Skip Navigation


MBE Advance Access originally published online on April 2, 2003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/5/800    most recent
msg087v1
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 (12)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yang, H.-P.
Right arrow Articles by Nuzhdin, S. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yang, H.-P.
Right arrow Articles by Nuzhdin, S. V.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Mol. Biol. Evol. 20(5):800-804. 2003
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msg087
© 2003 by the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution. ISSN: 0737-4038

Fitness Costs of Doc Expression Are Insufficient to Stabilize Its Copy Number in Drosophila melanogaster

Hsiao-Pei Yang and Sergey V. Nuzhdin

Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California at Davis

The stable coexistence of transposable elements (TEs) with their host genome over long periods of time suggests TEs have to impose some deleterious effect upon their host fitness. Three mechanisms have been proposed to account for the deleterious effect caused by TEs: host gene interruptions by TE insertions, chromosomal rearrangements by TE-induced ectopic recombination, and costly TE expression. However, the relative importance of these mechanisms remains controversial. Here, we test specifically if TE expression accounts for the host fitness cost imposed by TE insertions. In the retrotransposon Doc, expression requires binding of the host RNA polymerase to the internal promoter. If expression of Doc elements is deleterious to their host, Doc copies with promoters would be more strongly selected against and would persist in the population for shorter periods of time compared with Docs lacking promoters. We tested this prediction using sequence-specific amplified polymorphism (SSAP) analyses. We compared the populations of these two types of Doc elements in two sets of lines of Drosophila melanogaster: selection-free isogenic lines accumulating new Doc insertions and isogenized isofemale lines sampled from a natural population. We found that (1) there is no difference in the proportion of promoter-bearing and promoter-lacking copies between sets of lines, and (2) the site occupancy distribution of promoter-bearing copies does not skew toward lower frequency compared with that of promoter-lacking copies. Thus, selection against promoter-bearing copies does not appear to be stronger than that of promoter-lacking copies. Our results show that expression is not playing a major role in stabilizing Doc copy numbers.

Key Words: Doc • retrotransposon • SSAP • gene expression • ectopic recombination


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
 Biol LettHome page
B. R. Foley, A. Genissel, H. L. Kristy, and S. V. Nuzhdin
Does segregating variation in sexual or microhabitat preferences lead to non-random mating within a population of Drosophila melanogaster?
Biol Lett, August 19, 2009; (2009) rsbl.2009.0608v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GeneticsHome page
M. Telonis-Scott, A. Kopp, M. L. Wayne, S. V. Nuzhdin, and L. M. McIntyre
Sex-Specific Splicing in Drosophila: Widespread Occurrence, Tissue Specificity and Evolutionary Conservation
Genetics, February 1, 2009; 181(2): 421 - 434.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol Biol EvolHome page
A. Kopp, O. Barmina, A. M. Hamilton, L. Higgins, L. M. McIntyre, and C. D. Jones
Evolution of Gene Expression in the Drosophila Olfactory System
Mol. Biol. Evol., June 1, 2008; 25(6): 1081 - 1092.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GeneticsHome page
J. D. Gruber, A. Genissel, S. J. Macdonald, and A. D. Long
How Repeatable Are Associations Between Polymorphisms in achaete-scute and Bristle Number Variation in Drosophila?
Genetics, April 1, 2007; 175(4): 1987 - 1997.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GeneticsHome page
N. Nikoh, A. Duty, and G. Gibson
Effects of Population Structure and Sex on Association Between Serotonin Receptors and Drosophila Heart Rate
Genetics, December 1, 2004; 168(4): 1963 - 1974.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GeneticsHome page
A. Palsson and G. Gibson
Association Between Nucleotide Variation in Egfr and Wing Shape in Drosophila melanogaster
Genetics, July 1, 2004; 167(3): 1187 - 1198.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GeneticsHome page
A. Palsson, A. Rouse, R. Riley-Berger, I. Dworkin, and G. Gibson
Nucleotide Variation in the Egfr Locus of Drosophila melanogaster
Genetics, July 1, 2004; 167(3): 1199 - 1212.
[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.