Drosophila 12 Genomes Consortium (2007) sequenced across the Drosophila genus and showed synteny conservation ranging between few large blocks with many genes to many small blocks with few genes. Bhuktar and coll. (2008) counted “between 42 (D. sechellia) and 1430 (D. willistoni) syntenic blocks across various species on the basis of the D. melanogaster gene order”.
Carbone and coll. (2014) found 96 gibbon–human synteny breakpoints (~30 per Gb), associated with segmental duplication or Alu element enrichment. They often bore signatures of non-homology based mechanisms, and were enriched near CTCF-binding events.
Berthelot and coll. (2015) show that breakpoint distribution follows a power law and explain it with a model that requires breakpoints to be in open regions (ENCODE) interacting with each other (Hi-C).
Renschler and coll. (2019) found 20 synteny breakpoints (SB) per Mb on average (1 every 6 gene) when comparing D. virilis and D. buskii, which are ~40 MY apart. “Approximately 75% of SBs stay within the A or B compartment” “Overlaps of TAD boundaries and SB breakpoints in all comparisons are highly significant”
Ranz and coll., 2021 estimate an evolution rate of 0.9–1.4 chromosomal inversions fixed per million years in Drosophila. A comparison between D. mel and members of the simulans species complex led to an estimation of 90 rearrangements per MY (mel / simulans) and 226–354 per MY (sim / sim) (Chakraborty and coll., 2021).
In insects, the Osiris gene family shows conservation of synteny over ~400 million years (Sah and coll., 2012). At the same time scale (~400 million years), synteny conservation of the X chromosome is also visible between fruit flies and cockroaches (Meisel, Delclos and Wexler, 2019).
Butterfly chromosome still have synteny with Muller elements (Ranz and coll, 2022).
The indian munjac has only 3 chromosomes, which are the result of fusions in the past ~5 My. The chinese munjak has undergone much less fusions. In most cases, long-range chromosome structure (Hi-C) is not conserved between theses two species Mudd and coll, 2020.
Drillon and Fischer, 2011 “studied synteny conservation between 18 yeast species and 13 vertebrate species” and “show that rearrangement rates are on average 3-fold higher in vertebrates than in yeasts, and are estimated to be of 2 rearrangements/Myr”. They defined synteny as “series of neighboring pairs of orthologs separated by less than 5 nonneighboring reciprocal best-hits”.
Hane and coll, 2011 noted that in filamentous Ascomycetes, but not other fungi such as yeast, “genes are conserved within homologous chromosomes, but with randomized orders and orientations“ and call that phenomenon “mesosynteny”.
Squid chromosomes still have synteny with scallop, but gene order is scrambled (Albertin and coll., 2022). Sets of syntenic orthologues present in separate chromosomes in some clades but irreversibly mixed in others allowed Schultz and coll. (2023) to predict that cnidarians branched at the base of the animal tree.
At equal evolutionary distance, yeast microsynteny is lower than in animals, but higher than in plants (Li and coll., 2022).
Kobayashi and coll (2023) showed that large structural variations can be observed in fungi even when ITS sequences are 100% identical.
Ancestral karyotpyes
The ancestral mammalian genome has 30 chromosomes (Zhou and coll., 2021), or 19 + X (Damas and coll., 2022).
The ancestral chordate has 17 chromosomes according to amphioxus assemblies (Putnam and coll, 2008, Simakov and coll., 2020). Vertebrate and amphioxus mini-chromosomes also descend from the ancestral chordate linkage groups (CLG).
The scallop genome has 19 chromosomes, which are syntenic to the 17 ancestral chordate chromosomes. Drosophila has no synteny with scallop, but C. elegans still has some Wang and coll., 2017. The annelid worm Dimorphilus gyrociliatus also has (Martín-Durán and coll., 2020).
The ancestral amniote has 49 chromosomes (Sacerdot and coll., 2018).
The ancestral bilaterian had 24 linkage groups according to Simakov and coll., 2022.
The ancestral annelid had 20 chromosomes, syntenic to the ancestral bilaterian linkage groups, but the genome of leeches and earthworms was extensively reshuffled (Lewin, Liao and Luo, 2024, ?Vargas-Chávez and coll., 2024). Vargas-Chávez and coll. proposed that this happened by chromoanagenesis.
The Eleutherozoa Linkage Groups descend from a single fusion of ancestral bilaterian linkages B2 and C2 (Parey and coll., 2023). Some clades there scrambled a lot, and some not (sea cucumbers).
Wright and coll., 2024 found 32 ALGs in lepidopteran, which they termed Merian elements. There is a case where scrambling has not erased traces of a fusion that occured 200 million years ago.
Computational aspects
Rocha (2003) defines a Gene Order Conservation (GOC) number as: “the average number of orthologues for which the consecutive orthologue co-occurs close by in the other genome. It varies between 0 (no co-occurrence) and 1 (complete gene order conservation)”.
Housworth and Postlethwait, 2002 defined the syntenic correlation measure ρ, based on chi-square and an alternative λ not based on chi-square. Both attempt to estimate how wrong we would be to hypothesise that a given gene has its orthologue in a homologous chromosome of a related species.
Lewin and coll., 2024 defined a “microsynteny mixing score” as 1 minus the Spearman correlation coefficient of the ranked positional indices of orthologous genes on orthologous chromosomes.
“Chains” and “nets” of pairwise alignements between two genomes are described in Kent and coll, 2003.
Nat Ecol Evol. 2024 Aug;8(8):1505-1521. doi:10.1038/s41559-024-02456-y
Elise Parey, Olga Ortega-Martinez, Jérôme Delroisse, Laura Piovani, Anna Czarkwiani, David Dylus, Srishti Arya, Samuel Dupont, Michael Thorndyke, Tomas Larsson, Kerstin Johannesson, Katherine M. Buckley, Pedro Martinez, Paola Oliveri, Ferdinand Marlétaz
The brittle star genome illuminates the genetic basis of animal appendage regeneration
Thomas D. Lewin, Isabel Jiah-Yih Liao, Yi-Jyun Luo
bioRxiv 2024.05.15.594353 doi:10.1101/2024.05.15.594353
Annelid comparative genomics and the evolution of massive lineage-specific genome rearrangement in bilaterians
Wright CJ, Stevens L, Mackintosh A, Lawniczak M, Blaxter M.
Comparative genomics reveals the dynamics of chromosome evolution in Lepidoptera.
Nat Ecol Evol. 2024 Feb 21. doi:10.1038/s41559-024-02329-4
Thomas D. Lewin, Isabel Jiah-Yih Liao, Mu-En Chen, John D. D. Bishop, Peter W. H. Holland, Yi-Jyun Luo
bioRxiv 2024.02.15.580425; doi:10.1101/2024.02.15.580425
Fusion, fission, and scrambling of the bilaterian genome in Bryozoa.
Jia SL, Zhang M, Liu GL, Chi ZM, Chi Z.
Funct Integr Genomics. 2023 Jun 19;23(3):206. doi:10.1007/s10142-023-01127-8
Novel chromosomes and genomes provide new insights into evolution and adaptation of the whole genome duplicated yeast-like fungus TN3-1 isolated from natural honey.
A new Aureobasidium melanogenum strain that has two subgenomes that diverged ~10 million years ago.
Chromosome-level genome assemblies of Cutaneotrichosporon spp. (Trichosporonales, Basidiomycota) reveal imbalanced evolution between nucleotide sequences and chromosome synteny.
BMC Genomics. 2023 Oct 11;24(1):609. doi:10.1186/s12864-023-09718-2.
Kobayashi Y, Kayamori A, Aoki K, Shiwa Y, Matsutani M, Fujita N, Sugita T, Iwasaki W, Tanaka N, Takashima M.
Yin Y, Fan H, Zhou B, Hu Y, Fan G, Wang J, Zhou F, Nie W, Zhang C, Liu L, Zhong Z, Zhu W, Liu G, Lin Z, Liu C, Zhou J, Huang G, Li Z, Yu J, Zhang Y, Yang Y, Zhuo B, Zhang B, Chang J, Qian H, Peng Y, Chen X, Chen L, Li Z, Zhou Q, Wang W, Wei F.
Nat Commun. 2021 Nov 25;12(1):6858. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27091-0
Molecular mechanisms and topological consequences of drastic chromosomal rearrangements of muntjac deer
Schultz DT, Haddock SHD, Bredeson JV, Green RE, Simakov O, Rokhsar DS.
Nature. 2023 May 17. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05936-6
Ancient gene linkages support ctenophores as sister to other animals.
Damas J, Corbo M, Kim J, Turner-Maier J, Farré M, Larkin DM, Ryder OA, Steiner C, Houck ML, Hall S, Shiue L, Thomas S, Swale T, Daly M, Korlach J, Uliano-Silva M, Mazzoni CJ, Birren BW, Genereux DP, Johnson J, Lindblad-Toh K, Karlsson EK, Nweeia MT, Johnson RN; Zoonomia Consortium; Lewin HA.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Oct 4;119(40):e2209139119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2209139119
Evolution of the ancestral mammalian karyotype and syntenic regions.
Li Y, Liu H, Steenwyk JL, LaBella AL, Harrison MC, Groenewald M, Zhou X, Shen XX, Zhao T, Hittinger CT, Rokas A.
Curr Biol. 2022 Dec 19;32(24):5335-5343.e4. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2022.10.025
Contrasting modes of macro and microsynteny evolution in a eukaryotic subphylum.
Housworth EA, Postlethwait J
Genetics. 2002 Sep;162(1):441-8. doi:10.1093/genetics/162.1.441
Measures of synteny conservation between species pairs.
“We introduce a measure of genomic conservation, which we call syntenic correlation, which corresponds to a measure of how far the orthologues are from being independently scattered in the genomes of the two species. This measure is standardized to be between zero, for completely randomized arrangements of orthologues between the genomes, and one, for two genomes with perfect synteny conservation. Further, this measure can be used to compare genomic distances (i.e., Oxford grids) between many pairs of species.”
Ranz JM, González PM, Su RN, Bedford SJ, Abreu-Goodger C, Markow T.
Proc Biol Sci. 2022 Jan 26;289(1967):20212183. doi:10.1098/rspb.2021.2183
Multiscale analysis of the randomization limits of the chromosomal gene organization between Lepidoptera and Diptera.
Goel M, Sun H, Jiao WB, Schneeberger K.
Genome Biol. 2019 Dec 16;20(1):277. doi:10.1186/s13059-019-1911-0
SyRI: finding genomic rearrangements and local sequence differences from whole-genome assemblies.
Emergence of novel cephalopod gene regulation and expression through large-scale genome reorganization.
Nat Commun. 2022 Apr 21;13(1):2172. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-29694-7
Schmidbaur H, Kawaguchi A, Clarence T, Fu X, Hoang OP, Zimmermann B, Ritschard EA, Weissenbacher A, Foster JS, Nyholm SV, Bates PA, Albertin CB, Tanaka E, Simakov O.
Albertin CB, Medina-Ruiz S, Mitros T, Schmidbaur H, Sanchez G, Wang ZY, Grimwood J, Rosenthal JJC, Ragsdale CW, Simakov O, Rokhsar DS.
Nat Commun. 2022 May 4;13(1):2427. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-29748-w
Genome and transcriptome mechanisms driving cephalopod evolution.
Simakov O, Bredeson J, Berkoff K, Marletaz F, Mitros T, Schultz DT, O'Connell BL, Dear P, Martinez DE, Steele RE, Green RE, David CN, Rokhsar DS.
Sci Adv. 2022 Feb 4;8(5):eabi5884. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abi5884
Deeply conserved synteny and the evolution of metazoan chromosomes.
Bhutkar A, Schaeffer SW, Russo SM, Xu M, Smith TF, Gelbart WM.
Genetics. 2008 Jul;179(3):1657-80. doi:10.1534/genetics.107.086108
Chromosomal rearrangement inferred from comparisons of 12 Drosophila genomes.
Kent WJ, Baertsch R, Hinrichs A, Miller W, Haussler D.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Sep 30;100(20):11484-9. doi:10.1073/pnas.1932072100
Evolution's cauldron: duplication, deletion, and rearrangement in the mouse and human genomes.
“A chained alignment [is] an ordered sequence of traditional pairwise nucleotide alignments (“blocks”) separated by larger gaps, some of which may be simultaneous gaps in both species. [...] intervening DNA in one species that does not align with the other because it is locally inverted or has been inserted in by lineage-specific translocation or duplication is skipped”
“The chains are then put into a list sorted with the highest-scoring chain first. [...] each iteration taking the next chain off of the list, throwing out the parts of the chain that intersect with bases already covered by previously taken chains, and then marking the bases that are left in the chain as covered. [...] If a chain covers bases that are in a gap in a previously taken chain, it is marked as a child of the previous chain. In this way, a hierarchy of chains is formed that we call a net.”
“To be considered syntenic, a chain has to either have a very high score itself or be embedded in a larger chain, on the same chromosome, and come from the same region as the larger chain. Thus, inversions and tandem duplications are considered syntenic.”
“We define the (human) span of a chain to be the distance in bases in the human genome from the first to the last human base in the chain, including gaps, and we define the size of the chain as the number of aligning bases in it, not including gaps.”
Hane JK, Rouxel T, Howlett BJ, Kema GH, Goodwin SB, Oliver RP.
Genome Biol. 2011;12(5):R45. doi:10.1186/gb-2011-12-5-r45
A novel mode of chromosomal evolution peculiar to filamentous Ascomycete fungi.
Drillon G, Fischer G.
C R Biol. 2011 Aug-Sep;334(8-9):629-38. doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2011.05.011
Comparative study on synteny between yeasts and vertebrates.
Rocha, Eduardo P C.
Trends Genet. 2003 Nov;19(11):600-3. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2003.09.011
DNA repeats lead to the accelerated loss of gene order in bacteria.
Mudd AB, Bredeson JV, Baum R, Hockemeyer D, Rokhsar DS
Commun Biol. 2020 Sep 1;3(1):480. doi:10.1038/s42003-020-1096-9
Analysis of muntjac deer genome and chromatin architecture reveals rapid karyotype evolution.
“During the ~4.9 million years since the divergence of M. muntjak and M. reevesi, the M. muntjak lineage experienced 26 fusions for a rate of ~5.3 changes per million years.” “M. muntjak and M. reevesi [...] genomes are locally very similar, with 98.5% identity in aligned regions and a nucleotide divergence of 0.0130 substitutions per site, based on fourfold degenerate positions.” “The pairwise alignment of the muntjac genomes contains 2.45 Gb of contig sequence [...] average sequence identity of 98.5%, excluding indels [...] In comparison, alignments of red deer, reindeer, and muntjacs to B. taurus contain 1.80–2.21 Gb of contig sequences with 92.7–93.2% average identity.” “The nucleotide and temporal divergence between the two muntjac species is comparable to the divergence between humans and chimpanzees. The observed chromosome dynamism in muntjacs, however, far exceeds the rate in the chimpanzee and human lineages” “we noted the maintenance of distinct Hi-C boundaries in several examples, such as the junction between the X and autosomal segments on MMU3_X circa 133 Mb. Other fusion sites, however, show no notable difference compared with the rest of the genome in M. muntjak. As expected, M. reevesi shows a clear distinction between intra- and inter-chromosome contacts, including across fusion sites in M. muntjak.”
Drosophila 12 Genomes Consortium, Clark AG, Eisen MB, Smith DR, Bergman CM, Oliver B, Markow TA, Kaufman TC, Kellis M, Gelbart W, Iyer VN, Pollard DA, Sackton TB, Larracuente AM, Singh ND, Abad JP, Abt DN, Adryan B, Aguade M, Akashi H, Anderson WW, Aquadro CF, Ardell DH, Arguello R, Artieri CG, Barbash DA, Barker D, Barsanti P, Batterham P, Batzoglou S, Begun D, Bhutkar A, Blanco E, Bosak SA, Bradley RK, Brand AD, Brent MR, Brooks AN, Brown RH, Butlin RK, Caggese C, Calvi BR, Bernardo de Carvalho A, Caspi A, Castrezana S, Celniker SE, Chang JL, Chapple C, Chatterji S, Chinwalla A, Civetta A, Clifton SW, Comeron JM, Costello JC, Coyne JA, Daub J, David RG, Delcher AL, Delehaunty K, Do CB, Ebling H, Edwards K, Eickbush T, Evans JD, Filipski A, Findeiss S, Freyhult E, Fulton L, Fulton R, Garcia AC, Gardiner A, Garfield DA, Garvin BE, Gibson G, Gilbert D, Gnerre S, Godfrey J, Good R, Gotea V, Gravely B, Greenberg AJ, Griffiths-Jones S, Gross S, Guigo R, Gustafson EA, Haerty W, Hahn MW, Halligan DL, Halpern AL, Halter GM, Han MV, Heger A, Hillier L, Hinrichs AS, Holmes I, Hoskins RA, Hubisz MJ, Hultmark D, Huntley MA, Jaffe DB, Jagadeeshan S, Jeck WR, Johnson J, Jones CD, Jordan WC, Karpen GH, Kataoka E, Keightley PD, Kheradpour P, Kirkness EF, Koerich LB, Kristiansen K, Kudrna D, Kulathinal RJ, Kumar S, Kwok R, Lander E, Langley CH, Lapoint R, Lazzaro BP, Lee SJ, Levesque L, Li R, Lin CF, Lin MF, Lindblad-Toh K, Llopart A, Long M, Low L, Lozovsky E, Lu J, Luo M, Machado CA, Makalowski W, Marzo M, Matsuda M, Matzkin L, McAllister B, McBride CS, McKernan B, McKernan K, Mendez-Lago M, Minx P, Mollenhauer MU, Montooth K, Mount SM, Mu X, Myers E, Negre B, Newfeld S, Nielsen R, Noor MA, O'Grady P, Pachter L, Papaceit M, Parisi MJ, Parisi M, Parts L, Pedersen JS, Pesole G, Phillippy AM, Ponting CP, Pop M, Porcelli D, Powell JR, Prohaska S, Pruitt K, Puig M, Quesneville H, Ram KR, Rand D, Rasmussen MD, Reed LK, Reenan R, Reily A, Remington KA, Rieger TT, Ritchie MG, Robin C, Rogers YH, Rohde C, Rozas J, Rubenfield MJ, Ruiz A, Russo S, Salzberg SL, Sanchez-Gracia A, Saranga DJ, Sato H, Schaeffer SW, Schatz MC, Schlenke T, Schwartz R, Segarra C, Singh RS, Sirot L, Sirota M, Sisneros NB, Smith CD, Smith TF, Spieth J, Stage DE, Stark A, Stephan W, Strausberg RL, Strempel S, Sturgill D, Sutton G, Sutton GG, Tao W, Teichmann S, Tobari YN, Tomimura Y, Tsolas JM, Valente VL, Venter E, Venter JC, Vicario S, Vieira FG, Vilella AJ, Villasante A, Walenz B, Wang J, Wasserman M, Watts T, Wilson D, Wilson RK, Wing RA, Wolfner MF, Wong A, Wong GK, Wu CI, Wu G, Yamamoto D, Yang HP, Yang SP, Yorke JA, Yoshida K, Zdobnov E, Zhang P, Zhang Y, Zimin AV, Baldwin J, Abdouelleil A, Abdulkadir J, Abebe A, Abera B, Abreu J, Acer SC, Aftuck L, Alexander A, An P, Anderson E, Anderson S, Arachi H, Azer M, Bachantsang P, Barry A, Bayul T, Berlin A, Bessette D, Bloom T, Blye J, Boguslavskiy L, Bonnet C, Boukhgalter B, Bourzgui I, Brown A, Cahill P, Channer S, Cheshatsang Y, Chuda L, Citroen M, Collymore A, Cooke P, Costello M, D'Aco K, Daza R, De Haan G, DeGray S, DeMaso C, Dhargay N, Dooley K, Dooley E, Doricent M, Dorje P, Dorjee K, Dupes A, Elong R, Falk J, Farina A, Faro S, Ferguson D, Fisher S, Foley CD, Franke A, Friedrich D, Gadbois L, Gearin G, Gearin CR, Giannoukos G, Goode T, Graham J, Grandbois E, Grewal S, Gyaltsen K, Hafez N, Hagos B, Hall J, Henson C, Hollinger A, Honan T, Huard MD, Hughes L, Hurhula B, Husby ME, Kamat A, Kanga B, Kashin S, Khazanovich D, Kisner P, Lance K, Lara M, Lee W, Lennon N, Letendre F, LeVine R, Lipovsky A, Liu X, Liu J, Liu S, Lokyitsang T, Lokyitsang Y, Lubonja R, Lui A, MacDonald P, Magnisalis V, Maru K, Matthews C, McCusker W, McDonough S, Mehta T, Meldrim J, Meneus L, Mihai O, Mihalev A, Mihova T, Mittelman R, Mlenga V, Montmayeur A, Mulrain L, Navidi A, Naylor J, Negash T, Nguyen T, Nguyen N, Nicol R, Norbu C, Norbu N, Novod N, O'Neill B, Osman S, Markiewicz E, Oyono OL, Patti C, Phunkhang P, Pierre F, Priest M, Raghuraman S, Rege F, Reyes R, Rise C, Rogov P, Ross K, Ryan E, Settipalli S, Shea T, Sherpa N, Shi L, Shih D, Sparrow T, Spaulding J, Stalker J, Stange-Thomann N, Stavropoulos S, Stone C, Strader C, Tesfaye S, Thomson T, Thoulutsang Y, Thoulutsang D, Topham K, Topping I, Tsamla T, Vassiliev H, Vo A, Wangchuk T, Wangdi T, Weiand M, Wilkinson J, Wilson A, Yadav S, Young G, Yu Q, Zembek L, Zhong D, Zimmer A, Zwirko Z, Jaffe DB, Alvarez P, Brockman W, Butler J, Chin C, Gnerre S, Grabherr M, Kleber M, Mauceli E, MacCallum I.
Nature. 2007 Nov 8;450(7167):203-18. doi:10.1038/nature06341
Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny.
Chakraborty M, Chang CH, Khost DE, Vedanayagam J, Adrion JR, Liao Y, Montooth KL, Meiklejohn CD, Larracuente AM, Emerson JJ.
Genome Res. 2021 Feb 9. doi:10.1101/gr.263442.120
Evolution of genome structure in the Drosophila simulans species complex.
Zhou Y, Shearwin-Whyatt L, Li J, Song Z, Hayakawa T, Stevens D, Fenelon JC, Peel E, Cheng Y, Pajpach F, Bradley N, Suzuki H, Nikaido M, Damas J, Daish T, Perry T, Zhu Z, Geng Y, Rhie A, Sims Y, Wood J, Haase B, Mountcastle J, Fedrigo O, Li Q, Yang H, Wang J, Johnston SD, Phillippy AM, Howe K, Jarvis ED, Ryder OA, Kaessmann H, Donnelly P, Korlach J, Lewin HA, Graves J, Belov K, Renfree MB, Grutzner F, Zhou Q, Zhang G.
Nature. 2021 Jan 6. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-03039-0
Platypus and echidna genomes reveal mammalian biology and evolution.
José M. Martín-Durán, Bruno C. Vellutini, Ferdinand Marlétaz, Viviana Cetrangolo, Nevena Cvetesic, Daniel Thiel, Simon Henriet, Xavier Grau-Bové, Allan M. Carrillo-Baltodano, Wenjia Gu, Alexandra Kerbl, Yamile Marquez, Nicolas Bekkouche, Daniel Chourrout, Jose Luis Gómez-Skarmeta, Manuel Irimia, Boris Lenhard, Katrine Worsaae, Andreas Hejnol
bioRxiv 2020.05.07.078311; doi:10.1101/2020.05.07.078311
Conservative route to genome compaction in a miniature annelid
Wang S, Zhang J, Jiao W, Li J, Xun X, Sun Y, Guo X, Huan P, Dong B, Zhang L, Hu X, Sun X, Wang J, Zhao C, Wang Y, Wang D, Huang X, Wang R, Lv J, Li Y, Zhang Z, Liu B, Lu W, Hui Y, Liang J, Zhou Z, Hou R, Li X, Liu Y, Li H, Ning X, Lin Y, Zhao L, Xing Q, Dou J, Li Y, Mao J, Guo H, Dou H, Li T, Mu C, Jiang W, Fu Q, Fu X, Miao Y, Liu J, Yu Q, Li R, Liao H, Li X, Kong Y, Jiang Z, Chourrout D, Li R, Bao Z.
Nat Ecol Evol. 2017 Apr 3;1(5):120. doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0120
Scallop genome provides insights into evolution of bilaterian karyotype and development.
Ranz JM, Casals F, Ruiz A.
Genome Res. 2001 Feb;11(2):230-9. doi:10.1101/gr.162901
How malleable is the eukaryotic genome? Extreme rate of chromosomal rearrangement in the genus Drosophila.
Shah N, Dorer DR, Moriyama EN, Christensen AC.
G3 (Bethesda). 2012 Feb;2(2):313-9. doi:10.1534/g3.111.001412
Evolution of a large, conserved, and syntenic gene family in insects.
Simakov O, Marlétaz F, Yue JX, O'Connell B, Jenkins J, Brandt A, Calef R, Tung CH, Huang TK, Schmutz J, Satoh N, Yu JK, Putnam NH, Green RE, Rokhsar DS.
Nat Ecol Evol. 2020 Jun;4(6):820-830. doi:10.1038/s41559-020-1156-z
Deeply conserved synteny resolves early events in vertebrate evolution.
Putnam NH, Butts T, Ferrier DE, Furlong RF, Hellsten U, Kawashima T, Robinson-Rechavi M, Shoguchi E, Terry A, Yu JK, Benito-Gutiérrez EL, Dubchak I, Garcia-Fernàndez J, Gibson-Brown JJ, Grigoriev IV, Horton AC, de Jong PJ, Jurka J, Kapitonov VV, Kohara Y, Kuroki Y, Lindquist E, Lucas S, Osoegawa K, Pennacchio LA, Salamov AA, Satou Y, Sauka-Spengler T, Schmutz J, Shin-I T, Toyoda A, Bronner-Fraser M, Fujiyama A, Holland LZ, Holland PW, Satoh N, Rokhsar DS.
Nature. 2008 Jun 19;453(7198):1064-71. doi:10.1038/nature06967
The amphioxus genome and the evolution of the chordate karyotype.
17 ancestral chordate chromosomes.
“We estimate that the haploid amphioxus genome contains 21,900 protein-coding loci. [...] The observed heterozygosity shows correlations at short distances that decay on scales greater than ∼1 kb, indicating extensive recombination in the population. [...] Wwe reconstructed the gene complements of 17 linkage groups (that is, proto-chromosomes) of the last common chordate ancestor. [...] This analysis shows that most of the human genome (112 segments spanning 2.68 Gb, or 95% of the euchromatic genome) was affected by large-scale duplication events on the vertebrate stem before the bony vertebrate radiation (that is, the teleost/tetrapod split), and that nearly all of the ancient chordate chromosomes were quadruplicated. [...] Allowing for a range of nearly parsimonious reconstructions of 2R, we estimate that the bony vertebrate ancestor had between 37 and 49 chromosomes.”
Berthelot C, Muffato M, Abecassis J, Roest Crollius H.
Cell Rep. 2015 Mar 24;10(11):1913-24. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.02.046
The 3D organization of chromatin explains evolutionary fragile genomic regions.
“We [...] reconstruct the ancestral gene order in the 95-million-year-old ancestral genome of Boreoeutheria, the last common ancestor of primates, rodents, and laurasiatherians. [...] This reconstructed genome was further annotated with respect to its intergenic regions [...] their lengths, GC content and their proportion of conserved non-coding sequence as defined by GERP. [...] We then identified evolutionary rearrangement breakpoints that have occurred in the human, mouse, dog, cow, and horse lineages. [...] We identified a total of 751 breakpoints, 20 of which correspond to independent breakpoint reuse. [...] The identified breakpoints show the typical characteristics of rearrangement breakpoints; i.e., they occur in GC-rich, gene-dense regions possessing lower proportions of conserved non-coding sequence. [...] Breakpoint events per intergene increase as a power law of intergene length rather than a proportionality law. [...] Ancestral intergenes with high CNE content have been disrupted by significantly fewer breakpoints than intergenes of similar length with lower CNE content. [...] Rpeated elements and recombination frequencies are distributed radically differently from breakpoints, eliminating them as potential candidates to explain the breakpoint pattern. [...] The density of open chromatin is similar to the pattern of breakpoints with the proportion of DNA in an open state decreasing as intergene size increases. [...] Simulating inversions in the human genome according to contact probability [...] rearrangements were allowed to occur only between open chromatin regions, using chromatin state profiles for different cell types published by the ENCODE consortium. Under this model, the simulated average number of breakpoints per intergene closely reproduces the relationship with intergene length observed in real data.”
Sacerdot C, Louis A, Bon C, Berthelot C, Roest Crollius H.
Genome Biol. 2018 Oct 17;19(1):166. doi:10.1186/s13059-018-1559-1
Chromosome evolution at the origin of the ancestral vertebrate genome.
Meisel RP, Delclos PJ, Wexler JR.
BMC Biol. 2019 Dec 5;17(1):100. doi:10.1186/s12915-019-0721-x
The X chromosome of the German cockroach, Blattella germanica, is homologous to a fly X chromosome despite 400 million years divergence.
Carbone L, Harris RA, Gnerre S, Veeramah KR, Lorente-Galdos B, Huddleston J, Meyer TJ, Herrero J, Roos C, Aken B, Anaclerio F, Archidiacono N, Baker C, Barrell D, Batzer MA, Beal K, Blancher A, Bohrson CL, Brameier M, Campbell MS, Capozzi O, Casola C, Chiatante G, Cree A, Damert A, de Jong PJ, Dumas L, Fernandez-Callejo M, Flicek P, Fuchs NV, Gut I, Gut M, Hahn MW, Hernandez-Rodriguez J, Hillier LW, Hubley R, Ianc B, Izsvák Z, Jablonski NG, Johnstone LM, Karimpour-Fard A, Konkel MK, Kostka D, Lazar NH, Lee SL, Lewis LR, Liu Y, Locke DP, Mallick S, Mendez FL, Muffato M, Nazareth LV, Nevonen KA, O'Bleness M, Ochis C, Odom DT, Pollard KS, Quilez J, Reich D, Rocchi M, Schumann GG, Searle S, Sikela JM, Skollar G, Smit A, Sonmez K, ten Hallers B, Terhune E, Thomas GW, Ullmer B, Ventura M, Walker JA, Wall JD, Walter L, Ward MC, Wheelan SJ, Whelan CW, White S, Wilhelm LJ, Woerner AE, Yandell M, Zhu B, Hammer MF, Marques-Bonet T, Eichler EE, Fulton L, Fronick C, Muzny DM, Warren WC, Worley KC, Rogers J, Wilson RK, Gibbs RA.
Nature. 2014 Sep 11;513(7517):195-201. doi:10.1038/nature13679
Gibbon genome and the fast karyotype evolution of small apes.
Lazar NH, Nevonen KA, O'Connell B, McCann C, O'Neill RJ, Green RE, Meyer TJ, Okhovat M, Carbone L.
Genome Res. 2018 Jul;28(7):983-997. doi:10.1101/gr.233874.117
Epigenetic maintenance of topological domains in the highly rearranged gibbon genome.
Renschler G, Richard G, Valsecchi CIK, Toscano S, Arrigoni L, Ramírez F, Akhtar A.
Genes Dev. 2019 Oct 10. doi: 10.1101/gad.328971.119
Hi-C guided assemblies reveal conserved regulatory topologies on X and autosomes despite extensive genome shuffling.
“Hi-C data of D. melanogaster, D. virilis, and D. busckii embryos”
“D. virilis and D. busckii [...] cover ∼40 million years of evolution and multiple subgenera (Russo et al. 2013).”
“conserved sequences mostly reside on the same chromosomal arms”
“we defined synteny blocks (SBs), which are chains of conserved collinear regions that are used to identify and compare homologous regions between different species. On average, we find 20 synteny breakpoints per megabase (3726 and 3252 breakpoints in the D. melanogaster vs. D. virilis comparison, respectively, and 3340 and 2776 breakpoints in the D. melanogaster vs. D. busckii comparison, respectively), corresponding to about one breakpoint every six genes.”
“Approximately 75% of SBs stay within the A or B compartment and 25% switch between compartments. In general, about double the number of SBs lie within the A compartment than the B compartment.”
“many SB breakpoints overlap with TAD boundaries”
“To identify synteny blocks (SBs) we use LASTZ (Harris 2007) with the following parameters: “–gfextend –nochain –gapped,” which identifies local alignment blocks. We then chained blocks that are within 10-kb distance, have the same orientation, and contain at least four LASTZ-defined blocks. Chained results that were <4 kb or completely overlapped a bigger synteny block were removed.”