Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (35)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vieira, C.
Right arrow Articles by Biemont, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vieira, C.
Right arrow Articles by Biemont, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol 16, 1251-1255, Copyright © 1999 by Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution


ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Wake up of transposable elements following Drosophila simulans worldwide colonization

C Vieira, D Lepetit, S Dumont and C Biemont
Laboratoire de Biometrie, Genetique, Biologie des populations, UMR Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Universite Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France.

Transposable elements (TEs) make up around 10%-15% of the Drosophila melanogaster genome, but its sibling species Drosophila simulans carries only one third as many such repeat sequences. We do not, however, have an overall view of copy numbers of the various classes of TEs (long terminal repeat [LTR] retrotransposons, non-LTR retrotransposons, and transposons) in genomes of natural populations of both species. We analyzed 34 elements in individuals from various natural populations of these species. We show that D. melanogaster has higher average chromosomal insertion site numbers per genome than D. simulans for all TEs except five. The LTR retrotransposons gypsy, ZAM, and 1731 and the transposon bari-1 present similar low copy numbers in both species. The transposon hobo has a large number of insertion sites, with significantly more sites in D. simulans. High variation between populations in number of insertion sites of some elements of D. simulans suggests that these elements can invade the genome of the entire species starting from a local population. We propose that TEs in the D. simulans genome are being awakened and amplified as they had been a long time ago in D. melanogaster.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
FASEB J.Home page
M. Fablet, E. Lerat, R. Rebollo, B. Horard, N. Burlet, S. Martinez, E. Brasset, E. Gilson, C. Vaury, and C. Vieira
Genomic environment influences the dynamics of the tirant LTR retrotransposon in Drosophila
FASEB J, May 1, 2009; 23(5): 1482 - 1489.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
E. B. Dopman and D. L. Hartl
A portrait of copy-number polymorphism in Drosophila melanogaster
PNAS, December 11, 2007; 104(50): 19920 - 19925.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
C. M. Bergman and D. Bensasson
Recent LTR retrotransposon insertion contrasts with waves of non-LTR insertion since speciation in Drosophila melanogaster
PNAS, July 3, 2007; 104(27): 11340 - 11345.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
GeneticsHome page
M. P. Garcia Guerreiro and A. Fontdevila
The Evolutionary History of Drosophila buzzatii. XXXVI. Molecular Structural Analysis of Osvaldo Retrotransposon Insertions in Colonizing Populations Unveils Drift Effects in Founder Events
Genetics, January 1, 2007; 175(1): 301 - 310.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
D. C. Presgraves
Intron Length Evolution in Drosophila
Mol. Biol. Evol., November 1, 2006; 23(11): 2203 - 2213.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
GeneticsHome page
A. L. Rouzic and P. Capy
Population Genetics Models of Competition Between Transposable Element Subfamilies
Genetics, October 1, 2006; 174(2): 785 - 793.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
M. Boulesteix, M. Weiss, and C. Biemont
Differences in Genome Size Between Closely Related Species: The Drosophila melanogaster Species Subgroup
Mol. Biol. Evol., January 1, 2006; 23(1): 162 - 167.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
N. Mugnier, C. Biemont, and C. Vieira
New Regulatory Regions of Drosophila 412 Retrotransposable Element Generated by Recombination
Mol. Biol. Evol., March 1, 2005; 22(3): 747 - 757.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
C. Vieira, C. Nardon, C. Arpin, D. Lepetit, and C. Biemont
Evolution of Genome Size in Drosophila. Is the Invader's Genome Being Invaded by Transposable Elements?
Mol. Biol. Evol., July 1, 2002; 19(7): 1154 - 1161.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Genome ResHome page
N. J. Bowen and J. F. McDonald
Drosophila Euchromatic LTR Retrotransposons are Much Younger Than the Host Species in Which They Reside
Genome Res., September 1, 2001; 11(9): 1527 - 1540.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.