{"id":67840,"date":"2016-05-18T02:42:52","date_gmt":"2016-05-18T06:42:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/genome-size-wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia\/"},"modified":"2016-05-18T02:42:52","modified_gmt":"2016-05-18T06:42:52","slug":"genome-size-wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/transhuman-news-blog\/genome\/genome-size-wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia\/","title":{"rendered":"Genome size &#8211; Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    Genome size is the total amount of DNA contained within one copy of a single    genome. It is    typically measured in terms of mass in picograms (trillionths (1012) of    a gram, abbreviated pg)    or less frequently in Daltons or as the total    number of nucleotide base pairs typically in megabases (millions of    base pairs, abbreviated Mb or Mbp). One picogram equals 978    megabases.[1] In    diploid organisms, genome size is used interchangeably    with the term C-value. An organism's complexity is not directly    proportional to its genome size; some single cell organisms    have much more DNA than humans (see Junk DNA and C-value enigma).  <\/p>\n<p>    The term \"genome size\" is often erroneously attributed to    Hinegardner,[2] even in    discussions dealing specifically with terminology in this area    of research (e.g., Greilhuber, 2005[3]). Notably,    Hinegardner[2] used the term only    once: in the title. The term actually seems to have first    appeared in 1968 when Hinegardner wondered, in the last    paragraph of his article, whether \"cellular DNA    content does, in fact, reflect genome size\".[4] In this context,    \"genome size\" was being used in the sense of genotype to mean the    number of genes. In a    paper submitted only two months later (in February 1969), Wolf    et al. (1969)[5] used    the term \"genome size\" throughout and in its present usage;    therefore these authors should probably be credited with    originating the term in its modern sense. By the early 1970s,    \"genome size\" was in common usage with its present definition,    probably as a result of its inclusion in Susumu Ohno's    influential book Evolution by Gene Duplication,    published in 1970.[6]  <\/p>\n<p>    The genome sizes of thousands of eukaryotes have been analyzed over the    past 50 years, and these data are available in online databases    for animals, plants, and fungi (see external links). Nuclear    genome size is typically measured in eukaryotes using either    densitometric measurements of Feulgen-stained nuclei (previously using    specialized densitometers, now more commonly using computerized    image    analysis[7]) or    flow    cytometry. In prokaryotes, pulsed    field gel electrophoresis and complete genome sequencing are the predominant methods    of genome size determination. Nuclear genome sizes are well    known to vary enormously among eukaryotic species. In animals    they range more than 3,300-fold, and in land plants they differ    by a factor of about 1,000.[8][9]Protist genomes have been reported to vary    more than 300,000-fold in size, but the high end of this range    (Amoeba) has been called into    question.[by    whom?] In eukaryotes (but not    prokaryotes), variation in genome size is not proportional to    the number of genes, an    observation that was deemed wholly counterintuitive before the    discovery of non-coding DNA and    which became known as the C-value paradox    as a result. However, although there is no longer any paradoxical aspect to the    discrepancy between genome size and gene number, this term    remains in common usage. For reasons of conceptual    clarification, the various puzzles that remain with regard to    genome size variation instead have been suggested by one author    to more accurately comprise a puzzle or an enigma (the C-value enigma). Genome size correlates with    a range of features at the cell and organism levels, including    cell size, cell division rate, and, depending on the    taxon, body size,    metabolic rate, developmental    rate, organ complexity, geographical    distribution, or extinction risk (for recent reviews, see    Bennett and Leitch 2005;[8] Gregory 2005[9]). Based on completely    sequenced genome data currently (as of April 2009) available,    log-transformed gene number forms a linear correlation with    log-transformed genome size in bacteria, archea, viruses, and    organelles combined whereas a nonlinear (semi-natural log)    correlation in eukaryotes (Hou and Lin 2009 [10]). The nonlinear    correlation for eukaryotes, although claim of its existence    contrasts the previous view that no correlation exists for this    group of organisms, reflects disproportionately fast increasing    noncoding DNA in increasingly large eukaryotic genomes.    Although sequenced genome data are practically biased toward    small genomes, which may compromise the accuracy of the    empirically derived correlation, and the ultimate proof of the    correlation remains to be obtained by sequencing some of the    largest eukaryotic genomes, current data do not seem to rule    out a correlation.  <\/p>\n<p>    Genome reduction, also known as Genome degradation, is the    process by which a genome shrinks relative to its ancestor. Genomes    fluctuate in size regularly, however, genome size reduction is most    significant in bacteria.  <\/p>\n<p>    The most evolutionary significant cases of genome    reduction may be the eukaryotic organelles that are    derived from bacteria: the mitochondrion and plastid. These organelles are descended    from endosymbionts, which can only survive within    the host cell and which the host cell likewise needs for    survival. Many mitochondria have less than 20 genes in their    entire genome, whereas a free-living bacterium generally has at    least 1000 genes. Many genes have been transferred to the host    nucleus,    while others have simply been lost and their function replaced    by host processes.  <\/p>\n<p>    Other bacteria have become endosymbionts or obligate    intracellular pathogens and experienced extensive genome    reduction as a result. This process seems to be dominated by    genetic    drift resulting from small population size, low recombination rates, and high    mutation rates,    as opposed to selection for smaller genomes.  <\/p>\n<p>    Some free-living marine bacterioplanktons also shows signs of    genome reduction, which are hypothesized to be driven by    natural selection.[12][13][14]  <\/p>\n<p>    Obligate endosymbiotic species are characterized by a    complete inability to survive external to their host    environment. These species have become a considerable threat to    human health, as they are often highly capable of evading human    immune systems and manipulating the host environment to acquire    nutrients. A common explanation for these keen manipulative    abilities is the compact and efficient genomic    structure consistently found in obligate endosymbionts. This    compact genome structure is the result of massive losses of    extraneous DNA - an occurrence that is exclusively associated    with the loss of a free-living stage. In fact, as much as 90%    of the genetic material can be lost when a species makes the    evolutionary transition from a free-living to    obligate intracellular lifestyle. Common examples of    species with reduced genomes include: Buchnera aphidicola, Rickettsia    prowazekii and Mycobacterium leprae. One    obligate endosymbiont of leafhoppers, Nasuia deltocephalinicola,    has the smallest genome currently known among cellular    organisms at 112kb.[15] It is    important to note, however, that some obligate intracellular    species have positive fitness effects on their hosts. (See also    mutualists and parasites.)  <\/p>\n<p>    The reductive evolution model has been proposed as an    effort to define the genomic commonalities seen in all obligate    endosymbionts.[16] This model    illustrates four general features of reduced genomes and    obligate intracellular species:  <\/p>\n<p>    Based on this model, it is clear that endosymbionts face    different adaptive challenges than free-living species.  <\/p>\n<p>    or simply:  <\/p>\n<p>    In 1991 Drake proposed a rule: that the mutation    rate within a genome and its size were inversely    correlated.[18] This    rule has been found to be approximately correct for DNA viruses    and unicellular organisms. Its basis is unknown.  <\/p>\n<p>    The small size of RNA viruses has been proposed to be locked    into a three part relation between replication fidelity, genome    size and genetic complexity. The majority of RNA viruses lack    an RNA proofreading facility which limits their replication    fidelity and hence the genome size. This has also been    described as the Eigen paradox.[19]  <\/p>\n<p>    An exception to the rule of small genome sizes in RNA viruses    is found the Nidoviruses. These viruses appear to have    acquired a 3-to-5 exoribonuclease (ExoN) which has allowed    for an increase in genome size.[20]  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Here is the original post:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Genome_size\" title=\"Genome size - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia\">Genome size - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> Genome size is the total amount of DNA contained within one copy of a single genome. It is typically measured in terms of mass in picograms (trillionths (1012) of a gram, abbreviated pg) or less frequently in Daltons or as the total number of nucleotide base pairs typically in megabases (millions of base pairs, abbreviated Mb or Mbp) <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/transhuman-news-blog\/genome\/genome-size-wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-67840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-genome"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67840"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=67840"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67840\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}