- THIS ARTICLE
- Full Text
- Full Text (PDF)
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- SERVICES
- Related articles in Genetics
- 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 Google Scholar
- GOOGLE SCHOLAR
- Articles by Papaceit, M.
- Articles by García-Dorado, A.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Papaceit, M.
- Articles by García-Dorado, A.
Genetics, Vol. 177, 511-522, September 2007, Copyright © 2007
doi:10.1534/genetics.107.076174
The Dynamics of the roo Transposable Element In Mutation-Accumulation Lines and Segregating Populations of Drosophila melanogaster
Montserrat Papaceit*,
Victoria Ávila
,
Montserrat Aguadé* and
Aurora García-Dorado
,1
* Departament de Genètica, Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Spain and
Departamento de Genética, Facultad de Biología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
1 Corresponding author: Departamento de Genética, Facultad de Biología, Universidad Complutense, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
E-mail: augardo{at}bio.ucm.es
We estimated the number of copies for the long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposable element roo in a set of long-standing Drosophila melanogaster mutation-accumulation full-sib lines and in two large laboratory populations maintained with effective population size
500, all of them derived from the same isogenic origin. Estimates were based on real-time quantitative PCR and in situ hybridization. Considering previous estimates of roo copy numbers obtained at earlier stages of the experiment, the results imply a strong acceleration of the insertion rate in the accumulation lines. The detected acceleration is consistent with a model where only one (maybe a few) of the
70 roo copies in the ancestral isogenic genome was active and each active copy caused new insertions with a relatively high rate (
10–2), with new inserts being active copies themselves. In the two laboratory populations, however, a stabilized copy number or no accelerated insertion was found. Our estimate of the average deleterious viability effects per accumulated insert [E(s) < 0.003] is too small to account for the latter finding, and we discuss the mechanisms that could contain copy number.
Related articles in Genetics:
ISSUE HIGHLIGHTS
Genetics 2007 177: NP.