| Title |
Next-generation sequencing detects repetitive elements expansion in giant genomes of annual killifish genus Austrolebias (Cyprinodontiformes, Rivulidae)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genetica, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10709-015-9834-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
G. García, N. Ríos, V. Gutiérrez |
| Abstract |
Among Neotropical fish fauna, the South American killifish genus Austrolebias (Cyprinodontiformes: Rivulidae) constitutes an excellent model to study the genomic evolutionary processes underlying speciation events. Recently, unusually large genome size has been described in 16 species of this genus, with an average DNA content of about 5.95 ± 0.45 pg per diploid cell (mean C-value of about 2.98 pg). In the present paper we explore the possible origin of this unparallel genomic increase by means of comparative analysis of the repetitive components using NGS (454-Roche) technology in the lowest and highest Rivulidae genomes. Here, we provide the first annotated Rivulidae-repeated sequences composition and their relative repetitive fraction in both genomes. Remarkably, the genomic proportion of the moderately repetitive DNA in Austrolebias charrua genome represents approximately twice (45 %) of the repetitive components of the highly related rivulinae taxon Cynopoecilus melanotaenia (25 %). Present work provides evidence about the impact of the repeat families that could be distinctly proliferated among sublineages within Rivulidae fish group, explaining the great genome size differences encompassing the differentiation and speciation events in this family. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Czechia | 2 | 4% |
| Brazil | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 44 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 23% |
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 3 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 54% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 7 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2015.
All research outputs
#12,919,961
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Genetica
#396
of 713 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,899
of 262,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetica
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 713 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.