Genome-scale patterns in the loss of heterozygosity incidence in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
centromere
chromosome arm
environmental stress
heterozygosity
mitosis
rate of LOH
starvation
telomere
Journal
Genetics
ISSN: 1943-2631
Titre abrégé: Genetics
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0374636
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 05 2022
05 05 2022
Historique:
received:
13
12
2021
accepted:
17
02
2022
pubmed:
26
2
2022
medline:
10
5
2022
entrez:
25
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Former studies have established that loss of heterozygosity can be a key driver of sequence evolution in unicellular eukaryotes and tissues of metazoans. However, little is known about whether the distribution of loss of heterozygosity events is largely random or forms discernible patterns across genomes. To initiate our experiments, we introduced selectable markers to both arms of all chromosomes of the budding yeast. Subsequent extensive assays, repeated over several genetic backgrounds and environments, provided a wealth of information on the genetic and environmental determinants of loss of heterozygosity. Three findings stand out. First, the number of loss of heterozygosity events per unit time was more than 25 times higher for growing than starving cells. Second, loss of heterozygosity was most frequent when regions of homology around a recombination site were identical, about a half-% sequence divergence was sufficient to reduce its incidence. Finally, the density of loss of heterozygosity events was highly dependent on the genome's physical architecture. It was several-fold higher on short chromosomal arms than on long ones. Comparably large differences were seen within a single arm where regions close to a centromere were visibly less affected than regions close, though usually not strictly adjacent, to a telomere. We suggest that the observed uneven distribution of loss of heterozygosity events could have been caused not only by an uneven density of initial DNA damages. Location-depended differences in the mode of DNA repair, or its effect on fitness, were likely to operate as well.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35212738
pii: 6536968
doi: 10.1093/genetics/iyac032
pmc: PMC9071580
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Genetics Society of America.
Références
Mol Biol Evol. 2019 Dec 1;36(12):2861-2877
pubmed: 31397846
Bioessays. 2006 Jul;28(7):696-708
pubmed: 16929561
Nat Commun. 2020 Jan 30;11(1):588
pubmed: 32001709
J Evol Biol. 2003 May;16(3):429-37
pubmed: 14635842
Elife. 2021 Jun 23;10:
pubmed: 34159898
FEMS Yeast Res. 2009 Dec;9(8):1217-25
pubmed: 19840116
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 24;8(7):e66414
pubmed: 23894280
Nucleic Acids Res. 2007 Jan;35(Database issue):D80-7
pubmed: 17175540
Nature. 2020 Jun;582(7810):124-128
pubmed: 32494071
Nat Methods. 2015 Apr;12(4):357-60
pubmed: 25751142
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Nov 10;117(45):28191-28200
pubmed: 33106417
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Oct 6;117(40):24947-24956
pubmed: 32968016
Mutat Res. 2001 Jan 25;473(1):101-7
pubmed: 11166029
Genetics. 1985 Jul;110(3):381-95
pubmed: 3894160
Mol Biol Evol. 2008 Feb;25(2):310-8
pubmed: 18032404
Methods Enzymol. 2006;409:195-213
pubmed: 16793403
PLoS Genet. 2016 Feb 01;12(2):e1005781
pubmed: 26828862
Nature. 2008 Jul 24;454(7203):479-85
pubmed: 18615017
G3 (Bethesda). 2020 Sep 2;10(9):3309-3319
pubmed: 32727920
G3 (Bethesda). 2014 Feb 19;4(2):315-23
pubmed: 24347627
Genes Dev. 2011 Feb 15;25(4):336-49
pubmed: 21289062
Nat Protoc. 2012 Mar 01;7(3):562-78
pubmed: 22383036
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1999 Jun;63(2):349-404
pubmed: 10357855
PLoS Genet. 2011 May;7(5):e1002089
pubmed: 21637792
Nature. 2020 Feb;578(7793):82-93
pubmed: 32025007
PLoS Genet. 2013 Apr;9(4):e1003434
pubmed: 23593029
Curr Genet. 2009 Jun;55(3):245-51
pubmed: 19305999
Trends Genet. 2011 Nov;27(11):446-53
pubmed: 21872963
Genetics. 2001 Dec;159(4):1501-9
pubmed: 11779792
Heredity (Edinb). 2014 Oct;113(4):316-26
pubmed: 24690755
Curr Biol. 2021 Feb 22;31(4):R180-R181
pubmed: 33621502
PLoS Biol. 2016 Jan 13;14(1):e1002355
pubmed: 26761240
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2014;781:37-48
pubmed: 24277294
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 2;109(40):E2683-90
pubmed: 22949655
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1971 Apr;68(4):820-3
pubmed: 5279523
Genome. 2016 Apr;59(4):231-42
pubmed: 26967146
Genetics. 2014 Nov;198(3):795-835
pubmed: 25381364
Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1672:421-438
pubmed: 29043640
Bioinformatics. 2010 Jan 1;26(1):139-40
pubmed: 19910308
Genetics. 2006 Oct;174(2):839-50
pubmed: 16951060
Nature. 2018 Apr;556(7701):339-344
pubmed: 29643504
Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2021 Dec;71:78-85
pubmed: 34311384
Yeast. 2021 Jan;38(1):5-11
pubmed: 33197073
EMBO J. 2002 Feb 1;21(3):195-201
pubmed: 11823412
Genetics. 2015 Nov;201(3):963-75
pubmed: 26400613
EMBO J. 2021 May 17;40(10):e104847
pubmed: 33844333
Yeast. 2000 Jun 15;16(8):731-54
pubmed: 10861900
G3 (Bethesda). 2016 Aug 09;6(8):2421-34
pubmed: 27317778
Yeast. 1994 Dec;10(12):1543-52
pubmed: 7725789
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 Aug 15;88(16):7160-4
pubmed: 1831267
Cell Cycle. 2015;14(21):3475-87
pubmed: 26566866
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2015 Nov;39(6):917-67
pubmed: 26109598
G3 (Bethesda). 2017 Nov 6;7(11):3669-3679
pubmed: 28916648
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 May 7;116(19):9491-9500
pubmed: 31019089
Nature. 2021 Feb;590(7847):655-659
pubmed: 33473214
Genetics. 1993 May;134(1):175-88
pubmed: 8514126
Genetics. 2008 Jul;179(3):1179-95
pubmed: 18562670
Genetics. 2019 Oct;213(2):665-683
pubmed: 31371407
PLoS Genet. 2011 Apr;7(4):e1002057
pubmed: 21552543