Differential distribution of a SINE element in the Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar genomes: role of the LINE-encoded endonuclease

Kumari, Vandana ; Sharma, Rahul ; Yadav, Vijay P. ; Gupta, Abhishek K. ; Bhattacharya, Alok ; Bhattacharya, Sudha (2011) Differential distribution of a SINE element in the Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar genomes: role of the LINE-encoded endonuclease BMC Genomics, 12 . 267_1-267_12. ISSN 1471-2164

[img]
Preview
PDF - Publisher Version
1MB

Official URL: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/12/267

Related URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-267

Abstract

Background: Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar are closely related protistan parasites but while E. histolytica can be invasive, E. dispar is completely non pathogenic. Transposable elements constitute a significant portion of the genome in these species; there being three families of LINEs and SINEs. These elements can profoundly influence the expression of neighboring genes. Thus their genomic location can have important phenotypic consequences. A genome-wide comparison of the location of these elements in the E. histolytica and E. dispar genomes has not been carried out. It is also not known whether the retrotransposition machinery works similarly in both species. The present study was undertaken to address these issues. Results: Here we extracted all genomic occurrences of full-length copies of EhSINE1 in the E. histolytica genome and matched them with the homologous regions in E. dispar, and vice versa, wherever it was possible to establish synteny. We found that only about 20% of syntenic sites were occupied by SINE1 in both species. We checked whether the different genomic location in the two species was due to differences in the activity of the LINE-encoded endonuclease which is required for nicking the target site. We found that the endonucleases of both species were essentially very similar, both in their kinetic properties and in their substrate sequence specificity. Hence the differential distribution of SINEs in these species is not likely to be influenced by the endonuclease. Further we found that the physical properties of the DNA sequences adjoining the insertion sites were similar in both species. Conclusions: Our data shows that the basic retrotransposition machinery is conserved in these sibling species. SINEs may indeed have occupied all of the insertion sites in the genome of the common ancestor of E. histolytica and E. dispar but these may have been subsequently lost from some locations. Alternatively, SINE expansion took place after the divergence of the two species. The absence of SINE1 in 80% of syntenic loci could affect the phenotype of the two species, including their pathogenic properties, which needs to be explored.

Item Type:Article
Source:Copyright of this article belongs to BioMed Central.
ID Code:89139
Deposited On:30 Mar 2012 10:24
Last Modified:19 May 2016 03:46

Repository Staff Only: item control page