Fine scale structural variants distinguish the genomes of Drosophila melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura
© Macdonald and Long; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2006
Received: 7 March 2006
Accepted: 27 July 2006
Published: 27 July 2006
A primary objective of comparative genomics is to identify genomic elements of functional significance that contribute to phenotypic diversity. Complex changes in genome structure (insertions, duplications, rearrangements, translocations) may be widespread, and have important effects on organismal diversity. Any survey of genomic variation is incomplete without an assessment of structural changes.
We re-examine the genome sequences of the diverged species Drosophila melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura to identify fine-scale structural features that distinguish the genomes. We detect 95 large insertion/deletion events that occur within the introns of orthologous gene pairs, the majority of which represent insertion of transposable elements. We also identify 143 microinversions below 5 kb in size. These microinversions reside within introns or just upstream or downstream of genes, and invert conserved DNA sequence. The sequence conservation within microinversions suggests they may be enriched for functional genetic elements, and their position with respect to known genes implicates them in the regulation of gene expression. Although we found a distinct pattern of GC content across microinversions, this was indistinguishable from the pattern observed across blocks of conserved non-coding sequence.
Drosophila has long been known as a genus harboring a variety of large inversions that disrupt chromosome colinearity. Here we demonstrate that microinversions, many of which are below 1 kb in length, located in/near genes may also be an important source of genetic variation in Drosophila. Further examination of other Drosophila genome sequences will likely identify an array of novel microinversion events.
A major aim of comparative and population genomics is to elucidate the inter- and intraspecific genetic variation that contributes to phenotypic change. Understandably, the community has focused on the most common source of genetic variation, substitutions at the nucleotide level [1, 2]. However, any catalog of genetic variation is incomplete without an examination of other, potentially more complex, forms of sequence-level variation, for example, large insertions and deletions of DNA, rearrangements, and translocations. Such events have been shown to be important in human disease susceptibility [3, 4]. Using the tremendous genomic resources available for humans and chimpanzees, recent work has characterized the pattern of large deletions segregating within the human genome [5–8], polymorphic inversions in humans [5, 9], as well as structural genome differences between humans and chimps [9, 10].
Traditionally, species of the Drosophila genus have been an important system for examining variation in chromosome structure. This is largely due to the ability to directly observe such variation from the banding patterns of salivary gland polytene chromosomes . As a consequence of this technique it has been shown that large paracentric inversions - those that do not include the centromere - frequently segregate in Drosophila species [12, 13]. Since inversions can become fixed during evolution, they can also drive architectural differences between the genomes of diverged species. The species D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura diverged 25 to 55 million years ago , and comparative analysis of the sequenced genomes of the two species has shown radical shuffling of regions within orthologous chromosome arms, likely via a series of overlapping paracentric inversions . Similar observations have also been made in comparisons of other Drosophila species [16–18].
Most of the work on Drosophila inversions has examined those large events, much greater than a megabase in length, that disrupt chromosome colinearity and gene order. Nevertheless, very small paracentric inversions (below a few kilobases in length) that do not affect gene order may also be common in Drosophila. Indeed, Negre et al.  recently demonstrated the existence of such microinversions in the Drosophila genes labial and proboscipedia. Here, we re-examine the D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura genomes to identify fine-scale structural differences between the species. Using a gene-by-gene sliding window BLAST strategy we identify 95 large insertion/deletion events, the majority of which represent insertions of transposable elements into one of the two genomes. We also identify 143 microinversions, 77.6% of which are below 1 kb in size. Sequence conservation within the microinversion is high (74.9%), suggesting they may harbor functional elements. Since we find microinversions in introns and immediately upstream and downstream of transcribed regions, it is plausible that microinversions act as regulators of alternative splicing and gene expression. Our analyses further confirm the role of inversions as an important source of genome variation in Drosophila evolution, showing that inversions in Drosophila can act to rearrange sequences at a sub-genic level.
Results and discussion
Using the genome sequences of the two fruitfly species D. melanogaster [20, 21] and D. pseudoobscura , we identified 11,011 orthologous gene pairs. This is not inconsistent with the 10,516 orthologs identified by Richards et al. . For each orthologous pair, using a sliding-window framework we BLASTed overlapping, short 31 base-pair (bp) fragments of the D. melanogaster gene sequence against the D. pseudoobscura ortholog. Recording the details of each BLAST hit allowed fine-scale structural changes (inversions, insertion/deletion events) occurring since the separation of the D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura lineages to be identified.
The bulk of transcribed DNA sequence in Drosophila does not code for protein, and may diverge rapidly between species. As D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura are diverged by 25 to 55 million years , many transcribed regions may show generally low sequence conservation. In such cases, the power of any approach to detect fine-scale structural variation will be limited. Although a pairwise whole-genome alignment of D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura is available, just 48% of bases can be reliably aligned . Hence, to be confident that tested pairs of sequences are identical by descent, we examined only transcribed regions showing clear evidence for orthology. For analysis we retained 5,738/11,011 (52.1%) conserved orthologous gene pairs (see Materials and methods and Additional data file 1). These orthologs span 42.2 Mb of sequence in D. melanogaster, which represents 35.6% of the 118.4 Mb release 4.2.1 D. melanogaster genome sequence.
Intragenic insertion/deletion events
Distribution of fine-scale structural features across chromosome arms
Number of orthologous pairs
Harboring intragenic indels‡
All 5 major arms
Large insertion/deletion events distinguishing orthologous genomic regions can indicate the presence/absence of transposable elements (TEs) . To examine whether the indels we detect represent insertions, we used TE annotations for the D. melanogaster genome sequence [23, 24], and also compared insert sequences against Drosophila TE sequences using BLAST (see Materials and methods for details). Of the 79 indel events showing the insertion in the D. melanogaster genome, 70 (88.6%) map to an annotated TE, and 69 of these also BLAST against known Drosophila TE sequences. For those indels where the insertion is in the D. pseudoobscura genome, 6/16 (37.5%) insertion sequences BLAST to TEs. Since D. pseudoobscura TEs are less well curated than those of D. melanogaster, it is possible that some/most of the remaining ten indels with insertions in D. pseudoobscura are also TEs. Thus, the majority of the indels we identify likely represent TE insertions.
In our analysis we detect TEs indirectly, and in an unbiased fashion, via the identification of large indels. Hence, our observation that the majority of indels have the insertion in the D. melanogaster genome suggests that D. melanogaster introns harbor more TEs than D. pseudoobscura introns. This corroborates the finding of Caspi and Pachter  that most of the identifiable TEs in a four Drosophila species genome alignment are present solely in the D. melanogaster lineage, and represent recent insertions in this species. Given these results, we might suspect that the size of orthologous introns would be greater in D. melanogaster than in D. pseudoobscura. Indeed, while the lengths of orthologous introns are highly correlated between these species , there is a very slight skew towards larger introns in D. melanogaster (see supplemental Figure S1 of Richards et al. ). However, Yandell et al.  note that while some orthologous introns with highly divergent lengths in the two species may be due to TE insertions (validated by results presented here), most of the differences in the size are subtle and not easily explained by transposons.
Given our success identifying intronic microinversion events, we sought to examine those regions flanking the 5,738 conserved orthologs for microinversions that potentially disrupt upstream or downstream regulatory domains. We extended the sequence of each ortholog by 2 kb upstream and downstream in both D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura, and repeated our sliding-window BLAST procedure. In comparison with our scan of intragenic regions, an analysis of short regions flanking genes has lower power to detect microinversion events for three reasons. First, intergenic sequence is generally less conserved than transcribed intronic sequence, although this difference may be slight . Second, we only scan 2 kb regions, and thus can detect only microinversions below this size. Finally, outside of transcribed regions synteny between the two genomes can break down. Richards et al.  report that the average number of genes within a D. melanogaster-D pseudoobscura syntenic block is 10.7, or around 83 kb of sequence. Thus, the intergenic regions we compare may not always be orthologous.
We discovered 22 microinversions in the 19.7 Mb of unique intergenic sequence tested, or 1.1 events/Mb (Additional data file 4). This is proportionally far fewer inversions than we found in intragenic regions (121 microinversions were detected in 42.2 Mb of transcribed sequence, or 2.9 events/Mb), for the reasons stated above. Three of the 22 microinversions were upstream or downstream of genes also harboring an intragenic microinversion event. In total, over both of our sliding-window BLAST tests, we identify 143 unique microinversions distinguishing the genomes of D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura. These 143 events are in/near 112 different genes.
In D. melanogaster the frequency of nested genes, genes residing within introns of other genes, is around 7%, and the frequency of overlapping genes is around 15% . None of the microinversions overlap a host gene exon, but 7/143 microinversions overlap an annotated exon from a nested/overlapping gene in D. melanogaster (Additional data files 3 and 4). These seven microinversions were not identified by direct scanning of the nested/overlapping genes, presumably due to low sequence conservation of these genes between D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura. It is unclear what, if any, effect these seven microinversions may have on the ability of the orthologous D. pseudoobscura nested/overlapping genes to function correctly. To verify that the inverted sequences are single-copy in each of the tested genomes, we BLASTed the sequence of all 143 microinversions against the appropriate genome assembly. The sequences of 142/143 are single copy, while the remaining intronic inversion, CG1794_inv1, BLASTs six times to the genomes of both D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura. The inverted region in this case encompasses the cytosolic tRNA gene tRNA:met3:46A (CR30003) that resides in an intron of the Matrix metalloproteinase 2 (Mmp2) gene. We detect multiple BLAST hits for this sequence because tRNA genes are present in multiple copies throughout the fly genome.
The size of the 143 microinversions ranges from 46 bp to 4,006 bp (mean 628 bp; SD 635 bp) in D. melanogaster, and from 40 bp to 4,408 bp (mean 706 bp; SD 731 bp) in D. pseudoobscura. The difference in length between the species is due to insertion/deletion of nucleotides. There does not appear to be any strong directional change in microinversion length between the species, as the D. pseudoobscura arrangement is longer in just 86/143 (60.1%) of cases. Overall, the majority of microinversions are below 1 kb in both species (111/143, 77.6%). Using Clustalx version 1.83.1 [28, 29] we aligned each D. melanogaster inversion event sequence with the corresponding, reverse complemented D. pseudoobscura sequence. Over the 143 events, ignoring alignment gaps, the average percent nucleotide identity is 74.9% (SD 12.8%). We expect a high level of conservation for the identified microinversions, as our ability to detect them was contingent on sequence conservation. Within the D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura genome alignment, only 46% of the D. melanogaster bases are identical , and this may generally obscure the signature of historical inversion events. Thus, the 143 detectable, conserved microinversions likely represent only a fraction of the events that have occurred since the divergence of D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura. Comparing the genomes of more closely related species of Drosophila may reveal much greater numbers of microinversions.
Impact of microinversions on gene regulation
Comparative genomics seeks to identify functional elements by examining the pattern of sequence conservation across species. The rationale behind this approach is that over evolutionary time sequences will diverge, unless they are under some form of functional or selective constraint. Thus, the maintenance of sequence conservation despite inversion makes the microinversion events we describe particularly interesting, as they may be enriched for functional motifs. Since the microinversions are present both within introns and upstream of genes, this brings up the possibility that inversions might impact the regulation of splicing and gene expression. For example, shuffling transcription factor binding sites within regulatory domains could alter the ability of sets of factors to bind in a coordinated fashion, and thereby up- or down-regulate expression, or alter the timing or tissue-specificity of transcription.
We examined the position of the 143 microinversion events we identify relative to annotated regulatory regions in the D. melanogaster genome. We used two complementary resources: the DNase I footprint database is a systematically curated set of 1,362 Drosophila transcription factor binding sites [31, 32], and the REDfly database is a comprehensive collection of 628 known cis-regulatory modules (CRMs; sequences sufficient to regulate gene expression) in D. melanogaster [33, 34]. None of the DNase I footprints overlap the sequence of any D. melanogaster microinversion. However, three microinversions are present within a CRM. Microinversion CG31481_inv1, initially detected by Negre et al. , resides in intron 2 of the gene proboscipedia (pb), and is present within a 10.4 kb sequence showing enhancer activity . Microinversion CG1030_inv1, situated just 3' of the gene Sex combs reduced (Scr), is present within a 6.7 kb region exhibiting enhancer activity . Finally, the inversion CG12287_inv1 resides in intron 3 of the gene POU domain protein 2 (pdm2), and overlaps a 1.3 kb enhancer region detected and validated by Berman et al. .
Of course, we do not know whether the microinversions we identify actually have an effect on transcriptional regulation in the two species. It is possible that in the three cases we describe the microinversions have no impact on the spacing/ordering of transcription factor binding sites. This may be particularly true for the two large enhancer regions, which at 10.4 kb and 6.7 kb likely do not represent the minimal enhancer. Work on the Sox21b gene, which shows a microinversion in intron 1 (Figure 1), has demonstrated that the pattern of Sox21b embryonic expression is conserved between D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura . Thus, for this gene at a particular stage in development, the transcribed microinversion appears to be neutral with respect to expression pattern. As the community begins to understand more about binding site biology and the gene regulatory 'code', we may also be able to determine if the inversions we identify generally have a significant impact on gene regulation.
Genomic signature of microinversions
In analyzing the breakpoints between the syntenic blocks of D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura, Richards et al.  provided evidence for a D. pseudoobscura-specific breakpoint motif, which could in principle effect large inversions via ectopic exchange. The motif is virtually absent from intron sequences, and is thus unlikely to be the cause of the microinversion events we describe here. In bacteria, short (12 to 23 bp) inverted repeat elements have been shown to permit inversion of the intervening DNA segment . However, the precise mechanism by which very small inversion events occur in eukaryotes in unknown.
One possibility is that the GC content pattern we observe across microinversion breakpoints is due not to inversions per se, but instead to a change in GC content between conserved and non-conserved sequence: the microinversions we detect essentially represent conserved sequence, present in opposite orientation in the two genomes. We extracted sequence from all 774 conserved non-coding sequence blocks in the 93 genes harboring intronic microinversions (see Materials and methods for details), and subjected these to the same sliding window GC content analysis we performed for the microinversions. As shown in Figure 3, the pattern of GC content across microinversion breakpoints (top panel), and the pattern across junctions between conserved and non-conserved sequence (bottom panel), is identical. The GC content patterns across conserved Drosophila sequence are very similar to those recorded by Walter et al.  for 1,373 blocks of non-coding sequence conserved between human and Takifugu rubripes (Fugu). The fact that the pattern is maintained across vertebrate and invertebrate systems is deserving of further work.
In an attempt to distinguish microinversions from conserved blocks based on nucleotide sequence data, we investigated the frequency of all 5-mer sequence motifs across the boundaries of the events, and examined the nucleotide compositional bias at the edges of the events . Neither test clearly distinguished microinversions from conserved blocks (data not shown), suggesting that if there is a general mechanism underlying Drosophila microinversion, it is not easily discernible from primary sequence data alone.
Phylogenetic distribution of microinversion events
For nine of the events (CG6464_inv1, CG9019_inv1, CG9623_inv1, CG11354_inv1, CG12154_inv1, CG12287_inv1, CG31762_inv1, CG32139_inv1, and CG33529_inv1) the data are consistent with the inversion occurring prior to the divergence of the melanogaster group of species. For two events (CG3578_inv1 and CG3936_inv4) the inversion likely occurred prior to the divergence of the melanogaster subgroup of five species. Three microinversion events (CG2872_inv3, CG4220_inv1 and CG15455_inv1) occurred along the obscura group lineage. Finally, one event (CG4838_inv1) shows the inverted arrangement in the three species D. willistoni, D. persimilis, and D. pseudoobscura, and the standard arrangement in the remaining nine species. Three explanations are compatible with the phylogenetic distribution of CG4838_inv1. First, the same inversion may have occurred independently in the lineage leading to D. willistoni and in the lineage leading to the obscura group species. Second, the inversion may have occurred prior to the divergence of D. willistoni and the obscura group species, but re-inverted again in the lineage leading to the melanogaster group of species. Alternatively, the state of the CG4838_inv1 microinversion in D. willistoni may not be correct, and the inverted form may actually be present only in the pair of obscura group species. The latter possibility is conceivable as the current draft assembly of the D. willistoni genome has not been subject to the same scrutiny as the genomes of D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura.
Due to ascertainment bias (the microinversion must distinguish D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura) we identify only a particular subset of Drosophila microinversions. It will be extremely interesting to extend our analyses to all pairs of Drosophila species, and place identified microinversions on the Drosophila phylogeny. We predict that many more microinversions will be identified between other Drosophila species pairs, and show different phylogenetic patterns.
Finally, we note that the presence of both the standard and inverted arrangements of the 15 tested microinversions in multiple species provides independent support that microinversions are real features of Drosophila genome architecture.
Using BLAST to examine genome architecture
A widely used method to examine sequence differences between/among diverged species is to use VISTA plots of aligned sequence data . This highly informative method allows the local nucleotide conservation between species to be assessed, and VISTA plots can be generated for arbitrary regions of aligned genomes using a web-based utility . However, while the combination of genome alignment and VISTA plots has been widely employed, the approach may miss some architectural sequence features. For instance, in a VISTA plot comparing two genomes, one is marked as the reference sequence, and the plot is drawn relative to that sequence. Thus, insertions/deletions distinguishing the sequences are not easily seen. This is demonstrated in Figure 1 - in the VISTA plot, using D. melanogaster as the reference sequence, it is not possible to determine that the D. pseudoobscura Sox21b gene is expanded relative to the D. melanogaster homolog. However, our BLAST approach shows that this is the case. Also, while there are methods available to identify rearrangements during genome alignment , these are not readily presented using the VISTA plot format. Generally, examining VISTA plots of aligned sequence data may capture much of the important differences between orthologous regions of diverged species. However, some ultrastructural features of the sequences may be missed in some cases. Sliding-window BLAST-based procedures such as that presented here, or those implemented in the GATA software package , are likely to prove a worthwhile addition to the armory of those examining the causes and effects of DNA sequence differences between diverged species.
We describe the use of a sliding-window BLAST-based approach to examine micro-scale genome architectural features. We almost certainly underestimate the actual number of such events occurring since the most recent common ancestor of these species, as in general there is considerable divergence between the genomes. Nevertheless, the microinversions we identify in this survey may be a particularly interesting class as they are conserved, and reside in introns or upstream of genes, and could have regulatory effects on gene expression and alternative exon splicing. We expect that microinversions will be fairly frequent in many organisms, not only Drosophila, and may be a particularly important source of genetic variation both among species and within populations.
Materials and methods
Genome sequences and annotation
The genome sequences of D. melanogaster (release 4.2.1) and D. pseudoobscura (release 1.04), and the annotation features for D. melanogaster (in GFF v.3 format) were downloaded from FlyBase . Details of all the D. melanogaster genes were extracted from the GFF annotation files using a custom perlscript. Orthologous regions of D. pseudoobscura were identified via BLAST, using the standalone BLAST executable function blastall .
Sliding-window BLAST comparison of orthologs
Release 4.2.1 of the D. melanogaster genome harbors 13,667 annotated protein-coding genes, each represented by a unique CG identifier. We identified 11,011 D. melanogaster protein-coding genes having orthologs in D. pseudoobscura. For each D. melanogaster gene sequence we scanned through the sequence in 15 bp steps, at each step BLASTing a 31 bp query sequence against the putative D. pseudoobscura ortholog. This was accomplished using a custom perlscript calling the standalone BLAST executable function bl2seq . For each 31 bp D. melanogaster query sequence, we recorded the position, score, orientation and sequence of the best BLAST hit within the D. pseudoobscura ortholog. Only BLAST hits with scores above 45 were considered in further analyses. There were 5,738 orthologous pairs with at least two above threshold BLAST hits, and greater than 5% of the D. melanogaster gene sequence showing above threshold hits. Only these genes were retained for further analysis (Additional data file 1).
Identification of structural features
A custom script written in the freely available statistical programming language R  was applied to each of the resulting sliding-window ortholog BLAST files. Inversions were recognized as at least two consecutive, above-threshold BLAST hits, where the D. melanogaster query sequences BLAST D. pseudoobscura in reverse orientation, and the order of the hits in the two genomes is reversed (that is, the D. melanogaster query sequences A-B-C-D-E are reverse complemented in D. pseudoobscura, and in reverse order E-D-C-B-A). We placed no restriction on the distance between BLAST hits defining a microinversion to avoid identifying only small events with high levels of nucleotide conservation throughout their length. This means that the threshold of nucleotide conservation required to detect a microinversion is not a constant across the genome. Large insertion/deletion events distinguishing the two genomes were also identified. To be detected, the endpoints of the BLAST hits flanking the insertion had to be separated by greater than 1 kb, and be 10 times more distant than the endpoints flanking the deletion. Plots for all 5,738 genes were manually checked to ensure the accuracy of our automatic scripts (Additional data file 6 ). Also, since we analyzed each gene independently, and genes can overlap in the Drosophila genome , we ensured that the inversion and insertion events we describe are unique.
Testing for transposable element insertion
To test whether the large insertion/deletion events we observe are the result of TE insertion, we performed two tests. For those events where the insertion is in the D. melanogaster genome, we compared the position of each insertion with the positions of 6,013 TEs annotated in the D. melanogaster genome [23, 24]. No corresponding database exists for D. pseudoobscura. Second, using BLAST we compared each insertion sequence to a set of TE sequences identified in Drosophila. These sequences are present in the file 'D_mel_transposon_sequence_set.fasta' (version 9.4.1) available from the BDGP natural transposable element project website .
Confirmation of microinversion events
To ensure that inferred inversion events are not generally the result of genome assembly errors we designed 1 kb PCR amplicons about three of the inversion events: CG3578_inv1, CG3936_inv4, and CG32139_inv1. Products were amplified in the fly strains used for genome sequencing, that is, D. melanogaster stock number 2057 (Bloomington stock Center) or D. pseudoobscura stock number 14011-0121.94 (Tucson Drosophila species stock center). Accuracy of the genome assemblies was confirmed via dideoxy sequencing. PCR/sequencing oligos are available in Additional data file 7.
The orientation of a putatively inverted sequence in a genome assembly is likely correct if, relative to the flanking sequences, the orientation is preserved within one or more single shotgun sequencing reads. Hence, for the 54 intragenic microinversion events less than 500 bp in size in both species, we extracted the sequence of the inversion and the 100 bp flanking each breakpoint, and BLASTed against the appropriate genome shotgun trace archive database using Mega BLAST .
GC content analysis
For each breakpoint of the 143 D. melanogaster-D. pseudoobscura microinversions we extracted a contiguous segment of 220 bp (200 bp flanking the breakpoint, and 20 bp internal to the inversion) from each species. For each species, independently for each breakpoint, across all sequences we calculate GC content for all overlapping 5 bp windows.
Conserved blocks were defined on the basis of the D. melanogaster-D. pseudoobscura sliding-window BLAST procedure described above. In the microinversions we identify, the average number of above-threshold BLAST hits per 100 bp of D. melanogaster sequence is 1.6. We therefore defined a conserved block as a sequence having at least 1.6 BLAST hits per 100 bp of D. melanogaster sequence. All of these hits must be between sequences having the same orientation in the two genomes. Furthermore, the 200 bp flanking each edge of the block must be free of above-threshold BLAST hits. Finally, the conserved blocks must be at least 200 bp in length in both species, and no part of the conserved blocks or flanking sequence can be exonic. Using these rules we identified 774 blocks of non-coding sequence conserved between D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura in the 93 genes harboring intronic microinversions. To examine GC content change across the boundaries of conserved and non-conserved sequence, using the 774 blocks we performed an analysis identical to that described for the microinversion breakpoints above.
Phylogenetic distribution of microinversion events
For 15 intragenic microinversion events (CG2872_inv3, CG3578_inv1, CG3936_inv4, CG4220_inv1, CG4838_inv1, CG6464_inv1, CG9019_inv1, CG9623_inv1, CG11354_inv1, CG12154_inv1, CG12287_inv1, CG15455_inv1, CG31762_inv1, CG32139_inv1, CG33529_inv1), we identified the surrounding orthologous regions from 10 other Drosophila species using BLAST via the DroSpeGe website . For each of the 15 regions we performed the sliding-window BLAST protocol described above, testing the D. melanogaster sequence and the D. pseudoobscura sequence independently against sequence from every other species. The presence of the standard (D. melanogaster-like) or inverted (D. pseudoobscura-like) sequence arrangement was recorded in each case.
Orthologous sequences were extracted from the following assemblies: dsim_wu050602 (D. simulans), dsec_br051028 (D. sechellia), dyak_caf051213 (D. yakuba), dere_caf051209 (D. erecta), dana_caf051209 (D. ananassae), dper_br051028 (D. persimilis), dmoj_caf051209 (D. mojavensis), dwil_caf060213 (D. willistoni), dvir_caf051209 (D. virilis), and dgri_caf051209 (D. grimshawi). The D. simulans and D. yakuba assemblies were provided by the Genome Sequencing Center, Washington University . The D. erecta, D. ananassae, D. mojavensis, D. virilis, and D. grimshawi assemblies were provided by Agencourt Bioscience Corporation . The D. sechellia and D. persimilis assemblies were provided by the Broad Institute . The D. willistoni assembly was provided by the J. Craig Venter Institute .
Additional data files
The following additional data files are available with the online version of this article. Additional data file 1 is a spreadsheet providing details of all 5,738 genes that are sufficiently conserved between Drosophila melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura to be tested. The number of microinversions and insertion/deletion events detected within each gene is also indicated. Additional data file 2 is a spreadsheet giving details of all 95 insertion/deletion events. Additional data files 3 and 4 are spreadsheets giving details of all 121 microinversions detected within genes, and all 22 microinversions detected upstream and downstream of genes, respectively. Additional data file 5 is a PDF showing histograms of the distance between the microinversion breakpoints and the nearest flanking exon for the 121 intragenic microinversions. Additional data file 6 is a zipped directory holding 5,738 PDFs, each showing a sliding-window D. melanogaster-D. pseudoobscura BLAST profile for a conserved pair of orthologs . Additional data file 7 is a text file providing the sequences of the PCR/sequencing oligos used for microinversion validation.
We thank JD Gruber for help with various aspects of code development. This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grant GM 58564 to ADL.
- Altshuler D, Brooks LD, Chakravarti A, Collins FS, Daly MJ, Donnelly P, International HapMap Consortium: A haplotype map of the human genome. Nature. 2005, 437: 1299-1320. 10.1038/nature04226.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hinds DA, Stuve LL, Nilsen GB, Halperin E, Eskin E, Ballinger DG, Frazer KA, Cox DR: Whole-genome patterns of common DNA variation in three human populations. Science. 2005, 307: 1072-1079. 10.1126/science.1105436.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Botstein D, Risch N: Discovering genotypes underlying human phenotypes: past successes for mendelian disease, future approaches for complex disease. Nat Genet. 2003, 33 (Suppl): 228-237. 10.1038/ng1090.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Feuk L, Carson AR, Scherer SW: Structural variation in the human genome. Nat Rev Genet. 2006, 7: 85-97. 10.1038/nrg1767.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tuzun E, Sharp AJ, Bailey JA, Kaul R, Morrison VA, Pertz LM, Haugen E, Hayden H, Albertson D, Pinkel D, et al: Fine-scale structural variation of the human genome. Nat Genet. 2005, 37: 727-732. 10.1038/ng1562.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Conrad DF, Andrews TD, Carter NP, Hurles ME, Pritchard JK: A high-resolution survey of deletion polymorphism in the human genome. Nat Genet. 2006, 38: 75-81.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hinds DA, Kloek AP, Jen M, Chen X, Frazer KA: Common deletions and SNPs are in linkage disequilibrium in the human genome. Nat Genet. 2006, 38: 82-85.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- McCarroll SA, Hadnott TN, Perry GH, Sabeti PC, Zody MC, Barrett JC, Dallaire S, Gabriel SB, Lee C, Daly MJ, et al: Common deletion polymorphisms in the human genome. Nat Genet. 2006, 38: 86-92.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Feuk L, MacDonald JR, Tang T, Carson AR, Li M, Rao G, Khaja R, Scherer SW: Discovery of human inversion polymorphisms by comparative analysis of human and chimpanzee DNA sequence assemblies. PLoS Genet. 2005, 1: e56-10.1371/journal.pgen.0010056.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Newman TL, Tuzun E, Morrison VA, Hayden KE, Ventura M, McGrath SD, Rocchi M, Eichler EE: A genome-wide survey of structural variation between human and chimpanzee. Genome Res. 2005, 15: 1344-1356. 10.1101/gr.4338005.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Painter TS: A new method for the study of chromosome aberrations and the plotting of chromosome maps in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1934, 19: 175-188.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Sperlich D, Pfriem P: Chromosomal polymorphism in natural and experimental populations. The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila. Edited by: Ashburner M, Carson HL, Thompson JN Jr. 1986, London: Academic Press, 3c: 257-309.Google Scholar
- Powell JR: Progress and Prospects in Evolutionary Biology: The Drosophila Model. 1997, New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Russo CA, Takezaki N, Nei M: Molecular phylogeny and divergence times of drosophilid species. Mol Biol Evol. 1995, 12: 391-404.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Richards S, Liu Y, Bettencourt BR, Hradecky P, Letovsky S, Nielsen R, Thornton K, Hubisz MJ, Chen R, Meisel RP, et al: Comparative genome sequencing of Drosophila pseudoobscura: chromosomal, gene, and cis-element evolution. Genome Res. 2005, 15: 1-18. 10.1101/gr.3059305.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ranz JM, Segarra C, Ruiz A: Chromosomal homology and molecular organization of Muller's elements D and E in the Drosophila repleta species group. Genetics. 1997, 145: 281-295.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Ranz JM, Casals F, Ruiz A: How malleable is the eukaryotic genome? Extreme rate of chromosomal rearrangement in the genus Drosophila. Genome Res. 2001, 11: 230-239. 10.1101/gr.162901.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bergman CM, Pfeiffer BD, Rincon-Limas DE, Hoskins RA, Gnirke A, Mungall CJ, Wang AM, Kronmiller B, Pacleb J, Park S, et al: Assessing the impact of comparative genomic sequence data on the functional annotation of the Drosophila genome. Genome Biol. 2002, 3: RESEARCH0086-10.1186/gb-2002-3-12-research0086.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Negre B, Casillas S, Suzanne M, Sanchez-Herrero E, Akam M, Nefedov M, Barbadilla A, de Jong P, Ruiz A: Conservation of regulatory sequences and gene expression patterns in the disintegrating Drosophila Hox gene complex. Genome Res. 2005, 15: 692-700. 10.1101/gr.3468605.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Adams MD, Celniker SE, Holt RA, Evans CA, Gocayne JD, Amanatides PG, Scherer SE, Li PW, Hoskins RA, Galle RF, et al: The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster. Science. 2000, 287: 2185-2195. 10.1126/science.287.5461.2185.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Celniker SE, Wheeler DA, Kronmiller B, Carlson JW, Halpern A, Patel S, Adams M, Champe M, Dugan SP, Frise E, et al: Finishing a whole-genome shotgun: release 3 of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatic genome sequence. Genome Biol. 2002, 3: RESEARCH0079-10.1186/gb-2002-3-12-research0079.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Caspi A, Pachter L: Identification of transposable elements using multiple alignments of related genomes. Genome Res. 2006, 16: 260-270. 10.1101/gr.4361206.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- The REPET Database. [http://dynagen.ijm.jussieu.fr/repet/dmel4/index.html]
- Quesneville H, Bergman CM, Andrieu O, Autard D, Nouaud D, Ashburner M, Anxolabehere D: Combined evidence annotation of transposable elements in genome sequences. PLoS Comput Biol. 2005, 1: 166-175.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yandell M, Mungall CJ, Smith C, Prochnik S, Kaminker J, Hartzell G, Lewis S, Rubin GM: Large-scale trends in the evolution of gene structures within 11 animal genomes. PLoS Comput Biol. 2006, 2: e15-10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020015.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bergman CM, Kreitman M: Analysis of conserved noncoding DNA in Drosophila reveals similar constraints in intergenic and intronic sequences. Genome Res. 2001, 11: 1335-1345. 10.1101/gr.178701.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Misra S, Crosby MA, Mungall CJ, Matthews BB, Campbell KS, Hradecky P, Huang Y, Kaminker JS, Millburn GH, Prochnik SE, et al: Annotation of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatic genome: a systematic review. Genome Biol. 2002, 3: RESEARCH0083-10.1186/gb-2002-3-12-research0083.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Clustalx for Mac OS X. [http://www.embl.de/~chenna/clustal/darwin/]
- Chenna R, Sugawara H, Koike T, Lopez R, Gibson TJ, Higgins DG, Thompson JD: Multiple sequence alignment with the Clustal series of programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003, 31: 3497-3500. 10.1093/nar/gkg500.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Haddrill PR, Charlesworth B, Halligan DL, Andolfatto P: Patterns of intron sequence evolution in Drosophila are dependent upon length and GC content. Genome Biol. 2005, 6: R67-10.1186/gb-2005-6-8-r67.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- The Drosophila DNase I Footprint Database. [http://www.flyreg.org]
- Bergman CM, Carlson JW, Celniker SE: Drosophila DNase I footprint database: a systematic genome annotation of transcription factor binding sites in the fruitfly, Drosophila melanogaster. Bioinformatics. 2005, 21: 1747-1749. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti173.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- The REDfly Database. [http://redfly.ccr.buffalo.edu]
- Gallo SM, Li L, Hu Z, Halfon MS: REDfly: a regulatory element database for Drosophila. Bioinformatics. 2006, 22: 381-383. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti794.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kapoun AM, Kaufman TC: A functional analysis of 5', intronic and promoter regions of the homeotic gene proboscipedia in Drosophila melanogaster. Development. 1995, 121: 2127-2141.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gindhart JG, King AN, Kaufman TC: Characterization of the cis-regulatory region of the Drosophila homeotic gene Sex combs reduced. Genetics. 1995, 139: 781-795.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Berman BP, Pfeiffer BD, Laverty TR, Salzberg SL, Rubin GM, Eisen MB, Celniker SE: Computational identification of developmental enhancers: conservation and function of transcription factor binding-site clusters in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genome Biol. 2004, 5: R61-10.1186/gb-2004-5-9-r61.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- McKimmie C, Woerfel G, Russell S: Conserved genomic organisation of Group B Sox genes in insects. BMC Genet. 2005, 6: 26-10.1186/1471-2156-6-26.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schofield MA, Agbunag R, Miller JH: DNA inversions between short inverted repeats in Escherichia coli. Genetics. 1992, 132: 295-302.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Walter K, Abnizova I, Elgar G, Gilks WR: Striking nucleotide frequency pattern at the borders of highly conserved vertebrate non-coding sequences. Trends Genet. 2005, 21: 436-440. 10.1016/j.tig.2005.06.003.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Crooks GE, Hon G, Chandonia JM, Brenner SE: WebLogo: a sequence logo generator. Genome Res. 2004, 14: 1188-1190. 10.1101/gr.849004.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Project to Sequence 12 Drosophila Genomes. [http://rana.lbl.gov/drosophila]
- Mayor C, Brudno M, Schwartz JR, Poliakov A, Rubin EM, Frazer KA, Pachter LS, Dubchak I: VISTA: visualizing global DNA sequence alignments of arbitrary length. Bioinformatics. 2000, 16: 1046-1047. 10.1093/bioinformatics/16.11.1046.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- VISTA Plot Web-based Genome-alignment Viewer. [http://genome.lbl.gov/vista/index.shtml]
- Brudno M, Malde S, Poliakov A, Do CB, Couronne O, Dubchak I, Batzoglou S: Glocal alignment: finding rearrangements during alignment. Bioinformatics. 2003, 19 (Suppl 1): i54-62. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg1005.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nix DA, Eisen MB: GATA: a graphic alignment tool for comparative sequence analysis. BMC Bioinformatics. 2005, 6: 9-10.1186/1471-2105-6-9.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- FlyBase Drosophila Genome Annotation. [http://www.flybase.org/annot/]
- NCBI Standalone BLAST. [ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/blast/executables/]
- The R Project for Statistical Computing. [http://www.R-project.org]
- Additional Data File 6. [http://hjmuller.bio.uci.edu/~smacdonald/add_data_file_6_plots.zip]
- BDGP: Natural Transposable Element Project. [http://www.fruitfly.org/p_disrupt/TE.html]
- Mega BLAST Against Archive of Shotgun Genome Sequence Traces. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/mmtrace.shtml]
- BLAST Against Drosophila Genome Assemblies. [http://insects.eugenes.org/species/]
- Genome Sequencing Center, Washington University. [http://genome.wustl.edu/]
- Agencourt Bioscience Corporation. [http://www.agencourt.com/]
- Broad Institute. [http://www.broad.mit.edu/]
- J. Craig Venter Institute. [http://www.venterinstitute.org/]
- Ashburner M, Golic KG, Hawley RS: Drosophila: A Laboratory Handbook. 2005, Cold Spring Harbor, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory PressGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.