Display options
Cite
Moolhuijzen PM, Lew-Tabor AE, Morgan JA, et al. The complexity of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus genome characterised through detailed analysis of two BAC clones. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:254doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-254.
Moolhuijzen, P. M., Lew-Tabor, A. E., Morgan, J. A., Valle, M. R., Peterson, D. G., Dowd, S. E., Guerrero, F. D., Bellgard, M. I., & Appels, R. (2011). The complexity of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus genome characterised through detailed analysis of two BAC clones. BMC research notes, 4254. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-254
Moolhuijzen, Paula M, et al. "The complexity of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus genome characterised through detailed analysis of two BAC clones." BMC research notes vol. 4 (2011): 254. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-254
Moolhuijzen PM, Lew-Tabor AE, Morgan JA, Valle MR, Peterson DG, Dowd SE, Guerrero FD, Bellgard MI, Appels R. The complexity of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus genome characterised through detailed analysis of two BAC clones. BMC Res Notes. 2011 Jul 22;4:254. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-254. PMID: 21777481; PMCID: PMC3160391.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMC Res Notes. 2011 Jul 22;4:254. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-254.

The complexity of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus genome characterised through detailed analysis of two BAC clones.

BMC research notes

Paula M Moolhuijzen, Ala E Lew-Tabor, Jess A T Morgan, Manuel Rodriguez Valle, Daniel G Peterson, Scot E Dowd, Felix D Guerrero, Matthew I Bellgard, Rudi Appels

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Comparative Genomics, Murdoch University, South St,, Perth, Western Australia, 6150, Australia. [email protected].

PMID: 21777481 PMCID: PMC3160391 DOI: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-254

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Rmi) a major cattle ectoparasite and tick borne disease vector, impacts on animal welfare and industry productivity. In arthropod research there is an absence of a complete Chelicerate genome, which includes ticks, mites, spiders, scorpions and crustaceans. Model arthropod genomes such as Drosophila and Anopheles are too taxonomically distant for a reference in tick genomic sequence analysis. This study focuses on the de-novo assembly of two R. microplus BAC sequences from the understudied R microplus genome. Based on available R. microplus sequenced resources and comparative analysis, tick genomic structure and functional predictions identify complex gene structures and genomic targets expressed during tick-cattle interaction.

RESULTS: In our BAC analyses we have assembled, using the correct positioning of BAC end sequences and transcript sequences, two challenging genomic regions. Cot DNA fractions compared to the BAC sequences confirmed a highly repetitive BAC sequence BM-012-E08 and a low repetitive BAC sequence BM-005-G14 which was gene rich and contained short interspersed elements (SINEs). Based directly on the BAC and Cot data comparisons, the genome wide frequency of the SINE Ruka element was estimated. Using a conservative approach to the assembly of the highly repetitive BM-012-E08, the sequence was de-convoluted into three repeat units, each unit containing an 18S, 5.8S and 28S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) encoding gene sequence (rDNA), related internal transcribed spacer and complex intergenic region.In the low repetitive BM-005-G14, a novel gene complex was found between to 2 genes on the same strand. Nested in the second intron of a large 9 Kb papilin gene was a helicase gene. This helicase overlapped in two exonic regions with the papilin. Both these genes were shown expressed in different tick life stage important in ectoparasite interaction with the host. Tick specific sequence differences were also determined for the papilin gene and the protein binding sites of the 18S subunit in a comparison to Bos taurus.

CONCLUSION: In the absence of a sequenced reference genome we have assembled two complex BAC sequences, characterised novel gene structure that was confirmed by gene expression and sequencing analyses. This is the first report to provide evidence for 2 eukaryotic genes with exon regions that overlap on the same strand, the first to describe Rhipicephalinae papilin, and the first to report the complete ribosomal DNA repeated unit sequence structure for ticks. The Cot data estimation of genome wide sequence frequency means this research will underpin future efforts for genome sequencing and assembly of the R. microplus genome.

References

  1. BMC Genomics. 2008 Nov 20;9:552 - PubMed
  2. Development. 2000 Dec;127(24):5475-85 - PubMed
  3. Mol Biol Evol. 1999 Jun;16(6):760-72 - PubMed
  4. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2002 Nov;18(3):401-16, vi - PubMed
  5. Genome Biol. 2002;3(12):RESEARCH0084 - PubMed
  6. Genome Res. 1998 Mar;8(3):186-94 - PubMed
  7. Nature. 2005 Sep 15;437(7057):376-80 - PubMed
  8. Genome Res. 2002 Apr;12(4):656-64 - PubMed
  9. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2004 Jun;36(6):1079-84 - PubMed
  10. Int J Parasitol. 2002 Nov;32(12):1447-56 - PubMed
  11. Eukaryot Cell. 2009 Sep;8(9):1321-9 - PubMed
  12. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2006 Feb;36(2):111-29 - PubMed
  13. BMC Genomics. 2007 Oct 12;8:368 - PubMed
  14. Genome Res. 2003 Jan;13(1):81-90 - PubMed
  15. Nature. 1984 Nov 8-14;312(5990):171-2 - PubMed
  16. Biochem Soc Trans. 1978;6(4):732-6 - PubMed
  17. Methods Mol Biol. 2002;183:3-18 - PubMed
  18. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2009 Sep;39(9):579-95 - PubMed
  19. Science. 2007 Jun 15;316(5831):1586-91 - PubMed
  20. BMC Genomics. 2010 Jun 11;11:374 - PubMed
  21. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2004 Oct;34(10):1117-28 - PubMed
  22. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 1991 Dec;1(4):498-504 - PubMed
  23. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 May;37(5):399-408 - PubMed
  24. Trends Genet. 2000 Jun;16(6):276-7 - PubMed
  25. Bioinformatics. 2005 Jun;21 Suppl 1:i351-8 - PubMed
  26. Insect Mol Biol. 2005 Oct;14(5):465-74 - PubMed
  27. Mol Biol Evol. 1987 Jul;4(4):406-25 - PubMed
  28. Gene. 1995 Dec 29;167(1-2):GC1-10 - PubMed
  29. Genome Res. 2002 Oct;12(10):1611-8 - PubMed
  30. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Jan;37(Database issue):D205-10 - PubMed
  31. EMBO J. 1999 Jun 1;18(11):3107-18 - PubMed
  32. Gene. 2008 May 31;415(1-2):13-22 - PubMed
  33. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Jan 1;29(1):159-64 - PubMed
  34. Trends Parasitol. 2005 Apr;21(4):151-3 - PubMed
  35. Insect Mol Biol. 2005 Apr;14(2):217-22 - PubMed
  36. Genome Res. 2004 Jun;14(6):1147-59 - PubMed
  37. Bioinformatics. 2009 May 1;25(9):1189-91 - PubMed
  38. Nucleic Acids Res. 1988 Feb 25;16(4):1233-50 - PubMed
  39. Mol Biol Evol. 2007 Aug;24(8):1596-9 - PubMed
  40. Genetics. 2004 Dec;168(4):2037-47 - PubMed
  41. J Mol Biol. 1997 Apr 25;268(1):78-94 - PubMed
  42. Insect Mol Biol. 1994 Feb;3(1):57-62 - PubMed
  43. J Biol Chem. 1987 Dec 25;262(36):17605-12 - PubMed
  44. J Med Entomol. 2006 Jan;43(1):9-16 - PubMed
  45. Genome Res. 1999 Sep;9(9):868-77 - PubMed
  46. Int J Parasitol. 2007 Oct;37(12):1297-305 - PubMed
  47. FEBS Lett. 1999 Jun 11;452(3):309-13 - PubMed
  48. Genome. 2005 Dec;48(6):1120-6 - PubMed
  49. Genome Res. 1998 Mar;8(3):175-85 - PubMed
  50. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2009 Jan 01;14:2666-73 - PubMed
  51. Dev Dyn. 2003 Apr;226(4):634-42 - PubMed
  52. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994 Nov 11;22(22):4673-80 - PubMed
  53. Vet Parasitol. 2010 Feb 10;167(2-4):304-20 - PubMed
  54. J Exp Med. 1985 Feb 1;161(2):332-44 - PubMed
  55. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2005 Jun;35(6):585-95 - PubMed
  56. J Mol Biol. 1990 Oct 5;215(3):403-10 - PubMed
  57. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(9):3100-8 - PubMed
  58. Comput Appl Biosci. 1992 Jun;8(3):275-82 - PubMed
  59. Genetica. 2002 May;115(1):49-63 - PubMed

Publication Types