Genome size evolution: towards new model systems for old questions
Open accessAbstract
Genome size (GS) variation is a fundamental biological characteristic; however, its evolutionary causes and consequences are the topic of ongoing debate. Whether GS is a neutral trait or one subject to selective pressures, and how strong these selective pressures are, may remain open questions. Fundamentally, the genomic sequences responsible for this variation directly impact the potential evolutionary outcomes and, equally, are the targets of different evolutionary pressures. For example, duplications and deletions of genic regions (large or small) can have immediate and drastic phenotypic effects, while an expansion or contraction of non-coding DNA is less likely to cause catastrophic phenotypic effects. However, in the long term, the accumulation or deletion of ncDNA is likely to have larger effects. Modern sequencing technologies are allowing for the dissection of these proximate causes, but a combination of these new technologies with more traditional evolutionary experiments and approaches could revolutionize this debate and potentially resolve many of these arguments. Here, I discuss an ambitious way forward for GS research, putting it in context of historical debates, theories and sometimes contradictory evidence, and highlighting the promise of combining new sequencing technologies and analytical developments with more traditional experimental evolution approaches.
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?
Order-wide variation in genome size was driven predominantly by polyploidy.
“with order-wide variation driven predominantly by polyploidy (45, 46).”
From Convergent genome streamlining accompanies independent miniaturization in the world’s smallest fishes (2026) · cites this paper as [45]
The ‘Causes of genome size variation’ section identifies polyploidy as one way genome size can increase, but does not say it predominantly drives variation across an order. The Background section instead says the proximate cause of genome-size variation generally appears to be noncoding DNA, especially repetitive elements. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBoth loaches/Psilorhynchidae and progenetic miniatures inhabit physiologically demanding environments, which has been linked to selection for smaller genomes through the relationship between cell size, nuclear DNA content, and metabolic rate.
“Both groups therefore inhabit physiologically demanding environments, which has been linked to selection for smaller genomes through the relationship between cell size, nuclear DNA content, and metabolic rate (e.g., refs. 45, 47, and 51–53).”
From Convergent genome streamlining accompanies independent miniaturization in the world’s smallest fishes (2026) · cites this paper as [45]
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredComparative genomic analyses usually test for correlations between traits.
“Comparative genomic analyses usually test for correlations between traits.”
From A phylogenetic approach to comparative genomics (2025) · cites this paper as [81]
Section 3, “Potential model organisms for genome size evolution” (page unavailable), says that studies of genome-size evolution often use correlations between genome size and other traits or statistics. It does not establish that comparative genomic analyses generally—beyond this research area—usually test correlations between traits. (LLM, conf=0.82)
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
The origins of genome complexity
Lynch, M., & Conery, J. S. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1089370 · Cited by 1,698 · see citing works
Schneider, V. A., Graves-Lindsay, T., Howe, K., Bouk, N., Chen, H.-C., Kitts, P. A., Murphy, T. D., Pruitt, K. D., Thibaud-Nissen, F., Albracht, D., et al. (2017) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.213611.116 · Cited by 1,193 · see citing works
Effects of GC Bias in Next-Generation-Sequencing Data on De Novo Genome Assembly
Chen, Y.-C., Liu, T., Yu, C.-H., Chiang, T.-Y., & Hwang, C.-C. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062856 · Cited by 285 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 111
- [1]1. Gregory TR, DeSalle R. 2005 The evolution of the genome , pp. 585 -675. London, UK: Academic Press. (doi:10.1016/B978-012301463-4/50012-7) · DOI
- [5]5. Wright SI. 2017 Evolution of genome size . Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
- [6]6. Elliott TA, Gregory TR. 2015 What ' s in a genome? The C-value enigma and the evolution of eukaryotic genome content. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 370 , 20140331. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0331) · DOI · Paper page
- [7]7. Gregory TR. 2005 The C-value enigma in plants and animals: a review of parallels and an appeal for Brachionus rotifers make them an ideal model in this case, but both maize and flour beetles would probably also be suitable. The genome streamlining hypothesis [43] could be tested with experimental approaches where nutrient conditions are manipulated to analyse the impact on organismal growth rate in various natural and laboratory-manipulated GS variants. Clearly, with examples of intraspecific GS variation, genomic resources to understand the basis of these changes and their potential direct phenotypic effects, traditional evolutionary experiments and newer technologies, many of these controversies may become more (or less) clear. The integrative approach outlined here and are summarized in figure 1, targeting multiple hypotheses in these systems would probably not result in the support of any individual hypothesis, but offer varying levels of support for all, leading to a new view of GS evolution and the importance of both neutral and selective forces. Ultimately, answering these questions is unlikely with just one technique in one model system. The ongoing revolutions in sequencing technologies and analyses, combined with the other techniques outlined in this review, will only reveal more genomic oddities and the mutational forces underlying these. The future may yet hold more, not fewer controversies regarding the influences of drift and selection on genome evolution, which will doubtless be the focus of many discussions among evolutionary biologists. Data accessibility. Competing interests. This article has no additional data. I declare that I have no competing interests. Funding. I acknowledge the support by a Postdoc Grant of SciLifeLab Uppsala via Alexander Suh. Acknowledgements. I would like to thank the members of the Suh lab, including Alexander Suh, Valentina Peona, Augustin Chen, Octavio Palacios-Gimenez, Paco Ruiz-Ruano, Ivar Westberg and Roberto Rossini, for their feedback on the review at all stages, including proposal. Additionally, I would also like to thank my PhD supervisor, ClausPeter Stelzer and the rest of his lab for the fruitful discussions during my PhD which led to this review article. - partnership. Ann. Bot. 95 , 133 -146. (doi:10.1093/ aob/mci009)
- [8]8. Wang J, Davis RE. 2014 Programmed DNA elimination in multicellular organisms. Curr. Opin Genet. Dev. 27 , 26 -34. (doi:10.1016/j.gde. 2014.03.012) · DOI
- [10]10. Hjelmen CE, Blackmon H, Renee Holmes V, Burrus CG, Spencer Johnston J. 2019 Genome size evolution differs between Drosophila subgenera with striking differences in male and female genome size in Sophophora . G3 Genes, Genomes, Genet 9 , 3167 -3179. (doi:10.1534/g3.119.400560) · DOI
- [11]11. Gregory TR. 2005 Genome size evolution in animals. In The evolution of the genome (ed. TR Gregory), pp. 3 -87. London, UK: Academic Press.
- [12]12. Greilhuber J, Dole ž el J, Lysák MA, Bennett MD. 2005 The origin, evolution and proposed stabilization of - the terms ' genome size ' and ' C-value ' to describe nuclear DNA contents. Ann. Bot. 95 , 255 -260. (doi:10.1093/aob/mci019) · DOI
- [14]14. Graur D, Zheng Y, Azevedo RBR. 2015 An evolutionary classification of genomic function. Genome Biol. Evol. 7 , 642 -645. (doi:10.1093/gbe/evv021) · DOI
- [15]15. Doolittle WF. 2013 Is junk DNA bunk? A critique of ENCODE. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110 , 5294 -5300. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1221376110) · DOI
- [16]16. Doolittle WF, Brunet TDP. 2017 On causal roles and selected effects: our genome is mostly junk. BMC Biol. 15 , 1 -9. (doi:10.1186/s12915-017-0460-9) · DOI
- [17]17. Gregory TR. 2001 Coincidence, coevolution, or causation? DNA content, cellsize, and the C-value enigma. Biol Rev 76 , 65 -101. (doi:10.1111/j.1469185X.2000.tb00059.x) · DOI
- [18]18. Palazzo AF, Gregory TR. 2014 The case for junk DNA. PLoS Genet. 10 , e1004351. (doi:10.1371/journal. pgen.1004351) · DOI
- [19]19. Shapiro JA, von Sternberg R. 2005 Why repetitive DNA is essential to genome function. Biol. Rev. 80 , 227 -250. (doi:10.1017/S1464793104006657) · DOI
- [20]20. Huang S et al. 2014 Decelerated genome evolution in modern vertebrates revealed by analysis of multiple lancelet genomes. Nat. Commun. 5 , 5896. (doi:10.1038/ncomms6896) · DOI
- [21]21. ENCODE Project Consortium TEP. 2004 The ENCODE (ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements) project. Science 306 , 636 -640. (doi:10.1126/science. 1105136) · DOI · Paper page
- [23]23. Linquist S, Doolittle WF, Palazzo AF. 2020 Getting clear about the F-word in genomics. PLoS Genet. 16 , e1008702. (doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1008702) · DOI
- [25]25. Petrov DA. 2002 Mutational equilibrium model of genome size evolution. Theor. Popul. Biol. 61 , 531 -544. (doi:10.1006/tpbi.2002.1605) · DOI
- [26]26. Mohlhenrich ER, Mueller RL. 2016 Genetic drift and mutational hazard in the evolution of salamander genomic gigantism. Evolution (N Y) 70 , 2865 -2878. (doi:10.1111/evo.13084) · DOI
- [27]27. Kelkar YD, Ochman H. 2012 Causes and consequences of genome expansion in fungi. Genome Biol. Evol. 4 , 13 -23. (doi:10.1093/gbe/evr124) · DOI
- [28]28. Sung W, Ackerman MS, Dillon MM, Platt TG, Fuqua C, Cooper VS, Lynch M. 2016 Evolution of the insertion-deletion mutation rate across the tree of life. G3; Genes Genomes Genetics 6 , 2583 -2591. (doi:10.1534/g3.116.030890) · DOI
- [30]30. Canapa A, Barucca M, Biscotti MA, Forconi M, Olmo E. 2016 Transposons, genome size, and evolutionary insights in animals. Cytogenet Genome Res. 147 , 217 -239. (doi:10.1159/000444429) · DOI · Paper page
- [31]31. Kapusta A, Suh A, Feschotte C. 2017 Dynamics of genome size evolution in birds and mammals. PNAS 114 , 201616702. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1616702114) · DOI · Paper page
- [32]32. Arkhipova IR. 2018 Neutral theory, transposable elements, and eukaryotic genome evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35 , 1332 -1337. (doi:10.1093/molbev/ msy083) · DOI
- [34]34. Bennett MD. 1971 The duration of meiosis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 178 , 277 -299. (doi:10.1098/ rspb.1971.0066)
- [19]19. miniaturization and expansion. Ann. Bot. 95 , 147 -175. (doi:10.1093/aob/mci010) · DOI
- [40]40. Beaulieu JM, Leitch IJ, Patel S, Pendharkar A, Knight CA. 2008 Genome size is a strong predictor of cell size and stomatal density in angiosperms. New Phytol. 179 , 975 -986. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137. 2008.02528.x) · DOI
- [41]41. Š ímová I, Herben T. 2012 Geometrical constraints in the scaling relationships between genome size, cell size and cell cycle length in herbaceous plants. Proc. R. Soc. B 279 , 867 -875. (doi:10.1098/rspb. 2011.1284) · DOI
- [42]42. Keeling PJ, Slamovits CH. 2005 Causes and effects of nuclear genome reduction. Curr. Opin Genet. Dev. 15 , 601 -608. (doi:10.1016/j.gde.2005.09.003) · DOI
- [45]45. Bales AL, Hersch-Green EI. 2019 Effects of soil nitrogen on diploid advantage in fireweed, Chamerion angustifolium (Onagraceae). Ecol. Evol. 9 , 1095 -1109. (doi:10.1002/ece3.4797) · DOI
- [46]46. Bilinski P et al. 2018 Parallel altitudinal clines reveal adaptive evolution of genome size in Zea mays . PLoS Genet. 14 , e1007162. (doi:10.1101/134528) · DOI
- [48]48. Jeffery NW, Hultgren K, Chak STC, Gregory TR, Rubenstein DR. 2016 Patterns of genome size variation in snapping shrimp. Genome 59 , 393 -402. (doi:10.1139/gen-2015-0206) · DOI
- [50]50. Neiman M, Paczesniak D, Soper DM, Baldwin AT, Hehman G. 2011 wide variation in ploidy level and genome size in a new zealand freshwater snail with coexisting sexual and asexual lineages. Evolution (N Y) 65 , 3202 -3216. (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646. 2011.01360.x) · DOI
- [51]51. Arnqvist G, Sayadi A, Immonen E, Hotzy C, Rankin D, Tuda M, Hjelmen CE, Johnston JS. 2015 Genome size correlates with reproductive fitness in seed beetles. Proc. R. Soc. B 282 , 20151421. (doi:10. 1098/rspb.2015.1421)
- [52]52. Yant L, Hollister JD, Wright KM, Arnold BJ, Higgins JD, Franklin FCH, Bomblies K. 2013 Meiotic adaptation to genome duplication in Arabidopsis arenosa . Curr. Biol. 23 , 2151 -2156. (doi:10.1016/j. cub.2013.08.059) · DOI
- [53]53. Otto SP. 2007 The evolutionary consequences of polyploidy. Cell 131 , 452 -462. (doi:10.1016/j.cell. 2007.10.022) · DOI
- [54]54. Comai L. 2005 The advantages and disadvantages of being polyploid. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6 , 836 -846. (doi:10.1038/nrg1711) · DOI
- [55]55. Baduel P, Bray S, Vallejo-Marin M, Kolá ř F, Yant L. 2018 The ' polyploid hop ' : shifting challenges and opportunities over the evolutionary lifespan of genome duplications. Front. Ecol. Evol. 6 , 117. (doi:10.3389/fevo.2018.00117) · DOI
- [56]56. Ohno S. 1970 Evolution by gene duplication . Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
- [57]57. Parisod C, Holderegger R, Brochmann C. 2010 Evolutionary consequences of autopolyploidy. New Phytol. 186 , 5 -17. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009. 03142.x) · DOI
- [59]59. Camacho JPM. 2005 B chromosomes. In The evolution of the genome (ed. TR Gregory), pp. 223 -286. New York, NY: Academic Press.
- [61]61. Navarro-Domínguez B, Ruiz-Ruano FJ, Cabrero J, Corral JM, López-León MD, Sharbel TF, Camacho JPM. 2017 Protein-coding genes in B chromosomes of the grasshopper Eyprepocnemis plorans . Sci. Rep. 7 , 45200. (doi:10.1038/srep45200) · DOI
- [62]62. Ruiz-Ruano FJ, Navarro-Domínguez B, López-León MD, Cabrero J, Camacho JPM. 2019 Evolutionary success of a parasitic B chromosome rests on gene content. BioRxiv 683417. (doi:10.1101/683417) · DOI
- [63]63. Camacho JPM, Sharbel TF, Beukeboom LW. 2000 Bchromosome evolution. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 355 , 163 -178. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2000.0556) · DOI
- [64]64. Manrique-Poyato MI, Cabrero J, López-León MD, Perfectti F, Gómez R, Camacho JPM. 2019 Interpopulation spread of a parasitic B chromosome is unlikely through males in the grasshopper Eyprepocnemis plorans . Heredity ( Edinb ) 124 , 197 -206. (doi:10.1038/s41437-019-0248-5) · DOI
- [65]65. De Jonge R et al. 2012 Tomato immune receptor Ve1 recognizes effector of multiple fungal pathogens uncovered by genome and RNA sequencing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109 , 5110 -5115. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1119623109) · DOI
- [69]69. Hines PJ. 2000 Heterochromatin knobs revisited. Science 287 , 1169e. (doi:10.1126/science.287.5456. 1169e) · DOI
- [70]70. Kidwell MG. 2002 Transposable elements and the evolution of genome size in eukaryotes. Genetica 115 , 49 -63. (doi:10.1023/A:1016072014259) · DOI
- [71]71. Naville M, Henriet S, Warren I, Sumic S, Reeve M, Volff JN, Chourrout D. 2019 Massive changes of genome size driven by expansions of nonautonomous transposable elements. Curr. Biol. 29 , 1161 -1168. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2019.01.080) · DOI
- [72]72. Garrido-Ramos MA. 2015 Satellite DNA in plants: more than just rubbish. Cytogenet Genome Res. 146 , 153 -170. (doi:10.1159/000437008) · DOI
- [73]73. Hurst GDD, Werren JH. 2001 The role of selfish genetic elements in eukaryotic evolution. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2 , 597 -606. (doi:10.1038/35084545) · DOI
- [74]74. Feschotte C, Pritham EJ. 2007 DNA transposons and the evolution of eukaryotic genomes. Annu. Rev. Genet. 41 , 331 -368. (doi:10.1146/annurev.genet. 40.110405.090448) · DOI
- [75]75. Bourque G et al. 2018 Ten things you should know about transposable elements. Genome Biol. 19 , 199. (doi:10.1186/s13059-018-1577-z) · DOI · Paper page
- [76]76. Schrader L, Schmitz J. 2019 The impact of transposable elements in adaptive evolution. Mol. Ecol. 28 , 1537 -1549. (doi:10.1111/mec.14794) · DOI
- [77]77. Haig D. 2012 Retroviruses and the placenta. Curr. Biol. 22 , R609 -R613. (doi:10.1016/J.CUB.2012. 06.002) · DOI
- [78]78. Vicient CM, Casacuberta JM. 2017 Impact of transposable elements on polyploid plant genomes. Ann. Bot. 120 , 195 -207. (doi:10.1093/aob/mcx078) · DOI
- [79]79. Marburger S, Alexandrou MA, Taggart JB, Creer S, Carvalho G, Oliveira C, Taylor MI. 2018 Whole genome duplication and transposable element proliferation drive genome expansion in Corydoradinae catfishes. Proc. R. Soc. B 285 , 20172732. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.2732) · DOI
- [80]80. Raes J, Korbel JO, Lercher MJ, von Mering C, Bork P. 2007 Prediction of effective genome size in metagenomic samples. Genome Biol. 8 , R10. (doi:10.1186/gb-2007-8-1-r10) · DOI
- [81]81. Vurture GW, Sedlazeck FJ, Nattestad M, Underwood CJ, Fang H, Gurtowski J, Berger B. 2017 GenomeScope: fast reference-free genome profiling from short reads. Bioinformatics 33 , 2202 -2204. (doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btx153) · DOI
- [83]83. Peona V, Weissensteiner MH, Suh A. 2018 How complete are ' complete ' genome assemblies? -an avian perspective. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18 , 1188 -1195. (doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12933) · DOI
- [84]84. Liu R, Bennetzen JL. 2008 Enchilada redux: how complete is your genome sequence? New Phytol. 179 , 249 -250. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008. 02527.x) · DOI
- [85]85. Kutter C, Jern P, Suh A. 2018 Bridging gaps in transposable element research with single-molecule and single-cell technologies. Mob. DNA 9 , 34. (doi:10.1186/s13100-018-0140-5) · DOI
- [86]86. Treangen TJ, Salzberg SL. 2012 Repetitive DNA and next-generation sequencing: computational challenges and solutions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13 , 36 -46. (doi:10.1038/nrg3117) · DOI
- [87]87. Marçais G, Kingsford C. 2011 A fast, lock-free approach for efficient parallel counting of occurrences of k-mers. Bioinformatics 27 , 764 -770. (doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr011) · DOI · Paper page
- [90]90. Tilak M-K, Botero-Castro F, Galtier N, Nabholz B. 2018 Illumina library preparation for sequencing the GC-rich fraction of heterogeneous genomic DNA. Genome Biol. Evol. 10 , 616. (doi:10.1093/GBE/ EVY022) · DOI
- [91]91. Rhoads A, Au KF. 2015 PacBio sequencing and its applications. Genomics, Proteomics Bioinforma 13 , 278 -289. (doi:10.1016/j.gpb.2015.08.002) · DOI
- [92]92. Sovi ć I, Kri ž anovi ć K, Skala K, Š iki ć M. 2016 Evaluation of hybrid and non-hybrid methods for de novo assembly of nanopore reads. Bioinformatics 32 , 2582 -2589. (doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/ btw237) · DOI
- [93]93. Lu H, Giordano F, Ning Z. 2016 Oxford Nanopore MinION sequencing and genome assembly. Genomics, Proteomics Bioinforma 14 , 265 -279. (doi:10.1016/j.gpb.2016.05.004) · DOI
- [94]94. Feulgen R, Rossenbeck H. 1924 Mikroskopischchemischer Nachweis einer Nucleinsäure vom Typus der Thymonucleinsäure und die-darauf beruhende elektive Färbung von Zellkernen in mikroskopischen Präparaten. Hoppe Seylers Z Physiol. Chem. 135 , 203 -248. (doi:10.1515/bchm2. 1924.135.5-6.203) · DOI
- [95]95. Hardie DC, Gregory TR, Hebert PDN. 2002 From pixels to picograms: a beginners ' guide to genome quantification by Feulgen image analysis densitometry. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 50 , 735 -749. (doi:10.1177/002215540205000601) · DOI
- [96]96. Dole ž el J, Greilhuber J. 2010 Nuclear genome size: are we getting closer? Cytom Part A 77 , 635 -642. (doi:10.1002/cyto.a.20915) · DOI
- [97]97. Greilhuber J. 2008 Cytochemistry and C-values: the less-well-known world of nuclear DNA amounts. - Ann. Bot. 101 , 791 -804. (doi:10.1093/aob/ mcm250) · DOI
- [98]98. Greilhuber J. 1998 Intraspecific variation in genome size: a critical reassessment. Ann. Bot. 82 , 27 -35. (doi:10.1006/anbo.1998.0725) · DOI
- [100]100. Matz MV. 2018 Fantastic beasts and how to sequence them: ecological genomics for obscure model organisms. Trends Genet. 34 , 121 -132. (doi:10.1016/j.tig.2017.11.002) · DOI
- [103]103. Weissensteiner MH, Pang AWC, Bunikis I, Höijer I, Vinnere-Petterson O, Suh A, Wolf JBW. 2017 Combination of short-read, long-read, and optical mapping assemblies reveals large-scale tandem repeat arrays with population genetic implications. Genome Res. 27 , 697 -708. (doi:10.1101/gr. 215095.116) · DOI
- [104]104. Peona V et al . 2019 Identifying the causes and consequences of assembly gaps using a multiplatform genome assembly of a bird-ofparadise. BioRxiv 2019.12.19.882399. (doi:10.1101/ 2019.12.19.882399)
- [105]105. Goerner-Potvin P, Bourque G. 2018 Computational tools to unmask transposable elements. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19 , 688 -704. (doi:10.1038/s41576-0180050-x) · DOI
- [106]106. Goubert C, Modolo L, Vieira C, Moro CV, Mavingui P, Boulesteix M. 2015 De novo assembly and annotation of the Asian tiger mosquito ( Aedes albopictus ) repeatome with dnaPipeTE from raw genomic reads and comparative analysis with the yellow fever mosquito ( Aedes aegypti ). Genome Biol. Evol. 7 , 1192 -1205. (doi:10.1093/gbe/evv050) · DOI
- [108]108. Volfovsky N, Haas BJ, Salzberg SL. 2001 A clustering method for repeat analysis in DNA sequences. Genome Biol. 2 , 1. (doi:10.1186/gb-2001-2-8research0027) · DOI
- [109]109. Zeng L, Kortschak RD, Raison JM, Bertozzi T, Adelson DL. 2018 Superior ab initio identification, annotation and characterisation of TEs and segmental duplications from genome assemblies. PLoS ONE 13 , e0193588. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0193588) · DOI
- [110]110. Flynn JM, Hubley R, Goubert C, Rosen J, Clark AG, Feschotte C, Smit AF. 2020 RepeatModeler2 for automated genomic discovery of transposable element families. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 9451 -9457. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1921046117) · DOI · Paper page
- [111]111. Platt RN, Blanco-Berdugo L, Ray DA. 2016 Accurate transposable element annotation is vital when analyzing new genome assemblies. Genome Biol. Evol. 8 , 403 -410. (doi:10.1093/gbe/evw009) · DOI
- [112]112. Albert PS, Zhang T, Semrau K, Rouillard J-MM, Kao Y-HH, Wang C-JRJR, Danilova TV, Jiang J, Birchler JA. 2019 Whole-chromosome paints in maize reveal rearrangements, nuclear domains, and chromosomal relationships. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 , 1679 -1685. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1813957116) · DOI
- [113]113. Woodard LE, Li X, Malani N, Kaja A, Hice RH, Atkinson PW, Bushman FD, Craig NL, Wilson MH. 2012 Comparative analysis of the recently discovered hAT Transposon TcBuster in human cells. PLoS ONE 7 , e42666. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0042666) · DOI
- [114]114. Schietgat L, Vens C, Cerri R, Fischer CN, Costa E, Ramon J, Carareto CMA, Blockeel H. 2018 A machine learning based framework to identify and classify long terminal repeat retrotransposons. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14 , e1006097. (doi:10.1371/journal. pcbi.1006097) · DOI
- [115]115. Nakano FK, Pinto WJ, Pappa GL, Cerri R. 2017 Topdown strategies for hierarchical classification of transposable elements with neural networks. In Proc. Int. Jt. Conf. Neural Networks , 2017 -May . See https://lirias.kuleuven.be/2305810.
- [117]117. Vitte C, Panaud O. 2003 Formation of solo-LTRs through unequal homologous recombination counterbalances amplifications of LTR retrotransposons in rice Oryza sativa L. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20 , 528 -540. (doi:10.1093/molbev/msg055) · DOI
- [118]118. Nam K, Ellegren H. 2012 Recombination drives vertebrate genome contraction. PLoS Genet. 8 , e1002680. (doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002680) · DOI
- [119]119. Papanicolaou A. 2016 The life cycle of a genome project: perspectives and guidelines inspired by insect genome projects. F1000Research 5 , 18. (doi:10.12688/f1000research.7559.1) · DOI
- [121]121. Kawecki TJ, Lenski RE, Ebert D, Hollis B, Olivieri I, Whitlock MC. 2012 Experimental evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27 , 547 -560. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012. 06.001) · DOI
- [14]14. next-generation sequencing: a powerful tool to study adaptation from standing genetic variation. Heredity ( Edinb ) 114 , 431 -440. (doi:10.1038/hdy. 2014.86) · DOI
- [123]123. Habig M, Kema GH, Holtgrewe Stukenbrock E. 2018 Meiotic drive of female-inherited supernumerary chromosomes in a pathogenic fungus. Elife 7 , e40251. (doi:10.7554/eLife.40251) · DOI
- [125]125. McClintock B. 1950 The origin and behavior of mutable loci in maize. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 36 , 344 -355. (doi:10.1073/pnas.36.6.344) · DOI
- [127]127. Muñoz-Diez C, Vitte C, Ross-Ibarra J, Gaut BS, Tenaillon MI. 2012 Using nextgen sequencing to investigate genome size variation and transposable element content , pp. 41 -58. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
- [128]128. Tenaillon MI, Hufford MB, Gaut BS, Ross-Ibarra J. 2011 Genome size and transposable element content as determined by high-throughput sequencing in maize and Zea luxurians . Genome Biol. Evol. 3 , 219 -229. (doi:10.1093/gbe/evr008) · DOI
- [130]130. Gao H et al. 2020 Superior field performance of waxy corn engineered using CRISPR -Cas9. Nat. Biotechnol. 38 , 579 -581. (doi:10.1038/s41587-0200444-0) · DOI
- [131]131. Mills S et al. 2016 Fifteen species in one: deciphering the Brachionus plicatilis species complex (Rotifera, Monogononta) through DNA taxonomy. Hydrobiologia 796 , 39 -58. (doi:10.1007/s10750016-2725-7) · DOI
- [132]132. Michaloudi E, Mills S, Papakostas S, Stelzer CP, Triantafyllidis A, Kappas I, Vasileiadou K, Proios K, Abatzopoulos TJ. 2016 Morphological and taxonomic demarcation of Brachionus asplanchnoidis Charin within the Brachionus plicatilis cryptic species complex (Rotifera, Monogononta). Hydrobiologia 796 , 19 -37. (doi:10.1007/s10750-016-2924-2) · DOI
- [133]133. Stelzer C-P. 2010 A first assessment of genome size diversity in monogonont rotifers. Hydrobiologia 662 , 77 -82. (doi:10.1007/s10750-010-0487-1) · DOI
- [134]134. Stelzer C-P, Riss S, Stadler P. 2011 Genome size evolution at the speciation level: the cryptic species complex Brachionus plicatilis (Rotifera). BMC Evol. Biol. 11 , 90. (doi:10.1186/1471-2148-11-90) · DOI
- [28]28. genomes: transposon expansion and not polyploidy has driven a doubling in genome size in a metazoan species complex. BMC Genomics 20 , 466. (doi:10.1186/s12864-019-5859-y) · DOI
- [136]136. Stelzer C, Pichler M, Stadler P, Hatheuer A, Riss S. 2019 Within-population genome size variation is mediated by multiple genomic elements that segregate independently during meiosis. BioRxiv , 1 -40. (doi:10.1101/623470) · DOI
- [137]137. Riss S, Arthofer W, Steiner FM, Schlick-Steiner BC, Pichler M, Stadler P, Stelzer C-P. 2017 Do genome size differences within Brachionus asplanchnoidis (Rotifera, Monogononta) cause reproductive barriers among geographic populations? Hydrobiologia 796 , 59 -75. (doi:10.1007/s10750-016-2872-x) · DOI
- [139]139. Wang S, Lorenzen MD, Beeman RW, Brown SJ. 2008 Analysis of repetitive DNA distribution patterns in the Tribolium castaneum genome. Genome Biol. 9 , R61. (doi:10.1186/gb-2008-9-3-r61) · DOI
- [141]141. Gilles AF, Schinko JB, Averof M. 2015 Efficient CRISPR-mediated gene targeting and transgene replacement in the beetle Tribolium castaneum . Development 142 , 2832 -2839. (doi:10.1242/dev. 125054) · DOI
- [142]142. Leonelli S, Ankeny RA. 2013 What makes a model organism? Endeavour 37 , 209 -212. (doi:10.1016/j. endeavour.2013.06.001) · DOI
- [143]143. Russell JJ et al. 2017 Non-model model organisms. BMC Biol. 15 , 1 -31. (doi:10.1186/s12915-0170391-5) · DOI
- [144]144. Adikusuma F, Williams N, Grutzner F, Hughes J, Thomas P. 2017 Targeted deletion of an entire chromosome using CRISPR/Cas9. Mol. Ther. 25 , 1736 -1738. (doi:10.1016/j.ymthe. 2017.05.021) · DOI
- [145]145. Todd CD, Deniz Ö, Taylor D, Branco MR. 2019 Functional evaluation of transposable elements as enhancers in mouse embryonic and trophoblast stem cells. Elife 8 , e44344. (doi:10.7554/eLife. 44344) · DOI
- [146]146. Yang L et al. 2015 Genome-wide inactivation of porcine endogenous retrovirus or other sequences in the pig genome endogenous retroviruses (PERVs). Science 350 , 1101 -1104. (doi:10.1126/science. aad1191) · DOI · Paper page
- [147]147. Halligan DL, Keightley PD. 2009 Spontaneous mutation accumulation studies in evolutionary genetics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40 , 151 -172. (doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173437) · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Genome-Wide Signatures of Adaptation to Extreme Environments in Red Algae
Cho, C. H., Park, S. I., Huang, T.-Y., Lee, Y., Ciniglia, C., Yadavalli, H. C., Yang, S. W., Bhattacharya, D., & Yoon, H. S. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-35566-x · Cited by 83 · see citing works
A phylogenetic approach to comparative genomics
Dewar, A. E., Belcher, L. J., & West, S. A. (2025) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41576-024-00803-0 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
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
- Blommaert, J.
- Affiliations
- Uppsala University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Blommaert, Julie
- ORCID
- Blommaert, Julie
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2020-08-26
- Volume
- 287
- Issue
- 1933
- Pages
- 20201441-20201441
- ISSN
- 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
- 0962-8452
- 1471-2954
- PMC
- PMC7482279
- OpenAlex
- W3081335591
- Cited by
- 116
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 8.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
- Keywords
- genome size evolution, genome size variation, non-coding DNA, gene duplication, gene deletion, experimental evolution, model organisms
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Evolution, Molecular, Genomics, 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