Yeast Ancestral Genome Reconstructions: The Possibilities of Computational Methods II

Since the availability of assembled eukaryotic genomes, the first one being a budding yeast, many computational methods for the reconstruction of ancestral karyotypes and gene orders have been developed. The difficulty has always been to assess their reliability, since we often miss a good knowledge of the true ancestral genomes to compare their results to, as well as a good knowledge of the evolutionary mechanisms to test them on realistic simulated data. In this study, we propose some measures of reliability of several kinds of methods, and apply them to infer and analyse the architectures of two ancestral yeast genomes, based on the sequence of seven assembled extant ones. The pre-duplication common ancestor of S. cerevisiae and C. glabrata has been inferred manually by Gordon et al. (Plos Genet. 2009). We show why, in this case, a good convergence of the methods is explained by some properties of the data, and why results are reliable. In another study, Jean et al. (J. Comput Biol. 2009) proposed an ancestral architecture of the last common ancestor of S. kluyveri, K. thermotolerans, K. lactis, A. gossypii, and Z. rouxii inferred by a computational method. In this case, we show that the dataset does not seem to contain enough information to infer a reliable architecture, and we construct a higher resolution dataset which gives a good reliability on a new ancestral configuration.

[1]  David Sankoff,et al.  Reconstructing the History of Yeast Genomes , 2009, PLoS genetics.

[2]  P. Philippsen,et al.  The Ashbya gossypii Genome as a Tool for Mapping the Ancient Saccharomyces cerevisiae Genome , 2004, Science.

[3]  Guillaume Bourque,et al.  Recovering genome rearrangements in the mammalian phylogeny. , 2009, Genome research.

[4]  Eric Tannier.  Yeast Ancestral Genome Reconstructions: The Possibilities of Computational Methods , 2009, RECOMB-CG.

[5]  P. Pevzner,et al.  The convergence of cytogenetics and rearrangement-based models for ancestral genome reconstruction. , 2006, Genome research.

[6]  Jian Ma,et al.  DUPCAR: Reconstructing Contiguous Ancestral Regions with Duplications , 2008, J. Comput. Biol..

[7]  David Sankoff,et al.  Guided genome halving: hardness, heuristics and the history of the Hemiascomycetes , 2008, ISMB.

[8]  Yves Van de Peer,et al.  Computational approaches to unveiling ancient genome duplications , 2009 .

[9]  Fengtang Yang,et al.  Are molecular cytogenetics and bioinformatics suggesting diverging models of ancestral mammalian genomes? , 2006, Genome research.

[10]  Bernard B. Suh,et al.  Reconstructing contiguous regions of an ancestral genome. , 2006, Genome research.

[11]  Adrien Goëffon,et al.  Comparative genomics of protoploid Saccharomycetaceae. , 2009, Genome research.

[12]  Andrew Wei Xu,et al.  DCJ Median Problems on Linear Multichromosomal Genomes: Graph Representation and Fast Exact Solutions , 2009, RECOMB-CG.

[13]  P. Pevzner,et al.  Breakpoint graphs and ancestral genome reconstructions. , 2009, Genome research.

[14]  Yves Van de Peer,et al.  i-ADHoRe 2.0: an improved tool to detect degenerated genomic homology using genomic profiles , 2008, Bioinform..

[15]  Haris Gavranovic,et al.  Guided Genome Halving: Provably Optimal Solutions Provide Good Insights into the Preduplication Ancestral Genome of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae , 2010, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

[16]  I. Miklós,et al.  Dynamics of Genome Rearrangement in Bacterial Populations , 2008, PLoS genetics.

[17]  Krister M. Swenson,et al.  Inversion-based genomic signatures , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[18]  T. Dobzhansky,et al.  Inversions in the Chromosomes of Drosophila Pseudoobscura. , 1938, Genetics.

[19]  Cédric Chauve,et al.  A Methodological Framework for the Reconstruction of Contiguous Regions of Ancestral Genomes and Its Application to Mammalian Genomes , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[20]  Kevin P. Byrne,et al.  Additions, Losses, and Rearrangements on the Evolutionary Route from a Reconstructed Ancestor to the Modern Saccharomyces cerevisiae Genome , 2009, PLoS genetics.

[21]  Jens Stoye,et al.  A Unifying View of Genome Rearrangements , 2006, WABI.

[22]  Frédéric Boyer,et al.  Prediction of Contiguous Regions in the Amniote Ancestral Genome , 2009, ISBRA.

[23]  Geoffrey Zweig,et al.  Physical mapping of chromosomes using unique probes , 1994, SODA '94.

[24]  D. Cooper,et al.  Gene synteny comparisons between different vertebrates provide new insights into breakage and fusion events during mammalian karyotype evolution , 2009, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[25]  Tamon Stephen,et al.  Minimal Conflicting Sets for the Consecutive Ones Property in Ancestral Genome Reconstruction , 2010, J. Comput. Biol..

[26]  David James Sherman,et al.  Mining the Semantics of Genome Super-Blocks to Infer Ancestral Architectures , 2009, J. Comput. Biol..

[27]  Nicoletta Archidiacono,et al.  Ancestral genomes reconstruction: an integrated, multi-disciplinary approach is needed. , 2006, Genome research.

[28]  Kevin P. Byrne,et al.  The Yeast Gene Order Browser: combining curated homology and syntenic context reveals gene fate in polyploid species. , 2005, Genome research.

[29]  Guillaume Fertin,et al.  Combinatorics of Genome Rearrangements , 2009, Computational molecular biology.

[30]  B. Birren,et al.  Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2004, Nature.

[31]  David Sankoff,et al.  Steiner Points in the Space of Genome Rearrangements , 1996, Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci..

[32]  Niklas Eriksen,et al.  Reversal and transposition medians , 2007, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[33]  David Sankoff,et al.  Multichromosomal median and halving problems under different genomic distances , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[34]  P. Pevzner,et al.  Dynamics of Mammalian Chromosome Evolution Inferred from Multispecies Comparative Maps , 2005, Science.