Diversity of transposable elements and repeats in a 600 kb region of the fly Calliphora vicina

The genomes of a monogenic fly: views of primitive sex chromosomes

The production of male and female offspring is often determined by the presence of specific sex chromosomes which control sex-specific expression, and sex chromosomes evolve through reduced recombination and specialized gene content. Here we present the genomes of Chrysomya rufifacies, a monogenic blow fly (females produce female or male offspring, exclusively) by separately sequencing and assembling each type of female and the male. The genomes (> 25X coverage) do not appear to have any sex-linked Muller F elements (typical for many Diptera) and exhibit little differentiation between groups supporting the morphological assessments of C. rufifacies homomorphic chromosomes. Males in this species are associated with a unimodal coverage distribution while females exhibit bimodal coverage distributions, suggesting a potential difference in genomic architecture. The presence of the individual-sex draft genomes herein provides new clues regarding the origination and evolution of the diverse sex-determining mechanisms observed within Diptera. Additional genomic analysis of sex chromosomes and sex-determining genes of other blow flies will allow a refined evolutionary understanding of how flies with a typical X/Y heterogametic amphogeny (male and female offspring in similar ratios) sex determination systems evolved into one with a dominant factor that results in single sex progeny in a chromosomally monomorphic system.

Structure encoding in DNA

It is proposed that transposons and related long non-coding RNA define the fine structure of body parts. Although morphogens have long been known to direct the formation of many gross structures in early embryonic development, they do not have the necessary precision to define a structure down to the individual cellular level. Using the distinction between procedural and declarative knowledge in information processing as an analogy, it is hypothesized that DNA encodes fine structure in a manner that is different from the genetic code for proteins. The hypothesis states that repeated or near-repeated sequences that are in transposons and non-coding RNA define body part structures. As the cells in a body part go through the epigenetic process of differentiation, the action of methylation serves to inactivate all but the relevant structure definitions and some associated cell type genes. The transposons left active will then physically modify the DNA sequence in the heterochromatin to establish the local context in the three-dimensional body part structure. This brings the encoded definition of the cell type to the histone. The histone code for that cell type starts the regulatory cascade that turns on the genes associated with that particular type of cell, transforming it from a multipotent cell to a fully differentiated cell. This mechanism creates structures in the musculoskeletal system, the organs of the body, the major parts of the brain, and other systems.

Helitrons, the Eukaryotic Rolling-circle Transposable Elements

Helitrons, the eukaryotic rolling-circle transposable elements, are widespread but most prevalent among plant and animal genomes. Recent studies have identified three additional coding and structural variants of Helitrons called Helentrons, Proto-Helentron, and Helitron2. Helitrons and Helentrons make up a substantial fraction of many genomes where nonautonomous elements frequently outnumber the putative autonomous partner. This includes the previously ambiguously classified DINE-1-like repeats, which are highly abundant in Drosophila and many other animal genomes. The purpose of this review is to summarize what we have learned about Helitrons in the decade since their discovery. First, we describe the history of autonomous Helitrons, and their variants. Second, we explain the common coding features and difference in structure of canonical Helitrons versus the endonuclease-encoding Helentrons. Third, we review how Helitrons and Helentrons are classified and discuss why the system used for other transposable element families is not applicable. We also touch upon how genome-wide identification of candidate Helitrons is carried out and how to validate candidate Helitrons. We then shift our focus to a model of transposition and the report of an excision event. We discuss the different proposed models for the mechanism of gene capture. Finally, we will talk about where Helitrons are found, including discussions of vertical versus horizontal transfer, the propensity of Helitrons and Helentrons to capture and shuffle genes and how they impact the genome. We will end the review with a summary of open questions concerning the biology of this intriguing group of transposable elements.

The achaete-scute complex in Diptera: patterns of noncoding sequence evolution

The achaete‐scute complex (AS‐C) has been a useful paradigm for the study of pattern formation and its evolution. achaete‐scute genes have duplicated and evolved distinct expression patterns during the evolution of cyclorraphous Diptera. Are the expression patterns in different species driven by conserved regulatory elements? If so, when did such regulatory elements arise? Here, we have sequenced most of the AS‐C of the fly Calliphora vicina (including the genes achaete, scute and lethal of scute) to compare noncoding sequences with known cis‐regulatory sequences in Drosophila. The organization of the complex is conserved with respect to Drosophila species. There are numerous small stretches of conserved noncoding sequence that, in spite of high sequence turnover, display binding sites for known transcription factors. Synteny of the blocks of conserved noncoding sequences is maintained suggesting not only conservation of the position of regulatory elements but also an origin prior to the divergence between these two species. We propose that some of these enhancers originated by duplication with their target genes.

DINE-1, the highest copy number repeats in Drosophila melanogaster are non-autonomous endonuclease-encoding rolling-circle transposable elements (Helentrons)

Background

The Drosophila INterspersed Elements-1 (DINE-1/INE1) transposable elements (TEs) are the most abundant component of the Drosophila melanogaster genome and have been associated with functional gene duplications. DINE-1 TEs do not encode any proteins (non-autonomous) thus are moved by autonomous partners. The identity of the autonomous partners has been a mystery. They have been allied to Helitrons (rolling-circle transposons), MITEs (DNA transposons), and non-LTR retrotransposons by different authors.

Results

We report multiple lines of bioinformatic evidence that illustrate the relationship of DINE-1 like TEs to endonuclease-encoding rolling-circle TEs (Helentrons). The structural features of Helentrons are described, which resemble the organization of the non-autonomous partners, but differ significantly from canonical Helitrons. In addition to the presence of an endonuclease domain fused to the Rep/Helicase protein, Helentrons have distinct structural features. Evidence is presented that illustrates that Helentrons are widely distributed in invertebrate, fish, and fungal genomes. We describe an intermediate family from the Phytophthora infestans genome that phylogenetically groups with Helentrons but that displays Helitron structure. In addition, evidence is presented that Helentrons can capture gene fragments in a pattern reminiscent of canonical Helitrons.

Conclusions

We illustrate the relationship of DINE-1 and related TE families to autonomous partners, the Helentrons. These findings will allow their proper classification and enable a more accurate understanding of the contribution of rolling-circle transposition to the birth of new genes, gene networks, and genome composition.