Identification of rDNA-specific non-LTR retrotransposons in Cnidaria

Ribosomal RNA genes are abundant repetitive sequences in most eukaryotes. Ribosomal DNA (rDNA) contains many insertions derived from mobile elements including non-long terminal repeat (non-LTR) retrotransposons. R2 is the well-characterized 28S rDNA-specific non-LTR retrotransposon family that is distributed over at least 4 bilaterian phyla. R2 is a large family sharing the same insertion specificity and classified into 4 clades (R2-A, -B, -C, and -D) based on the N-terminal domain structure and the phylogeny. There is no observation of horizontal transfer of R2; therefore, the origin of R2 dates back to before the split between protostomes and deuterostomes. Here, we in silico identified 1 R2 element from the sea anemone Nematostella vectensis and 2 R2-like retrotransposons from the hydrozoan Hydra magnipapillata. R2 from N. vectensis was inserted into the 28S rDNA like other R2, but the R2-like elements from H. magnipapillata were inserted into the specific sequence in the highly conserved region of the 18S rDNA. We designated the Hydra R2-like elements R8. R8 is inserted at 37 bp upstream from R7, another 18S rDNA-specific retrotransposon family. There is no obvious sequence similarity between targets of R2 and R8, probably because they recognize long DNA sequences. Domain structure and phylogeny indicate that R2 from N. vectensis is the member of the R2-D clade, and R8 from H. magnipapillata belongs to the R2-A clade despite its different sequence specificity. These results suggest that R2 had been generated before the split between cnidarians and bilaterians and that R8 is a retrotransposon family that changed its target from the 28S rDNA to the 18S rDNA.     

Accumulation of Spock and Worf,two novel non-LTR retrotransposons,on the neo-Y chromosome of Drosophila miranda

Transposable elements constitute a major fraction of eukaryotic genomes. Here, I characterize two novel non-LTR retrotransposons, cloned from the neo-Y chromosome of Drosophila miranda. Worf is 4.1 kb in size and shows homology to the T1-2 non-LTR transposon characterized in Anopheles. Spock is 4.9 kb in size and shows similarity to the Doc element of D. melanogaster. Southern blot analysis of both elements yielded stronger signals for male DNA. In situ hybridization to polytene chromosomes revealed that both elements are accumulating on the neo-Y chromosome of D. miranda. PCR analysis was conducted to investigate the frequency of spock and worf and of the previously identified transposons, TRIM and TRAM, at individual chromosomal sites among 12 strains of D. miranda. Contrary to the observation that element frequencies are usually kept low at individual sites in Drosophila, the four transposons investigated are fixed at their genomic locations on the neo-Y chromosome. These results support the hypothesis that transposons accumulate in nonrecombining regions and may be one cause of the heteromorphism of sex chromosomes.     

Horizontal transfer of non-LTR retrotransposons in vertebrates

Since their discovery in family Bovidae (bovids), Bov-B LINEs, believed to be order-specific SINEs, have been found in all ruminants and recently also in Viperidae snakes. The distribution and the evolutionary relationships of Bov-B LINEs provide an indication of their origin and evolutionary dynamics in different species. The evolutionary origin of Bov-B LINE elements has been shown unequivocally to be in Squamata (squamates). The horizontal transfer of Bov-B LINE elements in vertebrates has been confirmed by their discontinuous phylogenetic distribution in Squamata (Serpentes and two lizard infra-orders) as well as in Ruminantia, by the high level of nucleotide identity, and by their phylogenetic relationships. The direction of horizontal transfer from Squamata to the ancestor of Ruminantia is evident from the genetic distances and discontinuous phylogenetic distribution of Bov-B LINE elements. The ancestral snake lineage (Boidae) has been recognized as a possible donor of Bov-B LINE elements to Ruminantia. The timing of horizontal transfer has been estimated from the distribution of Bov-B LINE elements in Ruminantia and the fossil data of Ruminantia to be 40–50mya. The phylogenetic relationships of Bov-B LINE elements from the various Squamata species agrees with that of the species phylogeny, suggesting that Bov-B LINE elements have been stably maintained by vertical transmission since the origin of Squamata in the Mesozoic era. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Origin,evolution, and distribution of different groups of non-LTR retrotransposons among eukaryotes

Non-LTR retrotransposons are an ancient group of retroelements. Twenty-one clades are distinguished today among non-LTR retrotransposons. The presence of different clades in the genome characterizes the diversity of non-LTR retrotransposons of the organism. This review presents a general picture of the evolution and distribution of different clades of non-LTR retrotransposons among the main taxa of eukaryotic organisms: protozoa, plants, fungi, and metazoa. Introduction in the analysis of new taxa and the use of new bioinformatic and experimental approaches can significantly extend our knowledge about non-LTR retrotransposons and their role in the evolution and functioning of eukaryotic genomes.     

Coevolution of telomeric repeats and telomeric repeat-specific non-LTR retrotransposons in insects

In the telomeres of the silkworm Bombyx mori, telomeric repeat-specific non-long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposon SARTBm1 is accumulated in the TTAGG telomeric repeats. Here, we identify novel telomeric repeat-specific non-LTR retrotransposons, SARTTc family, from the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum in the unconventional TCAGG telomeric repeats. To compare the sequence specificity of SARTBm1 and SARTTc1, we developed a comparable ex vivo retrotransposition assay. Both SARTBm1 and SARTTc1 preferred the telomeric sequence of their hosts, suggesting that the target specificity of these retrotransposons coevolved with their host's telomeric repeats. Swapping experiment indicated that the endonuclease domain is involved in recognizing the target sequence. Moreover, SARTBm1 proteins could retrotranspose 3'untranslated region (UTR) sequence of SARTTc1 as well as their own 3'UTR, whereas SARTTc1 proteins could only retrotranspose their own 3'UTRs. These results provide insights to the mechanism and divergence of sequence specificity and 3'UTR recognition in non-LTR retrotransposons.     

Evolution of target specificity in R1 clade non-LTR retrotransposons

Although most non-long terminal repeat (non-LTR) retrotransposons are inserted throughout the host genome, many non-LTR elements in the R1 clade are inserted into specific sites within the target sequence. Four R1 clade families have distinct target specificity: R1 and RT insert into specific sites of 28S rDNA, and TRAS and SART insert into different sites within the (TTAGG)(n) telomeric repeats. To study the evolutionary history of target specificity of R1-clade retrotransposons, we have screened extensively novel representatives of the clade from various insects by in silico and degenerate polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cloning. We found four novel sequence-specific elements; Waldo (WaldoAg1, 2, and WaldoFs1) inserts into ACAY repeats, Mino (MinoAg1) into AC repeats, R6 into another specific site of the 28S rDNA, and R7 into a specific site of the 18S rDNA. In contrast, several elements (HOPE, WISHBm1, HidaAg1, NotoAg1, KagaAg1, Ha1Fs1) lost target sequence specificity, although some of them have preferred target sequences. Phylogenetic trees based on the RT and EN domains of each element showed that (1) three rDNA-specific elements, RT, R6, and R7, diverged from Waldo; (2) the elements having similar target sequences are phylogenetically related; and (3) the target specificity in the R1 clade was obtained once and thereafter altered and lost several times independently. These data indicate that the target specificity in R1 clade retroelements has changed during evolution and is more divergent than has been speculated so far.     

APE-type non-LTR retrotransposons: determinants involved in target site recognition

Non-long terminal repeat (Non-LTR) retrotransposons represent a diverse and widely distributed group of transposable elements and an almost ubiquitous component of eukaryotic genomes that has a major impact on evolution. Their copy number can range from a few to several million and they often make up a significant fraction of the genomes. The members of the dominating subtype of non-LTR retrotransposons code for an endonuclease with homology to apurinic/apyrimidinic endonucleases (APE), and are thus termed APE-type non-LTR retrotransposons. In the last decade both the number of identified non-LTR retrotransposons and our knowledge of biology and evolution of APE-type non-LTR retrotransposons has increased tremendously.     

NeSL-1, an ancient lineage of site-specific non-LTR retrotransposons from Caenorhabditis elegans

Phylogenetic analyses of non-LTR retrotransposons suggest that all elements can be divided into 11 lineages. The 3 oldest lineages show target site specificity for unique locations in the genome and encode an endonuclease with an active site similar to certain restriction enzymes. The more "modern" non-LTR lineages possess an apurinic endonuclease-like domain and generally lack site specificity. The genome sequence of Caenorhabditis elegans reveals the presence of a non-LTR retrotransposon that resembles the older elements, in that it contains a single open reading frame with a carboxyl-terminal restriction-like endonuclease domain. Located near the N-terminal end of the ORF is a cysteine protease domain not found in any other non-LTR element. The N2 strain of C. elegans appears to contain only one full-length and several 5' truncated copies of this element. The elements specifically insert in the Spliced leader-1 genes; hence the element has been named NeSL-1 (Nematode Spliced Leader-1). Phylogenetic analysis confirms that NeSL-1 branches very early in the non-LTR lineage and that it represents a 12th lineage of non-LTR elements. The target specificity of NeSL-1 for the spliced leader exons and the similarity of its structure to that of R2 elements leads to a simple model for its expression and retrotransposition.     

The mtDNA genealogy of closely related Drosophila silvestris.

Genetic, morphological, and behavioral analyses have been used to examine the evolutionary dynamics and phylogeny of the rare Hawaiian Drosophila species, D. silvestris. Critical to understanding the evolution of this species is the examination of the distribution of populations of D. silvestris on the Big Island of Hawaii. Behavioral analysis using mating asymmetries and the Kaneshiro hypothesis as an indicator of ancestral behavioral state has suggested that flies from the northern part of the island are ancestral to those on the southern part of the island. Consequently, a sequential pattern of colonization going from north to south is predicted for these flies on the east side of the Island of Hawaii. We have examined this prediction using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) restriction site analysis with four-base cutters and DNA sequencing. The resulting mtDNA phylogeny based on 23 phylogenetically informative restriction sites and two phylogenetically informative DNA sequence characters agrees in part with the phylogeny predicted from the behavioral data.     

Gene regulation in Drosophila: Independent expression of closely linked,related structural loci

A number of biochemical and genetic features shared by aldehyde oxidase and pyridoxal oxidase in Drosophila melanogaster indicate a close relationship between these enzymes. The present work shows that probable structural genes for these enzymes are within about 0.08 map unit of each other. Comparison with intensively studied regions of the genome suggests that this value is of the order of magnitude expected for adjacent functional units. Despite this close linkage, there is no indication of coordinate expression of the two enzymes. These results are consistent with the idea that each structural gene is under control of its own regulatory region, but alternative explanations are possible.