CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 104

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Combination of short-read, long-read, and optical mapping assemblies reveals large-scale tandem repeat arrays with population genetic implications

Weissensteiner, Matthias H., Pang, Andy W.C., Bunikis, Ignas, Höijer, Ida, Vinnere-Petterson, Olga, Suh, Alexander, Wolf, Jochen B.W.·2017·Genome Research
DOI 10.1101/gr.215095.116PMC PMC5411765
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Accurate and contiguous genome assembly is key to a comprehensive understanding of the processes shaping genomic diversity and evolution. Yet, it is frequently constrained by constitutive heterochromatin, usually characterized by highly repetitive DNA. As a key feature of genome architecture associated with centromeric and subtelomeric regions, it locally influences meiotic recombination. In this study, we assess the impact of large tandem repeat arrays on the recombination rate landscape in an avian speciation model, the Eurasian crow. We assembled two high-quality genome references using single-molecule real-time sequencing (long-read assembly [LR]) and single-molecule optical maps (optical map assembly [OM]). A three-way comparison including the published short-read assembly (SR) constructed for the same individual allowed assessing assembly properties and pinpointing misassemblies. By combining information from all three assemblies, we characterized 36 previously unidentified large repetitive regions in the proximity of sequence assembly breakpoints, the majority of which contained complex arrays of a 14-kb satellite repeat or its 1.2-kb subunit. Using whole-genome population resequencing data, we estimated the population-scaled recombination rate (ρ) and found it to be significantly reduced in these regions. These findings are consistent with an effect of low recombination in regions adjacent to centromeric or subtelomeric heterochromatin and add to our understanding of the processes generating widespread heterogeneity in genetic diversity and differentiation along the genome. By combining three different technologies, our results highlight the importance of adding a layer of information on genome structure that is inaccessible to each approach independently.

Overview

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 · 10.1101/gr.215095.116

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Assembly comparisons. Schematic colored and numbered boxes with arrows correspond to arbitrarily sized homologous regions aligned between the different sequence assemblies based on short reads (SR), long reads (LR), and hybrid scaffolding via optical mapping (SR + OM and LR + OM). Note that boxes 1 and 7 are not present on the SR scaffolds, because they align to another scaffold not shown.
Figure 1. Assembly comparisons. Schematic colored and numbered boxes with arrows correspond to arbitrarily sized homologous regions aligned between the different sequence assemblies based on short reads (SR), long reads (LR), and hybrid scaffolding via optical mapping (SR + OM and LR + OM). Note that boxes 1 and 7 are not present on the SR scaffolds, because they align to another scaffold not shown.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Identification of putatively heterochromatic tandem repeat arrays. (A) Shown are the alignments of independent OM assemblies from a carrion and hooded crow individual (light blue) to the SR (dark green) and LR (light green) of the same hooded crow individual. Vertical bars in boxes correspond to nickase motifs of the enzyme Nt.BspQI, and gray vertical bars between boxes indicate orthologous nicks. The nickase motif pattern in both OM contigs matched the end of the SR scaffold or LR contig, and the part beyond is characterized by dense occurrence of nickase motifs every ∼3 kb, indicating a tandem repeat array. We termed such OM contigs “repetitive anchored maps” (RAMs). (B,C) Sequence similarity plots of the 14-kb crowSat1 consensus sequence aligned against assembled contigs/scaffolds of the SR (B) and LR (C) assembly (the same region as shown in A), and self-alignment of the crowSat1 consensus sequence (D). The latter suggests that crowSat1 is an >14-kb tandem repeat with an internal palindrome (blue) of tandemly repeated subunits (red). The most contiguous assembly of crowSat1 units is at the end of contig_000233F of the LR assembly (C) (but see also contig_000396 which entirely consists of crowSat1) (Supplemental Fig. S4), containing the palindrome and 13 tandem repeat units. This region is orthologous to the end of scaffold_100 of the SR assembly, where it exhibits fewer assembled crowSat1 units (B). Note that the flank of the crowSat1-bearing RAM is highly enriched for RepeatMasker-annotated repeats (green; mostly TEs) and many short remnants of crowSat1 (red and blue dots).
Figure 2. Identification of putatively heterochromatic tandem repeat arrays. (A) Shown are the alignments of independent OM assemblies from a carrion and hooded crow individual (light blue) to the SR (dark green) and LR (light green) of the same hooded crow individual. Vertical bars in boxes correspond to nickase motifs of the enzyme Nt.BspQI, and gray vertical bars between boxes indicate orthologous nicks. The nickase motif pattern in both OM contigs matched the end of the SR scaffold or LR contig, and the part beyond is characterized by dense occurrence of nickase motifs every ∼3 kb, indicating a tandem repeat array. We termed such OM contigs “repetitive anchored maps” (RAMs). (B,C) Sequence similarity plots of the 14-kb crowSat1 consensus sequence aligned against assembled contigs/scaffolds of the SR (B) and LR (C) assembly (the same region as shown in A), and self-alignment of the crowSat1 consensus sequence (D). The latter suggests that crowSat1 is an >14-kb tandem repeat with an internal palindrome (blue) of tandemly repeated subunits (red). The most contiguous assembly of crowSat1 units is at the end of contig_000233F of the LR assembly (C) (but see also contig_000396 which entirely consists of crowSat1) (Supplemental Fig. S4), containing the palindrome and 13 tandem repeat units. This region is orthologous to the end of scaffold_100 of the SR assembly, where it exhibits fewer assembled crowSat1 units (B). Note that the flank of the crowSat1-bearing RAM is highly enriched for RepeatMasker-annotated repeats (green; mostly TEs) and many short remnants of crowSat1 (red and blue dots).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Chromosome-level distribution of population-scaled recombination rate ρ and structural genome features show, for example, chromosomes of varying size: (Black dots) the weighted mean of ρ/bp in 50-kb windows estimated from a Swedish hooded crow population; (gray lines) SR scaffold ends; (red squares) repetitive anchored map (RAM) with the possible co-occurrence of the crowSat1 satellite. Data are shown for representative synteny- and collinearity-based chromosomes (for the remaining chromosomes, see Supplemental Fig. S5).
Figure 3. Chromosome-level distribution of population-scaled recombination rate ρ and structural genome features show, for example, chromosomes of varying size: (Black dots) the weighted mean of ρ/bp in 50-kb windows estimated from a Swedish hooded crow population; (gray lines) SR scaffold ends; (red squares) repetitive anchored map (RAM) with the possible co-occurrence of the crowSat1 satellite. Data are shown for representative synteny- and collinearity-based chromosomes (for the remaining chromosomes, see Supplemental Fig. S5).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Population-scaled recombination rate ρ as a function of RAMs and crowSat1 satellites. Box plots show loge(ρ) in units of 4Ner/bp as estimated in 50-kb windows for Swedish hooded crow and German carrion crow populations. Values are broken down by category of windows representing the genome (red), windows adjacent to scaffold ends (blue), windows adjacent to RAMs (green), and windows including crowSat1 (violet). Straight horizontal lines depict the median, box margins indicate the interquartile range between 25% and 75% quantiles, and whiskers extend to 1.5-times the interquartile range with values beyond shown as points. Asterisks denote the significance level based on t-tests corrected for multiple comparisons.
Figure 4. Population-scaled recombination rate ρ as a function of RAMs and crowSat1 satellites. Box plots show loge(ρ) in units of 4Ner/bp as estimated in 50-kb windows for Swedish hooded crow and German carrion crow populations. Values are broken down by category of windows representing the genome (red), windows adjacent to scaffold ends (blue), windows adjacent to RAMs (green), and windows including crowSat1 (violet). Straight horizontal lines depict the median, box margins indicate the interquartile range between 25% and 75% quantiles, and whiskers extend to 1.5-times the interquartile range with values beyond shown as points. Asterisks denote the significance level based on t-tests corrected for multiple comparisons.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 5. Structural genome features and population genetic summary statistics surrounding a peak of extreme genetic differentiation between hooded and carrion crows on Chromosome 18. Comparison of population genetic summary statistics ρ/bp, θW, and FST in 50-kb windows: (horizontal green bars) SR assembly with crowSat1 locations in dark red; (horizontal blue bars) OM contigs with RAMs schematically shown with densely spaced nickase motifs; (vertical gray bars) SR scaffold ends.
Figure 5. Structural genome features and population genetic summary statistics surrounding a peak of extreme genetic differentiation between hooded and carrion crows on Chromosome 18. Comparison of population genetic summary statistics ρ/bp, θW, and FST in 50-kb windows: (horizontal green bars) SR assembly with crowSat1 locations in dark red; (horizontal blue bars) OM contigs with RAMs schematically shown with densely spaced nickase motifs; (vertical gray bars) SR scaffold ends.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 82

  1. 10.1006/jmbi.1990.9999 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Anantharaman T , Mishra B . 2001. False positives in genomic map assembly and sequence validation. In Algorithms in bioinformatics first international workshop, WABI 2001, Århus, Denmark. · DOI
  3. 10.1073/pnas.1416622112 · DOI
  4. 10.1101/gr.101410.109 · DOI
  5. 10.1186/s13100-015-0041-9 · DOI
  6. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1126/science.1183439 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1007/BF00056765 · DOI
  9. 10.1038/nbt.3238 · DOI
  10. 10.1101/064352 · DOI
  11. 10.1101/gr.196485.115 · DOI
  12. 2008, Recombination and speciation: loci near centromeres are more differentiated than loci near telomeres between subspecies of the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), Genetics, 181, 593
  13. 10.1038/nrg3933 · DOI
  14. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003090 · DOI
  15. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000112 · DOI
  16. 10.1038/nrg3425 · DOI
  17. 10.1101/gr.213660.116 · DOI
  18. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr330 · DOI
  19. 10.1146/annurev-genet-110711-155423 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80084-7 · DOI
  21. 10.1371/journal.pone.0030377 · DOI
  22. 10.1038/nrg1322 · DOI
  23. 10.1126/science.1162986 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1111/eva.12178 · DOI
  25. 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110411-160327 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.tree.2013.09.008 · DOI
  27. 2016, Determinants of genetic diversity, Nat Rev Genet, 17, 422, 10.1038/nrg.2016.58 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2008.07.018 · DOI
  29. 10.3109/10409238.2012.675644 · DOI
  30. 10.1038/nrg2008 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Harris RS . 2007. “Improved pairwise alignment of genomic DNA.” PhD thesis, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.
  32. 10.1126/science.1062939 · DOI
  33. 10.1111/evo.12633 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1101/gr.216465.116 · DOI
  35. 2016, Evolution of bird genomes—a transposon's-eye view, Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1389, 164
  36. 10.1093/molbev/mst010 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1111/mec.12810 · DOI
  38. 10.1101/gr.113985.110 · DOI
  39. 10.1146/annurev-animal-090414-014900 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1073/pnas.0801848105 · DOI
  41. 2016, Evolutionary signals of selection on cognition from the great tit genome and methylome, Nat Commun, 7, 10474, 10.1038/ncomms10474 · DOI
  42. 10.1038/nbt.2303 · DOI
  43. 10.1126/science.1181369 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.001 · DOI
  45. 10.1007/s10577-015-9488-2 · DOI
  46. 10.1101/gr.159624.113 · DOI
  47. 10.1126/science.1117196 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Myers G . 2014. Efficient local alignment discovery amongst noisy long reads. In Algorithms in bioinformatics (ed. Brown D , Morgenstern B ), pp. 52–67. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany. · DOI
  49. 10.1038/nrg3367 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Nguyen JV . 2010. “Genomic mapping: a statistical and algorithmic analysis of the optical mapping system.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
  51. 10.1038/nmeth.3454 · DOI
  52. 10.1016/j.gde.2008.01.021 · DOI
  53. 10.1186/gb-2008-9-3-r55 · DOI
  54. 10.1093/gbe/evw009 · DOI
  55. 10.1007/s00412-014-0462-0 · DOI
  56. 10.1126/science.1253226 · DOI
  57. 10.1111/mec.13353 · DOI
  58. 10.1086/519795 · DOI · Paper page
  59. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05509.x · DOI
  60. 10.1111/mec.12322 · DOI
  61. 10.1186/1471-2164-15-1060 · DOI
  62. 2001, A karyological study of some corvine birds (Corvidae, Aves), Russ J Genet, 37, 796, 10.1023/A:1016703127516 · DOI
  63. 10.1016/j.tig.2004.08.008 · DOI
  64. 10.1186/1756-8935-8-3 · DOI
  65. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw101 · DOI
  66. 10.1101/gr.106245.110 · DOI
  67. 10.1126/science.aad0843 · DOI
  68. 10.1126/science.1139815 · DOI
  69. 2016, BioNano genome mapping of individual chromosomes supports physical mapping and sequence assembly in complex plant genomes, Plant Biotechnol J, 14, 1523, 10.1111/pbi.12513 · DOI
  70. 10.1101/067447 · DOI
  71. 10.1038/nrg1227 · DOI
  72. 10.1016/j.fgb.2015.08.010 · DOI
  73. 10.1073/pnas.0604040103 · DOI
  74. 1986, Size and structure of the bird genome—I. DNA content of 48 species of neognathae, Comp Biochem Physiol Part B Comp Biochem, 85, 61, 10.1016/0305-0491(86)90221-X · DOI
  75. 2016, Chromosomal-level assembly of the Asian seabass genome using long sequence reads and multi-layered scaffolding, PLoS Genet, 12, e1005954, 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005954 · DOI
  76. 2016, Evolution of heterogeneous genome differentiation across multiple contact zones in a crow species complex, Nat Commun, 7, 13195, 10.1038/ncomms13195 · DOI
  77. 10.1038/nature08819 · DOI
  78. 10.1016/S0959-437X(05)80200-X · DOI
  79. 2017, Making sense of genomic islands of differentiation in light of speciation, Nat Rev Genet, 18, 87, 10.1038/nrg.2016.133 · DOI
  80. 10.1093/nar/gkl1044 · DOI
  81. 10.1038/nrg3174 · DOI · Paper page
  82. 10.7554/eLife.02630 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Weissensteiner, M. H., Pang, A. W. C., Bunikis, I., Höijer, I., Vinnere-Petterson, O., Suh, A., & Wolf, J. B. W.
ORCID
Venue
Genome Research
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Published
2017-03-30
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
697-708
ISSN
  • 1088-9051
  • 1549-5469
DOI
10.1101/gr.215095.116
PMC
PMC5411765
Cited by
104
References
2
Language
en
Funders
  • Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  • Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing
  • Swedish Research Council (621-2010-5553)
  • European Research Council (ERCStG-336536)

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