Cited by 116Chromosomal and Genetic VariationsEvolution and Genetic DynamicsGenome Rearrangement Algorithms

Genome size evolution: towards new model systems for old questions

Open access
Blommaert, Julie·2020·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2020.1441

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • 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 measured
  • Both 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 measured
  • Comparative 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 111

  1. [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
  2. [5]5. Wright SI. 2017 Evolution of genome size . Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  3. [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
  4. [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)
  5. [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
  6. [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
  7. [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.
  8. [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
  9. [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
  10. [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
  11. [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
  12. [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
  13. [18]18. Palazzo AF, Gregory TR. 2014 The case for junk DNA. PLoS Genet. 10 , e1004351. (doi:10.1371/journal. pgen.1004351) · DOI
  14. [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
  15. [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
  16. [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
  17. [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
  18. [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
  19. [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
  20. [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
  21. [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
  22. [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
  23. [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
  24. [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
  25. [34]34. Bennett MD. 1971 The duration of meiosis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 178 , 277 -299. (doi:10.1098/ rspb.1971.0066)
  26. [19]19. miniaturization and expansion. Ann. Bot. 95 , 147 -175. (doi:10.1093/aob/mci010) · DOI
  27. [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
  28. [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
  29. [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
  30. [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
  31. [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
  32. [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
  33. [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
  34. [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)
  35. [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
  36. [53]53. Otto SP. 2007 The evolutionary consequences of polyploidy. Cell 131 , 452 -462. (doi:10.1016/j.cell. 2007.10.022) · DOI
  37. [54]54. Comai L. 2005 The advantages and disadvantages of being polyploid. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6 , 836 -846. (doi:10.1038/nrg1711) · DOI
  38. [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
  39. [56]56. Ohno S. 1970 Evolution by gene duplication . Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
  40. [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
  41. [59]59. Camacho JPM. 2005 B chromosomes. In The evolution of the genome (ed. TR Gregory), pp. 223 -286. New York, NY: Academic Press.
  42. [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
  43. [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
  44. [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
  45. [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
  46. [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
  47. [69]69. Hines PJ. 2000 Heterochromatin knobs revisited. Science 287 , 1169e. (doi:10.1126/science.287.5456. 1169e) · DOI
  48. [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
  49. [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
  50. [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
  51. [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
  52. [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
  53. [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
  54. [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
  55. [77]77. Haig D. 2012 Retroviruses and the placenta. Curr. Biol. 22 , R609 -R613. (doi:10.1016/J.CUB.2012. 06.002) · DOI
  56. [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
  57. [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
  58. [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
  59. [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
  60. [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
  61. [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
  62. [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
  63. [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
  64. [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
  65. [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
  66. [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
  67. [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
  68. [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
  69. [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
  70. [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
  71. [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
  72. [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
  73. [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
  74. [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
  75. [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
  76. [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)
  77. [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
  78. [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
  79. [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
  80. [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
  81. [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
  82. [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
  83. [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
  84. [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
  85. [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
  86. [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.
  87. [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
  88. [118]118. Nam K, Ellegren H. 2012 Recombination drives vertebrate genome contraction. PLoS Genet. 8 , e1002680. (doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002680) · DOI
  89. [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
  90. [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
  91. [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
  92. [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
  93. [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
  94. [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.
  95. [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
  96. [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
  97. [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
  98. [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
  99. [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
  100. [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
  101. [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
  102. [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
  103. [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
  104. [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
  105. [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
  106. [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
  107. [143]143. Russell JJ et al. 2017 Non-model model organisms. BMC Biol. 15 , 1 -31. (doi:10.1186/s12915-0170391-5) · DOI
  108. [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
  109. [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
  110. [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
  111. [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

Authors
Blommaert, J.
Affiliations
Uppsala University (SE)
Corresponding author
Blommaert, Julie
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2020-08-26
Volume
287
Issue
1933
Pages
20201441-20201441
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
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
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