Genome size
Genome size is the total amount of
.An organism's complexity is not directly proportional to its genome size; total DNA content is widely variable between biological taxa. Some single-celled organisms have much more DNA than humans, for reasons that remain unclear (see
Origin of the term
The term "genome size" is often erroneously attributed to a 1976 paper by Ralph Hinegardner,[2] even in discussions dealing specifically with terminology in this area of research (e.g., Greilhuber 2005[3]). Notably, Hinegardner[2] used the term only once: in the title. The term actually seems to have first appeared in 1968, when Hinegardner wondered, in the last paragraph of another article, whether "cellular DNA content does, in fact, reflect genome size".[4] In this context, "genome size" was being used in the sense of genotype to mean the number of genes.
In a paper submitted only two months later, Wolf et al. (1969)[5] used the term "genome size" throughout and in its present usage; therefore these authors should probably be credited with originating the term in its modern sense. By the early 1970s, "genome size" was in common usage with its present definition, probably as a result of its inclusion in Susumu Ohno's influential book Evolution by Gene Duplication, published in 1970.[6]
Variation in genome size and gene content
With the emergence of various molecular techniques in the past 50 years, the genome sizes of thousands of
Nuclear genome sizes are well known to vary enormously among eukaryotic species. In animals they range more than 3,300-fold, and in land plants they differ by a factor of about 1,000.
Genome size correlates with a range of measurable characteristics at the
Human genome size
In humans, the total female
In eukaryotes, in addition to nuclear DNA, there is also mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which encodes certain proteins used by the mitochondria. The mtDNA is usually relatively small in comparison to the nuclear DNA. For example, the human mitochondrial DNA forms closed circular molecules, each of which contains 16,569[13][14] DNA base pairs,[15] with each such molecule normally containing a full set of the mitochondrial genes. Each human mitochondrion contains, on average, approximately 5 such mtDNA molecules.[15] Each human cell contains approximately 100 mitochondria, giving a total number of mtDNA molecules per human cell of approximately 500.[15] However, the amount of mitochondria per cell also varies by cell type, and an egg cell can contain 100,000 mitochondria, corresponding to up to 1,500,000 copies of the mitochondrial genome (constituting up to 90% of the DNA of the cell).[16]
Genome reduction
Genome reduction, also known as
The most evolutionarily significant cases of genome reduction may be observed in the eukaryotic
Other bacteria have become endosymbionts or obligate intracellular pathogens and experienced extensive genome reduction as a result. This process seems to be dominated by genetic drift resulting from small population size, low recombination rates, and high mutation rates, as opposed to selection for smaller genomes.[citation needed] Some free-living marine bacterioplanktons also shows signs of genome reduction, which are hypothesized to be driven by natural selection.[17][18][19]
In obligate endosymbiotic species
Obligate endosymbiotic species are characterized by a complete inability to survive external to their
The reductive evolution model has been proposed as an effort to define the genomic commonalities seen in all obligate endosymbionts.[24] This model illustrates four general features of reduced genomes and obligate intracellular species:
- "genome streamlining" resulting from relaxed selection on genes that are superfluous in the intracellular environment;
- a bias towards deletions (rather than insertions), which heavily affects genes that have been disrupted by accumulation of mutations (pseudogenes);[25]
- very little or no capability for acquiring new DNA; and
- considerable reduction of effective population size in endosymbiotic populations, particularly in species that rely on vertical transmission of genetic material.
Based on this model, it is clear that endosymbionts face different adaptive challenges than free-living species and, as emerged from the analysis between different parasites, their genes inventories are extremely different, leading us to the conclusion that the genome miniaturization follows a different pattern for the different symbionts.[26][27][28]
Conversion from picograms (pg) to base pairs (bp)
or simply:
Drake's rule
In 1991, John W. Drake proposed a general rule: that the mutation rate within a genome and its size are inversely correlated.[29] This rule has been found to be approximately correct for simple genomes such as those in DNA viruses and unicellular organisms. Its basis is unknown.
It has been proposed that the small size of RNA viruses is locked into a three-part relation between replication fidelity, genome size, and genetic complexity. The majority of RNA viruses lack an RNA proofreading facility, which limits their replication fidelity and hence their genome size. This has also been described as the "Eigen paradox".[30] An exception to the rule of small genome sizes in RNA viruses is found in the Nidoviruses. These viruses appear to have acquired a 3′-to-5′ exoribonuclease (ExoN) which has allowed for an increase in genome size.[31]
Genome miniaturization and optimal size
In 1972 Michael David Bennett[32] hypothesized that there was a correlation with the DNA content and the nuclear volume while Commoner and van’t Hoff and Sparrow before him postulated that even cell size and cell-cycle length were controlled by the amount of DNA.[33][34] More recent theories have brought us to discuss about the possibility of the presence of a mechanism that constrains physically the development of the genome to an optimal size.[35]
Those explanations have been disputed by Cavalier-Smith’s article[36] where the author pointed that the way to understand the relation between genome size and cell volume was related to the skeletal theory. The nucleus of this theory is related to the cell volume, determined by an adaptation balance between advantages and disadvantages of bigger cell size, the optimization of the ratio nucleus:cytoplasm (karyoplasmatic ratio)[37][38] and the concept that larger genomes provides are more prone to the accumulation of duplicative transposons as consequences of higher content of non-coding skeletal DNA.[36] Cavalier-Smith also proposed that, as consequent reaction of a cell reduction, the nucleus will be more prone to a selection in favor for the deletion compared to the duplication.[36]
From the economic way of thinking, since phosphorus and energy are scarce, a reduction in the DNA should be always the focus of the evolution, unless a benefit is acquired. The random deletion will be then mainly deleterious and not selected due to the reduction of the gained fitness but occasionally the elimination will be advantageous as well. This trade-off between economy and accumulation of non-coding DNA is the key to the maintenance of the karyoplasmatic ratio.
Mechanisms of genome miniaturization
The base question behind the process of genome miniaturization is whether it occurs through large steps or due to a constant erosion of the gene content. In order to assess the evolution of this process is necessary to compare an ancestral genome with the one where the shrinkage is supposed to be occurred. Thanks to the similarity among the gene content of Buchnera aphidicola and the enteric bacteria Escherichia coli, 89% identity for the 16S rDNA and 62% for
In Rickettsia prowazekii, as with other small genome bacteria, this mutualistic endosymbiont has experienced a vast reduction of functional activity with a major exception compared to other parasites still retain the bio-synthetic ability of production of amino acid needed by its host.[45][46][41] The common effects of the genome shrinking between this endosymbiont and the other parasites are the reduction of the ability to produce phospholipids, repair and recombination and an overall conversion of the composition of the gene to a richer A-T[47] content due to mutation and substitutions.[20][45] Evidence of the deletion of the function of repair and recombination is the loss of the gene recA, gene involved in the recombinase pathway. This event happened during the removal of a larger region containing ten genes for a total of almost 10 kb.[41][45] Same faith occurred uvrA, uvrB and uvrC, genes encoding for excision enzymes involved in the repair of damaged DNA due to UV exposure.[39]
One of the most plausible mechanisms for the explanation of the genome shrinking is the chromosomal rearrangement because insertion/deletion of larger portion of sequence are more easily to be seen in during homologous recombination compared to the illegitimate, therefore the spread of the transposable elements will positively affect the rate of deletion.[36] The loss of those genes in the early stages of miniaturization not only this function but must played a role in the evolution of the consequent deletions. Evidences of the fact that larger event of removal occurred before smaller deletion emerged from the comparison of the genome of Bucknera and a reconstructed ancestor, where the gene that have been lost are in fact not randomly dispersed in the ancestor gene but aggregated and the negative relation between number of lost genes and length of the spacers.[39] The event of small local indels plays a marginal role on the genome reduction[48] especially in the early stages where a larger number of genes became superfluous.[49][39]
Single events instead occurred due to the lack of selection pressure for the retention of genes especially if part of a pathway that lost its function during a previous deletion. An example for this is the deletion of recF, gene required for the function of recA, and its flanking genes.
Evidence of genome miniaturization
One example of the miniaturization of the genome occurred in the microsporidia, an anaerobic intracellular parasite of arthropods evolved from aerobic fungi.
During this process the mitosomes[53] was formed consequent to the reduction of the mitochondria to a relic voided of genomes and metabolic activity except to the production of iron sulfur centers and the capacity to enter into the host cells.[54][55] Except for the ribosomes, miniaturized as well, many other organelles have been almost lost during the process of the formation of the smallest genome found in the eukaryotes.[36] From their possible ancestor, a zygomycotine fungi, the microsporidia shrunk its genome eliminating almost 1000 genes and reduced even the size of protein and protein-coding genes.[56] This extreme process was possible thanks to the advantageous selection for a smaller cell size imposed by the parasitism.
Another example of miniaturization is represented by the presence of
Nucleomorphs are characterized by one of the smallest genomes known (551 and 380 kb) and as noticed for microsporidia, some genomes are noticeable reduced in length compared to other eukaryotes due to a virtual lack of non-coding DNA.[36] The most interesting factor is represented by the coexistence of those small nuclei inside of a cell that contains another nucleus that never experienced such genome reduction. Moreover, even if the host cells have different volumes from species to species and a consequent variability in genome size, the nucleomorph remain invariant denoting a double effect of selection within the same cell.
See also
References
- ^ S2CID 221604791.
- ^ a b Hinegardner R (1976). "Evolution of genome size". In F.J. Ayala (ed.). Molecular Evolution. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland. pp. 179–199.
- PMID 15596473.
- S2CID 84409620.
- S2CID 42045008.
- ISBN 0-04-575015-7.
- S2CID 33117040.
- ^ a b Bennett MD, Leitch IJ (2005). "Genome size evolution in plants". In T.R. Gregory (ed.). The Evolution of the Genome. San Diego: Elsevier. pp. 89–162.
- ^ a b Gregory TR (2005). "Genome size evolution in animals". In T.R. Gregory (ed.). The Evolution of the Genome. San Diego: Elsevier. pp. 3–87.
- PMID 19750009.
- ^ PMID 30813969.
- PMID 16710414.
- S2CID 4355527.
- ^ "Untitled". Archived from the original on 2011-08-13. Retrieved 2012-06-13.
- ^ PMID 1715276.
- PMID 28721182.
- PMID 15693943.
- S2CID 16221415.
- PMID 18393994.
- ^ PMID 8610134.
- PMID 10331254.
- S2CID 46186732.
- ^ And the Genomes Keep Shrinking…
- PMID 16230003. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2011-07-22.
- PMID 15531157.
- PMID 8816789.
- PMID 9600883.
- PMID 8816738.
- PMID 1831267.
- S2CID 30582475.
- PMID 23874204.
- S2CID 26642634.
- PMID 13996145.
- S2CID 4166234.
- S2CID 4233826.
- ^ PMID 15596464.
- OCLC 80359142.
- S2CID 26264738.
- ^ PMID 11790257.
- PMID 9278503.
- ^ PMID 10993077.
- PMID 10486973.
- PMID 11319266.
- ^ PMID 11585665.
- ^ PMID 9823893.
- S2CID 40955247.
- PMID 10983826.
- PMID 12167373.
- PMID 12957541.
- PMID 11459983.
- PMID 11179577.
- S2CID 24144602.
- S2CID 4358253.
- S2CID 22943269.
- )
- PMID 12354558.
- PMID 11323671.
Further reading
- Evolution of Chlamydiaceae
- Andersson JO Andersson SG; Andersson (1999). "Genome degradation is an ongoing process in Rickettsia". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 16 (9): 1178–1191. PMID 10486973. Archived from the originalon 2005-04-17. Retrieved 2006-10-18.
External links
- Animal Genome Size Database
- Plant DNA C-values Database
- Fungal Genome Size Database
- Fungal Database Archived 2008-03-10 at the Wayback Machine — by CBS