| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Genetics, Vol. 172, 2529-2540, April 2006, Copyright © 2006
doi:10.1534/genetics.106.055772
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,1


,**
,2
* Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics,
Department of Plant Biology,
Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research and ** U.S. Department of AgricultureAgricultural Research Service, Plant, Soil, and Nutrition Lab, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853 and
Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, People's Republic of China
2 Corresponding author: Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, 248 Emerson Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
E-mail: sdt4{at}cornell.edu
90% of the estimated 38,000 nontransposon genes that compose the tomato genome. Moreover, euchromatic BACs were largely devoid of transposons or other repetitive elements. In contrast, BACs assigned to the pericentromeric heterochromatin had a gene density 10100 times lower than that of the euchromatin and are heavily populated by retrotransposons preferential to the heterochromatinthe most abundant transposons belonging to the Jinling Ty3/gypsy-like retrotransposon family. Jinling elements are highly methylated and rarely transcribed. Nonetheless, they have spread throughout the pericentromeric heterochromatin in tomato and wild tomato species fairly recentlywell after tomato diverged from potato and other related solanaceous species. The implications of these findings on evolution and on sequencing the genomes of tomato and other solanaceous species are discussed.
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |