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 › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Keywords
- intron loss, intron gain, intron evolution, pufferfish, Fugu rubripes, Tetraodon nigroviridis, compact genome, genomic deletions, transposable elements, generation time, orthologous gene pairs, vertebrate genome evolution, human-mouse comparison
- MeSH terms
- Amino Acid Sequence, Animals, Dogs, Humans, Introns, Molecular Sequence Data, Phylogeny, Sequence Homology, Amino Acid, Evolution, Molecular, Tetraodontiformes, Takifugu
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