1,073 research outputs found
The rise and fall of breakpoint reuse depending on genome resolution
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>During evolution, large-scale genome rearrangements of chromosomes shuffle the order of homologous genome sequences ("synteny blocks") across species. Some years ago, a controversy erupted in genome rearrangement studies over whether rearrangements recur, causing breakpoints to be reused.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We investigate this controversial issue using the synteny block's for human-mouse-rat reported by Bourque <it>et al</it>. and a series of synteny blocks we generated using Mauve at resolutions ranging from coarse to very fine-scale. We conducted analyses to test how resolution affects the traditional measure of the breakpoint reuse rate<it>.</it></p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that the inversion-based breakpoint reuse rate is low at fine-scale synteny block resolution and that it rises and eventually falls as synteny block resolution decreases. By analyzing the cycle structure of the breakpoint graph of human-mouse-rat synteny blocks for human-mouse and comparing with theoretically derived distributions for random genome rearrangements, we showed that the implied genome rearrangements at each level of resolution become more “random” as synteny block resolution diminishes. At highest synteny block resolutions the Hannenhalli-Pevzner inversion distance deviates from the Double Cut and Join distance, possibly due to small-scale transpositions or simply due to inclusion of erroneous synteny blocks. At synteny block resolutions as coarse as the Bourque <it>et al</it>. blocks, we show the breakpoint graph cycle structure has already converged to the pattern expected for a random distribution of synteny blocks.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The inferred breakpoint reuse rate depends on synteny block resolution in human-mouse genome comparisons. At fine-scale resolution, the cycle structure for the transformation appears less random compared to that for coarse resolution. Small synteny blocks may contain critical information for accurate reconstruction of genome rearrangement history and parameters.</p
On the Inversion-Indel Distance
Willing E, Zaccaria S, Dias Vieira Braga M, Stoye J. On the Inversion-Indel Distance. BMC Bioinformatics. 2013;14(Suppl 15: Proc. of RECOMB-CG 2013): S3.Background
The inversion distance, that is the distance between two unichromosomal genomes with the same content allowing only inversions of DNA segments, can be computed thanks to a pioneering approach of Hannenhalli and Pevzner in 1995. In 2000, El-Mabrouk extended the inversion model to allow the comparison of unichromosomal genomes with unequal contents, thus insertions and deletions of DNA segments besides inversions. However, an exact algorithm was presented only for the case in which we have insertions alone and no deletion (or vice versa), while a heuristic was provided for the symmetric case, that allows both insertions and deletions and is called the inversion-indel distance. In 2005, Yancopoulos, Attie and Friedberg started a new branch of research by introducing the generic double cut and join (DCJ) operation, that can represent several genome rearrangements (including inversions). Among others, the DCJ model gave rise to two important results. First, it has been shown that the inversion distance can be computed in a simpler way with the help of the DCJ operation. Second, the DCJ operation originated the DCJ-indel distance, that allows the comparison of genomes with unequal contents, considering DCJ, insertions and deletions, and can be computed in linear time.
Results
In the present work we put these two results together to solve an open problem, showing that, when the graph that represents the relation between the two compared genomes has no bad components, the inversion-indel distance is equal to the DCJ-indel distance. We also give a lower and an upper bound for the inversion-indel distance in the presence of bad components
A Unifying Model of Genome Evolution Under Parsimony
We present a data structure called a history graph that offers a practical
basis for the analysis of genome evolution. It conceptually simplifies the
study of parsimonious evolutionary histories by representing both substitutions
and double cut and join (DCJ) rearrangements in the presence of duplications.
The problem of constructing parsimonious history graphs thus subsumes related
maximum parsimony problems in the fields of phylogenetic reconstruction and
genome rearrangement. We show that tractable functions can be used to define
upper and lower bounds on the minimum number of substitutions and DCJ
rearrangements needed to explain any history graph. These bounds become tight
for a special type of unambiguous history graph called an ancestral variation
graph (AVG), which constrains in its combinatorial structure the number of
operations required. We finally demonstrate that for a given history graph ,
a finite set of AVGs describe all parsimonious interpretations of , and this
set can be explored with a few sampling moves.Comment: 52 pages, 24 figure
- …