- THIS ARTICLE
- Full Text
- Full Text (PDF)
- Supplemental Data
-
All Versions of this Article:
genetics.104.037689v1
169/3/1521 most recent - Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- SERVICES
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Alert me to new issues of the journal
- Download to citation manager
- Reprints & Permissions
- CITING ARTICLES
- Citing Articles via HighWire
- Citing Articles via Google Scholar
- GOOGLE SCHOLAR
- Articles by Ometto, L.
- Articles by De Lorenzo, D.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Ometto, L.
- Articles by De Lorenzo, D.
Originally published as Genetics Published Articles Ahead of Print on January 16, 2005.
Genetics, Vol. 169, 1521-1527, March 2005, Copyright © 2005
doi:10.1534/genetics.104.037689
Insertion/Deletion and Nucleotide Polymorphism Data Reveal Constraints in Drosophila melanogaster Introns and Intergenic Regions
Lino Ometto, Wolfgang Stephan and David De Lorenzo1
Section of Evolutionary Biology, Biocenter, University of Munich, D-82152 Planegg-Martinsried, Germany
1 Corresponding author: Section of Evolutionary Biology, Biocenter, University of Munich, Grosshaderner Strasse 2, D-82152 Planegg-Martinsried, Germany.
E-mail: delorenzo{at}lmu.de
Our study of nucleotide sequence and insertion/deletion polymorphism in Drosophila melanogaster noncoding DNA provides evidence for selective pressures in both intergenic regions and introns (of the large size class). Intronic and intergenic sequences show a similar polymorphic deletion bias. Insertions have smaller sizes and higher frequencies than deletions, supporting the hypothesis that insertions are selected to compensate for the loss of DNA caused by deletion bias. Analysis of a simple model of selective constraints suggests that the blocks of functional elements located in intergenic sequences are on average larger than those in introns, while the length distribution of relatively unconstrained sequences interspaced between these blocks is similar in intronic and intergenic regions.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  J. A. Anderson, Y. S. Song, and C. H. Langley Molecular Population Genetics of Drosophila Subtelomeric DNA Genetics, January 1, 2008; 178(1): 477 - 487. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. B. Dopman and D. L. Hartl A portrait of copy-number polymorphism in Drosophila melanogaster PNAS, December 11, 2007; 104(50): 19920 - 19925. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Casillas, A. Barbadilla, and C. M. Bergman Purifying Selection Maintains Highly Conserved Noncoding Sequences in Drosophila Mol. Biol. Evol., October 1, 2007; 24(10): 2222 - 2234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Brandstrom and H. Ellegren The Genomic Landscape of Short Insertion and Deletion Polymorphisms in the Chicken (Gallus gallus) Genome: A High Frequency of Deletions in Tandem Duplicates Genetics, July 1, 2007; 176(3): 1691 - 1701. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. C. Presgraves Intron Length Evolution in Drosophila Mol. Biol. Evol., November 1, 2006; 23(11): 2203 - 2213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. L. Halligan and P. D. Keightley Ubiquitous selective constraints in the Drosophila genome revealed by a genome-wide interspecies comparison Genome Res., July 1, 2006; 16(7): 875 - 884. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|