Evolution 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Evolution 2012

on

  • 291 views

Hertweck and Pires presentation from Evolution 2012 in Ottawa, in the Genomics 7 session.

Hertweck and Pires presentation from Evolution 2012 in Ottawa, in the Genomics 7 session.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
291
Views on SlideShare
290
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.docshut.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Evolution 2012 Evolution 2012 Presentation Transcript

  • Assembly of repetitive DNA from genome survey sequencing: Lessons from grasses and applications to non-model systems Kate L Hertweck (NESCent) and J. Chris Pires (U of Missouri)mobilebotanicalgardens.org Sandwalk.blogspot.com
  • Genome sequencing, large genomes and evolution● Genome sequencing is becoming a routine laboratory procedure.● The first step in genome analysis is masking repetitive elements (REs), which may compromise a large portion of a genome.● Digging through everyones genomic junk sounds pretty fun!● What determines genome size? Why and how?Kate Hertweck, Repetitive DNA assembly
  • Genome sequencing, large genomes and evolution● Genome sequencing is becoming a routine laboratory procedure.● The first step in genome analysis is masking repetitive elements (REs), which may compromise a large portion of a genome.● Digging through everyones genomic junk sounds pretty fun!● What determines genome size? Why and how?● Methods in large genome de novo assembly of next-gen data are improving (Schatz et al 2010)● Sanger sequencing in Fritillaria indicates highly divergent TEs (Ambrozova et al 2011)● Low-coverage Illumina sequencing in barley identifies both genes and novel repeats (Wicker et al 2008)● Estimation of genome size and TE content in maize and relatives is accurate with very short paired-end reads (Tenaillon et al 2011)Kate Hertweck, Repetitive DNA assembly
  • Transposable elements are relevant to evolution ● Direct: TE movement can disrupt gene function ● Links between TEs and adaptation/speciation? ● Indirect: Increases in genome size ● Many historical hypotheses about relationships between genome size and life history (complexity, mean generation time, habitat/environment/climate, growth form) ● Physical-mechanical effects of nuclear size and mass ● How does TE proliferation affect plant diversification?Kate Hertweck, Repetitive DNA assembly
  • Our data ● Illumina (80-120 bp single end), 6 taxa per lane ● GSS: Genome Survey Sequences ● Assembled plastomes, mtDNA genes, and nrDNA genes from less than less than 10% of the GSS data! ● Poaceae (family of grasses, model system) ● Medium-sized genomes ● well-annotated library of repeats ● Asparagales (order of petaloid monocots, non-model system) ● Very large genomes ● discovery of novel repeatsKate Hertweck, Evolutionary effects of junk DNA Repetitive DNA assembly
  • Our data ● Illumina (80-120 bp single end), 6 taxa per lane ● GSS: Genome Survey Sequences ● Assembled plastomes, mtDNA genes, and nrDNA genes from less than less than 10% of the GSS data! ● Poaceae (family of grasses, model system) ● Medium-sized genomes ● well-annotated library of repeats ● Asparagales (order of petaloid monocots, non-model system) ● Very large genomes ● discovery of novel repeatsKate Hertweck, Evolutionary effects of junk DNA Repetitive DNA assembly
  • Methodological approaches 1. Sequence assembly: ● Ab initio repeat construction: use raw sequence reads to build pseudomolecules or ancestral sequences ● De novo sequence assembly: standard genome assembly methods, screen resulting contigs (MSR-CA)Kate Hertweck, Evolutionary effects of junk DNA Repetitive DNA assembly
  • Methodological approaches 1. Sequence assembly: ● Ab initio repeat construction: use raw sequence reads to build pseudomolecules or ancestral sequences ● De novo sequence assembly: standard genome assembly methods, screen resulting scaffolds (MSR-CA) 2. Annotation method: ● Motif searching ● Reference library: current RepBase, 3110 repeats, 98.7% are from grasses (RepeatMasker and CENSOR)Kate Hertweck, Evolutionary effects of junk DNA Repetitive DNA assembly
  • Methodological approaches 1. Sequence assembly: ● Ab initio repeat construction: use raw sequence reads to build pseudomolecules or ancestral sequences ● De novo sequence assembly: standard genome assembly methods, screen resulting scaffolds (MSR-CA) 2. Annotation method: ● Motif searching ● Reference library: current RepBase, 3110 repeats, 98.7% are from grasses (RepeatMasker and CENSOR) Class I: Retrotransposons Class II: DNA transposons LTR TIR LINE Crypton SINE Helitron ERV Maverick SVA See my iEvoBio talk about TE databasing and ontology!Kate Hertweck, Evolutionary effects of junk DNA Repetitive DNA assembly
  • TE assembly and annotation results: Poaceae Taxon Genome # reads # scaff- Repeat % % % % % % size (Mb) olds scaff- LTRs Copia Gypsy SINEs LINEs DNA olds TEs rice 389 3.8 2376 1718 72 21 48 0.2 4.4 18 sorghum 735 5.3 2248 2255 67 21 46 N/A 2.9 26 maize 2045 5.1 1324 1197 77 21 56 N/A 1.9 18Kate Hertweck, Evolutionary effects of junk DNA Repetitive DNA assembly
  • TE assembly and annotation results: Poaceae Taxon Genome # reads # scaff- Repeat % % % % % % size (Mb) olds scaff- LTRs Copia Gypsy SINEs LINEs DNA olds TEs rice 389 3.8 2376 1718 72 21 48 0.2 4.4 18 sorghum 735 5.3 2248 2255 67 21 46 N/A 2.9 26 maize 2045 5.1 1324 1197 77 21 56 N/A 1.9 18 ● Previous research: Good TE annotations and copy number estimates in all genomes ● Our results: ● Recovery of all extant superfamilies ● High sequence similarity between scaffolds and reference sequences ● Full length LINEs, SINEs, LTRs; fragmented examples of all ● Abundance estimation is problematicKate Hertweck, Evolutionary effects of junk DNA Repetitive DNA assembly
  • REs in Core Asparagales Agapanthaceae Xanthorrhoeaceae ● Reference library is highly diverged from scaffolds to be annotated (much lower sequence similarity) ● Caution in interpreting results ● Large scaffolds of some TEs ● Many small scaffolds of many TE superfamilies ● Comparisons of sister clades Asparagaceae Naturehills.com ag.arizona.eduKate Hertweck, Evolutionary effects of junk DNA Repetitive DNA assembly
  • Very large genomes in Core Asparagales Agapanthaceae Xanthorrhoeaceae Allioidae Allium 12.9 Gb 5.1 billion reads 1858 scaffolds Amaryllidoideae Scadoxus 21.6 Gb 6 billion reads Asparagaceae 1336 scaffolds other (RC, satellite, low complexity, simple repeats) % Copia LTRs % Gypsy LTRs % LINEs % DNA TEsKate Hertweck, Evolutionary effects of junk DNA Repetitive DNA assembly
  • Closely related lineages have different results Agapanthaceae Xanthorrhoeaceae Aphyllanthoideae Aphyllanthes 2.7 billion reads 436 scaffolds Agavoideae Hosta 4.7 billion reads 1084 scaffolds* Asparagaceae other (RC, satellite, low complexity, simple repeats) % Copia LTRs % Gypsy LTRs % LINEs % DNA TEsKate Hertweck, Evolutionary effects of junk DNA Repetitive DNA assembly
  • Small genomes contain variation Agapanthaceae Xanthorrhoeaceae Lomandroideae Lomandra 1.1 Gb 4.7 billion reads 1491 scaffolds Asparagoideae Asparagus 1.3 Gb 5 billion reads 1977 scaffolds Asparagaceae Nolinoideae other (RC, satellite, low complexity, simple repeats) Sansevieria % Copia LTRs 1.2 Gb % Gypsy LTRs 4.9 billion reads 835 scaffolds % LINEs % DNA TEsKate Hertweck, Evolutionary effects of junk DNA Repetitive DNA assembly
  • Example: LTR from HostaKate Hertweck, Evolutionary effects of junk DNA Repetitive DNA assembly
  • So what? ● Assembly of consensus sequences of TEs from very low coverage sequence data, even without a close reference library ● Improve annotation (and assembly) by building a library of lineage- specific TEs ● Other parameters for genomic comparisons ● Abundance estimates ● Characterize genetic diversity within each element ● Comparative biology of TEs ● Does TE proliferation contribute to diversification or shifts in rates of molecular evolution? ● Are there common patterns between TEs and life history trait evolution?Kate Hertweck, Evolutionary effects of junk DNA Repetitive DNA assembly
  • Acknowledgements J. Chris Pires lab (U of Missouri) Dustin Mayfield Pat Edger NESCent (National Evolutionary Synthesis Center) Allen Roderigo Karen Cranston www.nescent.org Twitter k8lh Google+ k8hertweck@gmail.comKate Hertweck, Evolutionary effects of junk DNA Repetitive DNA assembly
  • Asparagales results Taxon Genome #reads Total Nuclear % % % % % DNA size (Gb) (billions) scaffolds scaffolds LTRs Copia Gypsy LINEs TEs Hosta N/A 4.7 1084 601 52 6 46 0.5 4 Agapanthus 10.2 1.3 438 176 70 32 40 1.7 3 Lomandra 1.1 4.7 1491 532 68 29 39 7.9 6 Sansevieria 1.2 4.9 835 280 67 27 39 4.3 6 Asparagus 1.3 5.0 1977 646 67 35 32 0.5 10 Scadoxus 21.6 6.0 1336 493 73 24 49 0.2 4 Allium 12.9 5.1 1858 539 65 22 44 0.6 10 Ledebouria 8.6 4.1 2481 771 66 35 32 0.4 5 Haworthia 14.9 4.6 1360 481 75 30 45 0.8 3 Aphyllanthes N/A 2.7 436 248 51 24 23 1.2 10 Dichelostemma 9.1 3.9 1706 584 75 38 37 0.2 7Kate Hertweck, Evolutionary effects of junk DNA Repetitive DNA assembly