Losing identity: structural diversity of transposable elements belonging to different classes in the genome of Anopheles gambiae

Abstract

BackgroundTransposable elements (TEs), both DNA transposons and retrotransposons, are genetic elements with the main characteristic of being able to mobilize and amplify their own representation within genomes, utilizing different mechanisms of transposition. An almost universal feature of TEs in eukaryotic genomes is their inability to transpose by themselves, mainly as the result of sequence degeneration (by either mutations or deletions). Most of the elements are thus either inactive or non-autonomous. Considering that the bulk of some eukaryotic genomes derive from TEs, they have been conceived as “TE graveyards.” It has been shown that once an element has been inactivated, it progressively accumulates mutations and deletions at neutral rates until completely losing its identity or being lost from the host genome; however, it has also been shown that these “neutral sequences” might serve as raw material for domestication by host genomes.ResultsWe have analyzed the sequence structural variations, nucleotide divergence, and pattern of insertions and deletions of several superfamilies of TEs belonging to both class I (long terminal repeats [LTRs] and non-LTRs [NLTRs]) and II in the genome of Anopheles gambiae, aiming at describing the landscape of deterioration of these elements in this particular genome. Our results describe a great diversity in patterns of deterioration, indicating lineage-specific differences including the presence of Solo-LTRs in the LTR lineage, 5′-deleted NLTRs, and several non-autonomous and MITEs in the class II families. Interestingly, we found fragments of NLTRs corresponding to the RT domain, which preserves high identity among them, suggesting a possible remaining genomic role for these domains.ConclusionsWe show here that the TEs in the An. gambiae genome deteriorate in different ways according to the class to which they belong. This diversity certainly has implications not only at the host genomic level but also at the amplification dynamic and evolution of the TE families themselves.

Cross-species transmission and differential fate of an endogenous retrovirus in three mammal lineages

“…Trees generated using internal coding sequences also displayed the same general topology (S3 Fig. ), but offered less phylogenetic resolution due to the more constrained nature of retroviral coding sequences relative to LTRs [72,73].…”

Genome-Wide Characterization of Endogenous Retroviruses in the Bat Myotis lucifugus Reveals Recent and Diverse Infections

“…To further classify MLERVs into subfamilies, we compared their LTR sequences, which are among the most rapidly evolving sequences in retroviruses (49,50). Based on a 75% interelement LTR nucleotide similarity cutoff, the program Vmatch (www .vmatch.de) clustered the 362 potential complete ERVs into 86 subfamilies (including 40 singletons) (see Table S2 in the supplemental material).…”

Evolutionary Dynamics of Repetitive DNA in <b><i>Semaprochilodus </i></b>(Characiformes, Prochilodontidae): A Fish Model for Sex Chromosome Differentiation

“…Studies examining scattered repetitive elements in insect genomes have also shown that after the invasion phase, they tend to be silenced and subsequently undergo molecular deterioration until incorporation into the host genome [Fernán-dez-Medina et al, 2012]. In the molecular deterioration phase, the element becomes inactive and progressively accumulates mutations, insertions and deletions at neutral rates until it completely loses its identity or is lost in the host genome [Fernández-Medina et al, 2012].…”