A unique cluster of roo insertions in the promoter region of a stress response gene in Drosophila melanogaster

Two-step CRISPR-Cas9 protocol for transposable element deletion in D. melanogaster natural populations

We present a protocol for generating a precise deletion, without altering the genetic background of the strain, of a transposable element (TE) in a natural population of Drosophila melanogaster using two steps of CRISPR-Cas9 homology-directed repair. We describe steps for replacing the TE by a fluorescent marker and for subsequent marker removal using single-guide RNAs, repair plasmids, and microinjection. We also detail steps for screening the deletion of the TE and generating a homozygous mutant strain. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Merenciano and Gonzalez.1.

Taming, Domestication and Exaptation: Trajectories of Transposable Elements in Genomes

During evolution, several types of sequences pass through genomes. Along with mutations and internal genetic tinkering, they are a useful source of genetic variability for adaptation and evolution. Most of these sequences are acquired by horizontal transfers (HT), but some of them may come from the genomes themselves. If they are not lost or eliminated quickly, they can be tamed, domesticated, or even exapted. Each of these processes results from a series of events, depending on the interactions between these sequences and the host genomes, but also on environmental constraints, through their impact on individuals or population fitness. After a brief reminder of the characteristics of each of these states (taming, domestication, exaptation), the evolutionary trajectories of these new or acquired sequences will be presented and discussed, emphasizing that they are not totally independent insofar as the first can constitute a step towards the second, and the second is another step towards the third.

Oxidative and radiation stress induces transposable element transcription in Drosophila melanogaster

It has been shown that stressors are capable of activating transposable elements (TEs). Currently, there is a hypothesis that stress activation of TEs may be involved in adaptive evolution, favouring the increase in genetic variability when the population is under adverse conditions. However, TE activation under stress is still poorly understood. In the present study, we estimated the fraction of differentially expressed TEs (DETEs) under ionizing radiation (144, 360 and 864 Gy) and oxidative stress (dioxin, formaldehyde and toluene) treatments. The stress intensity of each treatment was estimated by measuring the number of differentially expressed genes, and we show that several TEs families are activated by stress whereas others are repressed. The proportion of DETEs was positively related to stress intensity. However, even under the strongest stress, only a small fraction of TE families were activated (9.28%) and 17.72% were repressed. Considering all treatments together, the activated proportion was 19.83%. Nevertheless, as several TEs are incomplete or degenerated, only 10.55% of D. melanogaster mobilome is, at same time, activated by the stressors and able to transpose or at least code a protein. Thus, our study points out that although stress activates TEs, it is not a generalized activation process, and for some families, the stress induces repression.

Different structural variants of roo retrotransposon are active in Drosophila melanogaster

Retrotransposon roo is one of the most active elements in Drosophila melanogaster. The level of nucleotide diversity between copies of roo is very low but structural variation in the 5'-UTR is considerable. Transposition of roo at high frequency (around 5 × 10^-2 per generation) has been shown previously in the set of mutation accumulation lines named Oviedo. Here we isolated thirteen individual insertions by inverse PCR and sequenced the 5' end of the elements (between 1663 and 2039 nt) including the LTR, the 5'-UTR and a fragment of 661 nucleotides from the ORF, to study whether the new transposed copies come from a unique variant (the master copy model) or different elements are able to move (the transposon model). The elements in the Oviedo lines presented the same structural variants as the reference genome. Different structural variants were active, a behaviour compatible with the "transposon model" in which the copies localized in multiple sites in the genome are able to transpose. At the level of sequence, the copies of roo in our lines are highly similar to the elements in the reference genome. The phylogenetic tree shows a shallow diversification with unsupported nodes denoting that all the elements currently active are very young. This observation together with the great polymorphism in insertion sites implies a rapid turnover of the elements.

A benchmark of transposon insertion detection tools using real data

Background

Transposable elements (TEs) are an important source of genomic variability in eukaryotic genomes. Their activity impacts genome architecture and gene expression and can lead to drastic phenotypic changes. Therefore, identifying TE polymorphisms is key to better understand the link between genotype and phenotype. However, most genotype-to-phenotype analyses have concentrated on single nucleotide polymorphisms as they are easier to reliable detect using short-read data. Many bioinformatic tools have been developed to identify transposon insertions from resequencing data using short reads. Nevertheless, the performance of most of these tools has been tested using simulated insertions, which do not accurately reproduce the complexity of natural insertions.

Results

We have overcome this limitation by building a dataset of insertions from the comparison of two high-quality rice genomes, followed by extensive manual curation. This dataset contains validated insertions of two very different types of TEs, LTR-retrotransposons and MITEs. Using this dataset, we have benchmarked the sensitivity and precision of 12 commonly used tools, and our results suggest that in general their sensitivity was previously overestimated when using simulated data. Our results also show that, increasing coverage leads to a better sensitivity but with a cost in precision. Moreover, we found important differences in tool performance, with some tools performing better on a specific type of TEs. We have also used two sets of experimentally validated insertions in Drosophila and humans and show that this trend is maintained in genomes of different size and complexity.

Conclusions

We discuss the possible choice of tools depending on the goals of the study and show that the appropriate combination of tools could be an option for most approaches, increasing the sensitivity while maintaining a good precision.