Analysis identifies 5,332 LTR retrotransposon insertions in pear genomes, suggesting impacts on gene expression and evolutionary dynamics.
Long terminal repeat retrotransposons (LTR-RTs) are crucial genomic elements that play a key role in shaping plant genome evolution and diversity. With the availability of high-quality genome sequences, an unprecedented opportunity has emerged to investigate LTR-RT dynamics in depth. This study presents a thorough analysis of LTR-RTs across six pear genomes. By integrating structure-based and homology-based approaches, this study identified 36,552 LTR-RTs, which included 18,302 complete LTR-RTs (50.07%), 13,793 solo LTRs (37.74%), 2,304 truncated LTR-RTs (6.30%), and 1,104 fragmented LTR-RTs (3.02%). These elements were classified into 1,075 distinct families, spanning four superfamilies: Copia (43 ± 6%), Gypsy (34 ± 7%), terminal repeat retrotransposons in miniature (TRIM) (13 ± 7%), and large retrotransposon derivatives (LARD) (10 ± 5%). The majority of LTR-RTs (64.16%) were inserted recently (0–0.5 Mya), with younger elements generally exhibiting higher copy numbers. Mapping results showed that 91.3% of complete LTR-RTs were successfully mapped to 17 chromosomes and were positively correlated with chromosome size ( r = 0.851–0.976, P < 0.01). A total of 5,332 intact LTR-RTs (36.16%) were collinear across all six genomes, indicating insertions prior to species divergence. Over half of the LTR-RTs (54.65%) were located within genes or their flanking regions, with a strong preference for upstream (48.52%) and downstream (43.19%) regions over intragenic locations (6.37%). LTR-RT insertions significantly influenced gene expression in a manner specific to each variety. Furthermore, 5,217 previously unannotated genes interrupted by LTR-RTs were identified, of which 78.95% were functional, and 75% displayed active expression. This study provides comprehensive insights into the evolutionary dynamics and functional impact of LTR-RTs in pear genomes, enhancing our understanding of genome evolution and regulation in fruit crops.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: