1999
DOI: 10.1016/s0168-9525(99)01711-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Revising the selfish DNA hypothesis: new evidence on accumulation of transposable elements in heterochromatin

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
87
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 122 publications
(89 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
2
87
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The chromosomal distribution of the young copies in D. yakuba are found in both the euchromatin and the heterochromatin, while older copies, in both species, are found predominantly in the heterochromatin. Our results therefore exclude the possibility that the biased distribution of TEs in the DMG is due to targeted insertion of TEs into the pericentromeric heterochromatin, as was suggested by Dimitri and Junakovic (1999). Our result is consistent with the view that TEs persist in the genome due to a balance between natural selection against their deleterious effect on host fitness and their ability to replicate by transposition (Charlesworth and Langley 1989).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The chromosomal distribution of the young copies in D. yakuba are found in both the euchromatin and the heterochromatin, while older copies, in both species, are found predominantly in the heterochromatin. Our results therefore exclude the possibility that the biased distribution of TEs in the DMG is due to targeted insertion of TEs into the pericentromeric heterochromatin, as was suggested by Dimitri and Junakovic (1999). Our result is consistent with the view that TEs persist in the genome due to a balance between natural selection against their deleterious effect on host fitness and their ability to replicate by transposition (Charlesworth and Langley 1989).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…However, the mechanism causing the observed TE distribution pattern is not yet known conclusively. Two alternative hypotheses can explain this pattern: (1) biased insertion of TEs into heterochromatic regions (Dimitri and Junakovic 1999) or (2) lack of recombination in the heterochromatic regions slowing down the process of eliminating deleterious TEs. Previous studies (Charlesworth et al 1994;Biemont et al 1997;Bartolome et al 2002;Lerat et al 2003) based on multiple families of TEs that have a relatively low copy number (10-100 copies/genome) have limited resolution in distinguishing these two hypotheses due to the fact that different TEs may have invaded into the host genome at different times and have experienced different evolutionary dynamics.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These authors describe this phenomenon as dosedependent and as a potentially critical factor for anomalies, which would be relevant in speciation processes. Heterochromatin may also harbor transposable elements (Dimitri & Junakovic, 1999) and meiotic mobility factors (Lyttle, 1993) that could potentially play a significant role in speciation, by reducing the meiotic ability in hybrids and acting as a fertility barrier (Shaw, 1994;Dimitri & Junakovic, 1999). Redi (2001) also suggests that heterochromatin would be involved in speciation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In theory, this distribution can be partially explained by increased survival in heterochromatic, compared with euchromatic, genomic locations, as a direct consequence of the differing density of genes in the two types of chromatin. However, experiments in D. melanogaster have provided no support for the hypothesis that the primary reason for accumulation of TEs in heterochromatin is selection against TEs inserted into euchromatin, either directly at insertion sites or indirectly through ectopic recombination (Dimitri and Junakovic 1999). In contrast, there is evidence for specific targeting of some heterochromatic regions.…”
Section: Nonrandom Distributions and Genome Partitioningmentioning
confidence: 98%