FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Sci Rep / Trio-binning of a hinny refines the comparative organization...
Scientific reports2023; 13(1); 20180; doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-47583-x

Trio-binning of a hinny refines the comparative organization of the horse and donkey X chromosomes and reveals novel species-specific features.

Abstract: We generated single haplotype assemblies from a hinny hybrid which significantly improved the gapless contiguity for horse and donkey autosomal genomes and the X chromosomes. We added over 15 Mb of missing sequence to both X chromosomes, 60 Mb to donkey autosomes and corrected numerous errors in donkey and some in horse reference genomes. We resolved functionally important X-linked repeats: the DXZ4 macrosatellite and ampliconic Equine Testis Specific Transcript Y7 (ETSTY7). We pinpointed the location of the pseudoautosomal boundaries (PAB) and determined the size of the horse (1.8 Mb) and donkey (1.88 Mb) pseudoautosomal regions (PARs). We discovered distinct differences in horse and donkey PABs: a testis-expressed gene, XKR3Y, spans horse PAB with exons1-2 located in Y and exon3 in the X-Y PAR, whereas the donkey XKR3Y is Y-specific. DXZ4 had a similar ~ 8 kb monomer in both species with 10 copies in horse and 20 in donkey. We assigned hundreds of copies of ETSTY7, a sequence horizontally transferred from Parascaris and massively amplified in equids, to horse and donkey X chromosomes and three autosomes. The findings and products contribute to molecular studies of equid biology and advance research on X-linked conditions, sex chromosome regulation and evolution in equids.
© 2023. The Author(s).
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-11-17 PubMed ID: 37978222PubMed Central: PMC10656420DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-47583-xGoogle Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • U.S. Gov't
  • Non-P.H.S.
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research involves the examination of horse and donkey chromosomes through the trio-binning of a hinny hybrid, revealing important genomic data and distinct species-specific features. This new information could significantly aid studies relating to equid biology and evolution.

Genome Assembly and Enhancement

  • The researchers produced single haplotype assemblies using a hinny hybrid – a cross between a female donkey and a male horse.
  • This approach dramatically improved the gapless continuity for the horse and donkey autosomal genomes and the X chromosomes, filling in previous knowledge gaps and correcting errors in the reference genomes.
  • Specifically, the study added over 15 Mb of missing sequence to both X chromosomes and corrected many errors in the donkey genome and some in the horse’s genome.

New Insights into X-Linked Repeats

  • The research resolved previously challenging X-linked repeats like the DXZ4 macrosatellite and the Equine Testis Specific Transcript Y7 (ETSTY7).
  • ETSTY7 is a sequence that was transferred horizontally from Parascaris and has been heavily amplified in equids. In this study, the sequence was assigned to horse and donkey X chromosomes and three autosomes.

Clarification of Pseudoautosomal Boundaries and Regions

  • The study clarified the location of pseudoautosomal boundaries (PABs) and determined the size of the pseudoautosomal regions (PARs) in both horse (1.8Mb) and donkey (1.88Mb).
  • The research also found differences between the horse and the donkey PABs. In the case of the horse, a testis-expressed gene, XKR3Y, spans the PAB with parts located in both Y and the X-Y PAR. For the donkey, the XKR3Y is Y-specific.
  • DXZ4 also showed a similarity in both animals with an ~8kb monomer, but with twice as many copies in the donkey than in the horse.

Contribution to Equid Biology and Evolution Research

  • The data and insights generated from this study contribute to molecular studies on equid biology, and further research into X-linked conditions, sex chromosome regulation, and evolution in equids.

Cite This Article

APA
Jevit MJ, Castaneda C, Paria N, Das PJ, Miller D, Antczak DF, Kalbfleisch TS, Davis BW, Raudsepp T. (2023). Trio-binning of a hinny refines the comparative organization of the horse and donkey X chromosomes and reveals novel species-specific features. Sci Rep, 13(1), 20180. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-47583-x

Publication

Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
NlmUniqueID: 101563288
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 13
Issue: 1
Pages: 20180
PII: 20180

Researcher Affiliations

Jevit, Matthew J
  • School of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA.
Castaneda, Caitlin
  • School of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA.
Paria, Nandina
  • Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children, Dallas, TX, 75219, USA.
Das, Pranab J
  • ICAR-National Research Centre on Pig, Rani, Guwahati, Assam, 781131, India.
Miller, Donald
  • Baker Institute for Animal Health, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Antczak, Douglas F
  • Baker Institute for Animal Health, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Kalbfleisch, Theodore S
  • Maxwell H. Gluck Equine Research Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40546, USA.
Davis, Brian W
  • School of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA. bdavis@cvm.tamu.edu.
Raudsepp, Terje
  • School of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA. traudsepp@cvm.tamu.edu.

MeSH Terms

  • Male
  • Horses / genetics
  • Animals
  • Equidae / genetics
  • X Chromosome / genetics
  • Sex Chromosomes
  • Genome

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

This article includes 70 references
  1. Ross MT. The DNA sequence of the human X chromosome. Nature 2005;434:325–337.
    doi: 10.1038/nature03440pmc: PMC2665286pubmed: 15772651google scholar: lookup
  2. Brashear WA, Bredemeyer KR, Murphy WJ. Genomic architecture constrained placental mammal X Chromosome evolution. Genome Res 2021;31:1353–1365.
    doi: 10.1101/gr.275274.121pmc: PMC8327908pubmed: 34301625google scholar: lookup
  3. Graves JA. Review: Sex chromosome evolution and the expression of sex-specific genes in the placenta. Placenta 2010;31(Suppl):S27–S32.
    doi: 10.1016/j.placenta.2009.12.029pubmed: 20163856google scholar: lookup
  4. Bredemeyer K. Rapid macrosatellite evolution promotes X-linked hybrid male sterility in a feline interspecies cross. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2021;38:5588.
    doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab274pmc: PMC8662614pubmed: 34519828google scholar: lookup
  5. Hughes JF. Sequence analysis in Bos taurus reveals pervasiveness of X-Y arms races in mammalian lineages. Genome Res 2020;30:1716–1726.
    doi: 10.1101/gr.269902.120pmc: PMC7706723pubmed: 33208454google scholar: lookup
  6. Cocquet J. A genetic basis for a postmeiotic X versus Y chromosome intragenomic conflict in the mouse. PLoS Genet 2012;9:e1002900.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002900pmc: PMC3441658pubmed: 23028340google scholar: lookup
  7. Mueller JL. Independent specialization of the human and mouse X chromosomes for the male germ line. Nat. Genet. 2013;45:1083–1087.
    doi: 10.1038/ng.2705pmc: PMC3758364pubmed: 23872635google scholar: lookup
  8. Nam K. Extreme selective sweeps independently targeted the X chromosomes of the great apes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2015;112:6413–6418.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1419306112pmc: PMC4443357pubmed: 25941379google scholar: lookup
  9. Rushton AR. The first human genetic map 1936. In: Petermann H, Harper P, Doetz S, editors. History of Human Genetics. Springer; 2017. pp. 265–274.
  10. Lyon MF. Gene action in the X-chromosome of the mouse (Mus musculus L.). Nature 1961;190:372–373.
    doi: 10.1038/190372a0pubmed: 13764598google scholar: lookup
  11. Lyon MF. Sex chromatin and gene action in the mammalian X-chromosome. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1962;14:135–148.
    pmc: PMC1932279pubmed: 14467629
  12. Cantone I, Fisher AG. Human X chromosome inactivation and reactivation: Implications for cell reprogramming and disease. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2017;372:20160358.
    doi: 10.1098/rstb.2016.0358pmc: PMC5627160pubmed: 28947657google scholar: lookup
  13. Carrel L, Brown CJ. When the Lyon(ized chromosome) roars: Ongoing expression from an inactive X chromosome. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2017;372:20160355.
    doi: 10.1098/rstb.2016.0355pmc: PMC5627157pubmed: 28947654google scholar: lookup
  14. Balaton BP, Cotton AM, Brown CJ. Derivation of consensus inactivation status for X-linked genes from genome-wide studies. Biol. Sex Differ. 2015;6:35.
    doi: 10.1186/s13293-015-0053-7pmc: PMC4696107pubmed: 26719789google scholar: lookup
  15. Posynick BJ, Brown CJ. Escape from X-chromosome inactivation: An evolutionary perspective. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2019;7:241.
    doi: 10.3389/fcell.2019.00241pmc: PMC6817483pubmed: 31696116google scholar: lookup
  16. Brown CJ, Greally JM. A stain upon the silence: Genes escaping X inactivation. Trends Genet. 2003;19:432–438.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-9525(03)00177-Xpubmed: 12902161google scholar: lookup
  17. Bellott DW. Mammalian Y chromosomes retain widely expressed dosage-sensitive regulators. Nature 2014;508:494–499.
    doi: 10.1038/nature13206pmc: PMC4139287pubmed: 24759411google scholar: lookup
  18. San Roman AK. The human inactive X chromosome modulates expression of the active X chromosome. Cell Genom. 2023;3:100259.
    doi: 10.1016/j.xgen.2023.100259pmc: PMC9932992pubmed: 36819663google scholar: lookup
  19. Logsdon GA, Vollger MR, Eichler EE. Long-read human genome sequencing and its applications. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2020;21:597–614.
    doi: 10.1038/s41576-020-0236-xpmc: PMC7877196pubmed: 32504078google scholar: lookup
  20. Goodwin S, McPherson JD, McCombie WR. Coming of age: Ten years of next-generation sequencing technologies. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2016;17:333–351.
    doi: 10.1038/nrg.2016.49pmc: PMC10373632pubmed: 27184599google scholar: lookup
  21. Miga K. Telomere-to-telomere assembly of a complete human X chromosome. Nature 2020;585:79.
    doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2547-7pmc: PMC7484160pubmed: 32663838google scholar: lookup
  22. Koren S. Reducing assembly complexity of microbial genomes with single-molecule sequencing. Genome Biol. 2013;14:1–16.
    doi: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-9-r101pmc: PMC4053942pubmed: 24034426google scholar: lookup
  23. Koren S. De novo assembly of haplotype-resolved genomes with trio binning. Nat. Biotechnol. 2018;36:1174.
    doi: 10.1038/nbt.4277pmc: PMC6476705pubmed: 30346939google scholar: lookup
  24. Treangen T, Salzberg S. Repetitive DNA and next-generation sequencing: Computational challenges and solutions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2011;13:36.
    doi: 10.1038/nrg3117pmc: PMC3324860pubmed: 22124482google scholar: lookup
  25. Chaisson MJP. Multi-platform discovery of haplotype-resolved structural variation in human genomes. Nat. Commun. 2019;10:1784.
    doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-08148-zpmc: PMC6467913pubmed: 30992455google scholar: lookup
  26. Porubsky D. Recurrent inversion polymorphisms in humans associate with genetic instability and genomic disorders. Cell 2022;185:1986–2005.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.04.017pmc: PMC9563103pubmed: 35525246google scholar: lookup
  27. Logsdon GA. The structure, function and evolution of a complete human chromosome 8. Nature 2021;593:101–107.
    doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03420-7pmc: PMC8099727pubmed: 33828295google scholar: lookup
  28. Nurk S. The complete sequence of a human genome. Science 2022;376:44–53.
    doi: 10.1126/science.abj6987pmc: PMC9186530pubmed: 35357919google scholar: lookup
  29. Rhie A. The complete sequence of a human Y chromosome. Nature 2023;621:344–354.
    doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06457-ypubmed: 37612512google scholar: lookup
  30. Oppenheimer J. A reference genome assembly of American Bison, Bison bison bison. J. Hered. 2021;112:174–183.
    doi: 10.1093/jhered/esab003pmc: PMC8006816pubmed: 33595645google scholar: lookup
  31. Rice ES. Continuous chromosome-scale haplotypes assembled from a single interspecies F1 hybrid of yak and cattle. Gigascience 2020;9:029.
    doi: 10.1093/gigascience/giaa029pmc: PMC7118895pubmed: 32242610google scholar: lookup
  32. Bredemeyer KR. Ultracontinuous single haplotype genome assemblies for the domestic cat (Felis catus) and Asian leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis). J. Hered. 2021;112:165–173.
    doi: 10.1093/jhered/esaa057pmc: PMC8006817pubmed: 33305796google scholar: lookup
  33. Kalbfleisch TS. Improved reference genome for the domestic horse increases assembly contiguity and composition. Commun. Biol. 2018;1:197.
    doi: 10.1038/s42003-018-0199-zpmc: PMC6240028pubmed: 30456315google scholar: lookup
  34. Wang C. Donkey genomes provide new insights into domestication and selection for coat color. Nat. Commun. 2020;11:6014.
    doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19813-7pmc: PMC7723042pubmed: 33293529google scholar: lookup
  35. Raudsepp T, Lear TL, Chowdhary BP. Comparative mapping in equids: The asine X chromosome is rearranged compared to horse and Hartmann's mountain zebra. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2002;96:206–209.
    doi: 10.1159/000063050pubmed: 12438800google scholar: lookup
  36. Raudsepp T, Chowdhary BP. The horse pseudoautosomal region (PAR): Characterization and comparison with the human, chimp and mouse PARs. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2008;121:102–109.
    doi: 10.1159/000125835pubmed: 18544933google scholar: lookup
  37. Janečka JE. Horse Y chromosome assembly displays unique evolutionary features and putative stallion fertility genes. Nat. Commun. 2018;9:2945.
    doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05290-6pmc: PMC6063916pubmed: 30054462google scholar: lookup
  38. Horakova A. The mouse DXZ4 homolog retains Ctcf binding and proximity to Pls3 despite substantial organizational differences compared to the primate macrosatellite. Genome Biol. 2012;13:1–6.
    doi: 10.1186/gb-2012-13-8-r70pmc: PMC3491370pubmed: 22906166google scholar: lookup
  39. Darrow EM. Deletion of DXZ4 on the human inactive X chromosome alters higher-order genome architecture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2016;113:E4504–E4512.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1609643113pmc: PMC4978254pubmed: 27432957google scholar: lookup
  40. Kim S, Yu NK, Kaang BK. CTCF as a multifunctional protein in genome regulation and gene expression. Exp. Mol. Med. 2015;47:e166.
    doi: 10.1038/emm.2015.33pmc: PMC4491725pubmed: 26045254google scholar: lookup
  41. Yang F. Refined genome-wide comparative map of the domestic horse, donkey and human based on cross-species chromosome painting: Insight into the occasional fertility of mules. Chromosome Res. 2004;12:65–76.
    doi: 10.1023/B:CHRO.0000009298.02689.8apubmed: 14984103google scholar: lookup
  42. Wade CM. Genome sequence, comparative analysis, and population genetics of the domestic horse. Science 2009;326:865–867.
    doi: 10.1126/science.1178158pmc: PMC3785132pubmed: 19892987google scholar: lookup
  43. Batcher K. Ancient segmentally duplicated LCORL retrocopies in equids. PLoS ONE 2023;18:e0286861.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286861pmc: PMC10249811pubmed: 37289743google scholar: lookup
  44. Ghosh S. Copy number variation in the horse genome. PLoS Genet. 2014;10:e1004712.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004712pmc: PMC4207638pubmed: 25340504google scholar: lookup
  45. Nergadze SG. Birth, evolution, and transmission of satellite-free mammalian centromeric domains. Genome Res. 2018;28:789–799.
    doi: 10.1101/gr.231159.117pmc: PMC5991519pubmed: 29712753google scholar: lookup
  46. Liu R. New insights into mammalian sex chromosome structure and evolution using high-quality sequences from bovine X and Y chromosomes. BMC Genom. 2019;20:1000.
    doi: 10.1186/s12864-019-6364-zpmc: PMC6923926pubmed: 31856728google scholar: lookup
  47. Raudsepp T, Chowdhary BP. The Eutherian pseudoautosomal region. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2015;147:81–94.
    doi: 10.1159/000443157pubmed: 26730606google scholar: lookup
  48. Perry J, Palmer S, Gabriel A, Ashworth A. A short pseudoautosomal region in laboratory mice. Genome Res. 2001;11:1826–1832.
    doi: 10.1101/gr.203001pmc: PMC311143pubmed: 11691846google scholar: lookup
  49. Blackmon H, Brandvain Y. Long-term fragility of y chromosomes is dominated by short-term resolution of sexual antagonism. Genetics 2017;207:1621–1629.
    doi: 10.1534/genetics.117.300382pmc: PMC5714469pubmed: 29021279google scholar: lookup
  50. Raudsepp T, Chowdhary BP. Chromosome aberrations and fertility disorders in domestic animals. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 2016;4:15–43.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111239pubmed: 26884101google scholar: lookup
  51. Ellis NA. Cloning of PBDX, an MIC2-related gene that spans the pseudoautosomal boundary on chromosome Xp. Nat. Genet. 1994;6:394–400.
    doi: 10.1038/ng0494-394pubmed: 8054981google scholar: lookup
  52. Palmer S, Perry J, Kipling D, Ashworth A. A gene spans the pseudoautosomal boundary in mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1997;94:12030–12035.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.22.12030pmc: PMC23693pubmed: 9342357google scholar: lookup
  53. Van Laere AS, Coppieters W, Georges M. Characterization of the bovine pseudoautosomal boundary: Documenting the evolutionary history of mammalian sex chromosomes. Genome Res. 2008;18:1884–1895.
    doi: 10.1101/gr.082487.108pmc: PMC2593575pubmed: 18981267google scholar: lookup
  54. Das PJ. Comparative organization and gene expression profiles of the porcine pseudoautosomal region. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2013;141:26–36.
    doi: 10.1159/000351310pubmed: 23735614google scholar: lookup
  55. Tremblay DC, Moseley S, Chadwick BP. Variation in array size, monomer composition and expression of the macrosatellite DXZ4. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e18969.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018969pmc: PMC3081327pubmed: 21544201google scholar: lookup
  56. McLaughlin CR, Chadwick BP. Characterization of DXZ4 conservation in primates implies important functional roles for CTCF binding, array expression and tandem repeat organization on the X chromosome. Genome Biol. 2011;12:R37.
    doi: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-4-r37pmc: PMC3218863pubmed: 21489251google scholar: lookup
  57. Jónsson H. Speciation with gene flow in equids despite extensive chromosomal plasticity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2014;111:18655–18660.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1412627111pmc: PMC4284605pubmed: 25453089google scholar: lookup
  58. Li G. Comparative analysis of mammalian Y chromosomes illuminates ancestral structure and lineage-specific evolution. Genome Res. 2013;23:1486–1495.
    doi: 10.1101/gr.154286.112pmc: PMC3759724pubmed: 23788650google scholar: lookup
  59. Renaud G. Improved de novo genomic assembly for the domestic donkey. Sci. Adv. 2018;4:0392.
    doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaq0392pmc: PMC5938232pubmed: 29740610google scholar: lookup
  60. Pitt D. Domestication of cattle: Two or three events?. Evol. Appl. 2019;12:123–136.
    doi: 10.1111/eva.12674pmc: PMC6304694pubmed: 30622640google scholar: lookup
  61. Koren S. Canu: Scalable and accurate long-read assembly via adaptive k-mer weighting and repeat separation. Genome Res. 2017;27:722–736.
    doi: 10.1101/gr.215087.116pmc: PMC5411767pubmed: 28298431google scholar: lookup
  62. Ghurye J. Integrating Hi-C links with assembly graphs for chromosome-scale assembly. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2019;15:e1007273.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007273pmc: PMC6719893pubmed: 31433799google scholar: lookup
  63. Marcais G. MUMmer4: A fast and versatile genome alignment system. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2018;14:e1005944.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005944pmc: PMC5802927pubmed: 29373581google scholar: lookup
  64. Nattestad M, Schatz MC. Assemblytics: A web analytics tool for the detection of variants from an assembly. Bioinformatics 2016;32:3021–3023.
    doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw369pmc: PMC6191160pubmed: 27318204google scholar: lookup
  65. Li H. Minimap2: Pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 2018;34:3094–3100.
    doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty191pmc: PMC6137996pubmed: 29750242google scholar: lookup
  66. Hu J, Fan J, Sun Z, Liu S. NextPolish: A fast and efficient genome polishing tool for long-read assembly. Bioinformatics 2019;36:2253–2255.
    doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz891pubmed: 31778144google scholar: lookup
  67. Chen Y, Ye W, Zhang Y, Xu Y. High speed BLASTN: An accelerated MegaBLAST search tool. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:7762–7768.
    doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv784pmc: PMC4652774pubmed: 26250111google scholar: lookup
  68. Thorvaldsdottir H, Robinson J, Mesirov J. Integrative genomics viewer (IGV): High-performance genomics data visualization and exploration. Brief Bioinform. 2012;14:178–192.
    doi: 10.1093/bib/bbs017pmc: PMC3603213pubmed: 22517427google scholar: lookup
  69. Bina M, Crowley E. Sequence patterns defining the 5′ boundary of human genes. Biopolymers 2001;59:347–355.
    doi: 10.1002/1097-0282(20011015)59:5<347::AID-BIP1032>3.0.CO;2-6pubmed: 11514938google scholar: lookup
  70. Wolfe D, Dudek S, Ritchie MD, Pendergrass SA. Visualizing genomic information across chromosomes with PhenoGram. BioData Min. 2013;6:18.
    doi: 10.1186/1756-0381-6-18pmc: PMC4015356pubmed: 24131735google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.