Search

Background: SINE-VNTR-Alu (SVA) retrotransposons move from one genomic location to another in a 'copy-and-paste' manner. They continue to move actively and cause monogenic diseases through various mechanisms. Currently, disease-causing SVA retrotransposons are classified into human-specific young SVA_E or SVA_F subfamilies. In this study, we identified an evolutionarily old SVA_D retrotransposon as a novel cause of occipital horn syndrome (OHS). OHS is an X-linked, copper metabolism disorder caused by dysfunction of the copper transporter, ATP7A., Methods: We investigated a 16-year-old boy with OHS whose pathogenic variant could not be detected via routine molecular genetic analyses., Results: A 2.8 kb insertion was detected deep within the intron of the patient's ATP7A gene. This insertion caused aberrant mRNA splicing activated by a new donor splice site located within it. Long-read circular consensus sequencing enabled us to accurately read the entire insertion sequence, which contained highly repetitive and GC-rich segments. Consequently, the insertion was identified as an SVA_D retrotransposon. Antisense oligonucleotides (AOs) targeting the new splice site restored the expression of normal transcripts and functional ATP7A proteins. AO treatment alleviated excessive accumulation of copper in patient fibroblasts in a dose-dependent manner. Pedigree analysis revealed that the retrotransposon had moved into the OHS-causing position two generations ago., Conclusion: This is the first report of a human monogenic disease caused by the SVA_D retrotransposon. The fact that the evolutionarily old SVA_D is still actively transposed, leading to increased copy numbers may make a notable impact on rare genetic disease research., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The majority of eukaryotic genomes contain a large fraction of repetitive sequences that primarily originate from transpositional bursts of transposable elements (TEs). Repbase serves as a database for eukaryotic repetitive sequences and has now become the largest collection of eukaryotic TEs. During the development of Repbase, many new superfamilies/lineages of TEs, which include Helitron, Polinton, Ginger and SINEU, were reported. The unique composition of protein domains and DNA motifs in TEs sometimes indicates novel mechanisms of transposition, replication, anti-suppression or proliferation. In this review, our current understanding regarding the diversity of eukaryotic TEs in sequence, protein domain composition and structural hallmarks is introduced and summarized, based on the classification system implemented in Repbase. Autonomous eukaryotic TEs can be divided into two groups: Class I TEs, also called retrotransposons, and Class II TEs, or DNA transposons. Long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposons, including endogenous retroviruses, non-LTR retrotransposons, tyrosine recombinase retrotransposons and Penelope-like elements, are well accepted groups of autonomous retrotransposons. They share reverse transcriptase for replication but are distinct in the catalytic components responsible for integration into the host genome. Similarly, at least three transposition machineries have been reported in eukaryotic DNA transposons: DDD/E transposase, tyrosine recombinase and HUH endonuclease combined with helicase. Among these, TEs with DDD/E transposase are dominant and are classified into 21 superfamilies in Repbase. Non-autonomous TEs are either simple derivatives generated by internal deletion, or are composed of several units that originated independently.

Most non-long terminal repeat (non-LTR) retrotransposons encoding a restriction-like endonuclease show target-specific integration into repetitive sequences such as ribosomal RNA genes and microsatellites. However, only a few target-specific lineages of non-LTR retrotransposons are distributed widely and no lineage is found across the eukaryotic kingdoms. Here we report the most widely distributed lineage of target sequence-specific non-LTR retrotransposons, designated Utopia. Utopia is found in three supergroups of eukaryotes: Amoebozoa, SAR, and Opisthokonta. Utopia is inserted into a specific site of U2 small nuclear RNA genes with different strength of specificity for each family. Utopia families from oomycetes and wasps show strong target specificity while only a small number of Utopia copies from reptiles are flanked with U2 snRNA genes. Oomycete Utopia families contain an "archaeal" RNase H domain upstream of reverse transcriptase (RT), which likely originated from a plant RNase H gene. Analysis of Utopia from oomycetes indicates that multiple lineages of Utopia have been maintained inside of U2 genes with few copy numbers. Phylogenetic analysis of RT suggests the monophyly of Utopia, and it likely dates back to the early evolution of eukaryotes.

Chicken repeat 1 (CR1) retroposons are long interspersed elements (LINEs) that are ubiquitous within amniote genomes and constitute the most abundant family of transposed elements in birds, crocodilians, turtles, and snakes. They are also present in mammalian genomes, where they reside as numerous relics of ancient retroposition events. Yet, despite their relevance for understanding amniote genome evolution, the diversity and evolution of CR1 elements has never been studied on an amniote-wide level. We reconstruct the temporal and quantitative activity of CR1 subfamilies via presence/absence analyses across crocodilian phylogeny and comparative analyses of 12 crocodilian genomes, revealing relative genomic stasis of retroposition during genome evolution of extant Crocodylia. Our large-scale phylogenetic analysis of amniote CR1 subfamilies suggests the presence of at least seven ancient CR1 lineages in the amniote ancestor; and amniote-wide analyses of CR1 successions and quantities reveal differential retention (presence of ancient relics or recent activity) of these CR1 lineages across amniote genome evolution. Interestingly, birds and lepidosaurs retained the fewest ancient CR1 lineages among amniotes and also exhibit smaller genome sizes. Our study is the first to analyze CR1 evolution in a genome-wide and amniote-wide context and the data strongly suggest that the ancestral amniote genome contained myriad CR1 elements from multiple ancient lineages, and remnants of these are still detectable in the relatively stable genomes of crocodilians and turtles. Early mammalian genome evolution was thus characterized by a drastic shift from CR1 prevalence to dominance and hyperactivity of L2 LINEs in monotremes and L1 LINEs in therians., (© The Author(s) 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution.)

Retroelements, elements encoding reverse transcriptase (RT), are ubiquitous in eukaryotes and have a great influence on the evolution of our genome. Detailed information is available on eukaryotic retroelements; however, prokaryotic retroelements are poorly understood. Recently, new types of eukaryotic retroelements were characterized on the basis of their gene composition and their phylogenetic positions. Here we performed a systematic survey to identify novel types of prokaryotic retroelements by analyzing gene neighborhood and protein architecture. We found novel types of gene combination and examined whether they represent actual retroelements. Five monophyletic groups were identified that were distinct from characterized prokaryotic retroelements, showed specific gene combination, were distributed patchily, and included at least 1 example of recent integration. These results strongly indicated the frequent horizontal transfer of these elements. One group encoded DNA polymerase A. A possible function of DNA polymerase A in the life cycle of retroelements is catalyzing second-strand cDNA synthesis, which is DNA polymerization performed using a DNA template not an RNA template. Another group encoded both bacterial primase and carbon-nitrogen hydrolase. Primase is likely to synthesize primers to initiate reverse transcription. Two other groups also encoded carbon-nitrogen hydrolase as a fusion protein with RT. It is difficult to speculate on the function of hydrolase in the life cycle of retroelements. The last group encoded dual RT proteins, which are likely to form heterodimers during replication. The protein sets of these 5 groups of prokaryotic retroelements were completely different from those of eukaryotic retroelements, indicating that the survival constraints of prokaryotic elements were distinct from those of eukaryotic elements. It is likely that these prokaryotic retroelements are maintained as extrachromosomal DNA or RNA or are accidentally integrated into genomes. Our findings presented the possibility that many types of extrachromosomal prokaryotic retroelements remain to be characterized. In addition, we found 8 RT genes were associated with clustered regularly interspaced short palindrome repeats (CRISPRs) of the CRISPR-Cas system. These RT genes are likely to work in immunity against RNA phages via cDNA synthesis.

Ribosomal RNA genes are abundant repetitive sequences in most eukaryotes. Ribosomal DNA (rDNA) contains many insertions derived from mobile elements including non-long terminal repeat (non-LTR) retrotransposons. R2 is the well-characterized 28S rDNA-specific non-LTR retrotransposon family that is distributed over at least 4 bilaterian phyla. R2 is a large family sharing the same insertion specificity and classified into 4 clades (R2-A, -B, -C, and -D) based on the N-terminal domain structure and the phylogeny. There is no observation of horizontal transfer of R2; therefore, the origin of R2 dates back to before the split between protostomes and deuterostomes. Here, we in silico identified 1 R2 element from the sea anemone Nematostella vectensis and 2 R2-like retrotransposons from the hydrozoan Hydra magnipapillata. R2 from N. vectensis was inserted into the 28S rDNA like other R2, but the R2-like elements from H. magnipapillata were inserted into the specific sequence in the highly conserved region of the 18S rDNA. We designated the Hydra R2-like elements R8. R8 is inserted at 37 bp upstream from R7, another 18S rDNA-specific retrotransposon family. There is no obvious sequence similarity between targets of R2 and R8, probably because they recognize long DNA sequences. Domain structure and phylogeny indicate that R2 from N. vectensis is the member of the R2-D clade, and R8 from H. magnipapillata belongs to the R2-A clade despite its different sequence specificity. These results suggest that R2 had been generated before the split between cnidarians and bilaterians and that R8 is a retrotransposon family that changed its target from the 28S rDNA to the 18S rDNA.

R2 is a non-long-terminal-repeat (LTR) retrotransposon that inserts specifically into 28S rDNA. R2 has been identified in many species of arthropods and three species of chordates. R2 may be even more widely distributed in animals, and its origin may be traceable to early animal evolution. In this study, we identified R2 elements in medaka fish, White Cloud Mountain minnow, Reeves' turtle, hagfish, sea lilies, and some arthropod species, using degenerate polymerase chain reaction methods. We also identified two R2 elements from the public genomic sequence database of the bloodfluke Schistosoma mansoni. One of the two bloodfluke R2 elements has two zinc-finger motifs at the N-terminus; this differs from other known R2 elements, which have one or three zinc-finger motifs. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that the whole phylogeny of R2 can be divided into 11 parts (subclades), in which the local R2 phylogeny and the corresponding host phylogeny are consistent. Divergence-versus-age analysis revealed that there is no reliable evidence for the horizontal transfer of R2 but supports the proposition that R2 has been vertically transferred since before the divergence of the deuterostomes and protostomes. The seeming inconsistency between the R2 phylogeny and the phylogeny of their hosts is due to the existence of paralogous lineages. The number of N-terminal zinc-finger motifs is consistent with the deep phylogeny of R2 and indicates that the common ancestor of R2 had three zinc-finger motifs at the N-terminus. This study revealed the long-term vertical inheritance and the ancient origin of sequence specificity of R2, both of which seem applicable to some other non-LTR retrotransposons.

Most eukaryotic cellular mRNAs are monocistronic; however, many retroviruses and long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposons encode multiple proteins on a single RNA transcript using ribosomal frameshifting. Non-long terminal repeat (non-LTR) retrotransposons are considered the ancestor of LTR retrotransposons and retroviruses, but their translational mechanism of bicistronic RNA remains unknown. We used a baculovirus expression system to produce a large amount of the bicistronic RNA of SART1, a non-LTR retrotransposon of the silkworm, and were able to detect the second open reading frame protein (ORF2) by Western blotting. The ORF2 protein was translated as an independent protein, not as an ORF1-ORF2 fusion protein. We revealed by mutagenesis that the UAAUG overlapping stop-start codon and the downstream RNA secondary structure are necessary for efficient ORF2 translation. Increasing the distance between the ORF1 stop codon and the ORF2 start codon decreased translation efficiency. These results are different from the eukaryotic translation reinitiation mechanism represented by the yeast GCN4 gene, in which the probability of reinitiation increases as the distance between the two ORFs increases. The translational mechanism of SART1 ORF2 is analogous to translational coupling observed in prokaryotes and viruses. Our results indicate that translational coupling is a general mechanism for bicistronic RNA translation.

Retrotransposons commonly encode a reverse transcriptase (RT), but other functional domains are variable. The acquisition of new domains is the dominant evolutionary force that brings structural variety to retrotransposons. Non-long-terminal-repeat (non-LTR) retrotransposons are classified into two groups by their structure. Early branched non-LTR retrotransposons encode a restriction-like endonuclease (RLE), and recently branched non-LTR retrotransposons encode an apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease-like endonuclease (APE). In this study, we report a novel non-LTR retrotransposon family Dualen, identified from the Chlamydomonas reinhardtii genome. Dualen encodes two endonucleases, RLE and APE, with RT, ribonuclease H, and cysteine protease. Phylogenetic analyses of the RT domains revealed that Dualen is positioned at the midpoint between the early-branched and the recently branched groups. In the APE tree, Dualen was branched earlier than the I group and the Jockey group. The ribonuclease H domains among the Dualen family and other non-LTR retrotransposons are monophyletic. Phylogenies of three domains revealed the monophyly of the Dualen family members. The domain structure and the phylogeny of each domain imply that Dualen is a retrotransposon conserving the domain structure just after the acquisition of APE. From these observations, we discuss the evolution of domain structure of non-LTR retrotransposons.

Most insects have telomeres that consist of pentanucleotide (TTAGG) telomeric repeats, which are synthesized by telomerase. However, all species in Diptera so far examined and several species in other orders of insect have lost the (TTAGG)n repeats, suggesting that some of them recruit telomerase-independent telomere maintenance. The silkworm, Bombyx mori, retains the TTAGG motifs in the chromosomal ends but expresses quite a low level of telomerase activity in all stages of various tissues. Just proximal to a 6-8-kb stretch of the TTAGG repeats in B. mori, more than 1000 copies of non-LTR retrotransposons, designated TRAS and SART families, occur among the telomeric repeats and accumulate. TRAS and SART are abundantly transcribed and actively retrotransposed into TTAGG telomeric repeats in a highly sequence-specific manner. They have three possible mechanisms to ensure specific integration into the telomeric repeats. This article focuses on the telomere structure and telomere-specific non-LTR retrotransposons in B. mori and discusses the mechanisms for telomere maintenance in this insect.

Non-long-terminal-repeat (non-LTR) retrotransposons amplify their copies by reverse transcribing mRNA from the 3' end, but the initial processes of reverse transcription are still unclear. We have shown that a telomere-specific non-LTR retrotransposon of the silkworm, SART1, requires the 3' untranslated region (3' UTR) for retrotransposition. With an in vivo retrotransposition assay, we identified several novel motifs within the 3' UTR involved in precise and efficient reverse transcription. Of 461 nucleotides (nt) of the 3' UTR, the central region, from nt 163 to nt 295, was essential for SART1 retrotransposition. Of five putative stem-loops formed in RNA for the SART1 3' UTR, the second stem-loop (nt 159 to 221) is included in this region. Loss of the 3' region (nt 296 to 461) in the 3' UTR and the poly(A) tract resulted in decreased and inaccurate reverse transcription, which starts mostly from several telomeric repeat-like GGUU sequences just downstream of the second stem-loop. These results suggest that short telomeric repeat-like sequences in the 3' UTR anneal to the bottom strand of (TTAGG)(n) repeats. We also demonstrated that the mRNA for green fluorescent protein (GFP) could be retrotransposed into telomeric repeats when the GFP coding region is fused with the SART1 3' UTR and SART1 open reading frame proteins are supplied in trans.

Although most LINEs (long interspersed nuclear elements), which are autonomous non-long-terminal-repeat retrotransposons, are inserted throughout the host genome, three groups of LINEs, the early-branched group, the Tx group, and the R1 clade, are inserted into specific sites within the target sequence. We previously characterized the sequence specificity of the R1 clade elements. In this study, we screened the other two groups of sequence-specific LINEs from public DNA databases, reconstructed elements from fragmented sequences, identified their target sequences, and analyzed them phylogenetically. We characterized 13 elements in the early-branched group and 13 in the Tx group. In the early-branched group, we identified R2 elements from sea squirts and zebrafish in this study, although R2 has not been characterized outside the arthropod group to date. This is the first evidence of cross-phylum distribution of sequence-specific LINEs. The Dong element also occurs across phyla, among arthropods and mollusks. In the Tx group, we characterized five novel sequence-specific families: Kibi for TC repeats, Koshi for TTC repeats, Keno for the U2 snRNA gene, Dewa for the tRNA tandem arrays, and Mutsu for the 5S rRNA gene. Keno and Mutsu insert into the highly conserved region within small RNA genes and destroy the targets. Several copies of Dewa insert different positions of tRNA tandem array, which indicates a certain "site specifier" other than sequence-specific endonuclease. In all three groups, LINEs specific for the rRNA genes or microsatellites can occur as multiple families in one organism. This indicates that the copy number of a target sequence is the primary factor to restrict the variety of sequence specificity of LINEs.

Although most non-long terminal repeat (non-LTR) retrotransposons are inserted throughout the host genome, many non-LTR elements in the R1 clade are inserted into specific sites within the target sequence. Four R1 clade families have distinct target specificity: R1 and RT insert into specific sites of 28S rDNA, and TRAS and SART insert into different sites within the (TTAGG)(n) telomeric repeats. To study the evolutionary history of target specificity of R1-clade retrotransposons, we have screened extensively novel representatives of the clade from various insects by in silico and degenerate polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cloning. We found four novel sequence-specific elements; Waldo (WaldoAg1, 2, and WaldoFs1) inserts into ACAY repeats, Mino (MinoAg1) into AC repeats, R6 into another specific site of the 28S rDNA, and R7 into a specific site of the 18S rDNA. In contrast, several elements (HOPE, WISHBm1, HidaAg1, NotoAg1, KagaAg1, Ha1Fs1) lost target sequence specificity, although some of them have preferred target sequences. Phylogenetic trees based on the RT and EN domains of each element showed that (1) three rDNA-specific elements, RT, R6, and R7, diverged from Waldo; (2) the elements having similar target sequences are phylogenetically related; and (3) the target specificity in the R1 clade was obtained once and thereafter altered and lost several times independently. These data indicate that the target specificity in R1 clade retroelements has changed during evolution and is more divergent than has been speculated so far.