Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Mobile DNA and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research

Conserved structure and inferred evolutionary history of long terminal repeats (LTRs)

Farid Benachenhou13, Göran O Sperber2, Erik Bongcam-Rudloff3, Göran Andersson3, Jef D Boeke4 and Jonas Blomberg15*

Author Affiliations

1 Section of Virology, Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

2 Unit of Physiology, Department of Neuroscience, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

3 Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

4 High Throughput Biology Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA

5 Section of Virology, Department of Medical Sciences, Academic Hospital, Uppsala 751 85, Sweden

For all author emails, please log on.

Mobile DNA 2013, 4:5  doi:10.1186/1759-8753-4-5

Published: 1 February 2013

Abstract

Background

Long terminal repeats (LTRs, consisting of U3-R-U5 portions) are important elements of retroviruses and related retrotransposons. They are difficult to analyse due to their variability.

The aim was to obtain a more comprehensive view of structure, diversity and phylogeny of LTRs than hitherto possible.

Results

Hidden Markov models (HMM) were created for 11 clades of LTRs belonging to Retroviridae (class III retroviruses), animal Metaviridae (Gypsy/Ty3) elements and plant Pseudoviridae (Copia/Ty1) elements, complementing our work with Orthoretrovirus HMMs. The great variation in LTR length of plant Metaviridae and the few divergent animal Pseudoviridae prevented building HMMs from both of these groups.

Animal Metaviridae LTRs had the same conserved motifs as retroviral LTRs, confirming that the two groups are closely related. The conserved motifs were the short inverted repeats (SIRs), integrase recognition signals (5´TGTTRNR…YNYAACA 3´); the polyadenylation signal or AATAAA motif; a GT-rich stretch downstream of the polyadenylation signal; and a less conserved AT-rich stretch corresponding to the core promoter element, the TATA box. Plant Pseudoviridae LTRs differed slightly in having a conserved TATA-box, TATATA, but no conserved polyadenylation signal, plus a much shorter R region.

The sensitivity of the HMMs for detection in genomic sequences was around 50% for most models, at a relatively high specificity, suitable for genome screening.

The HMMs yielded consensus sequences, which were aligned by creating an HMM model (a ‘Superviterbi’ alignment). This yielded a phylogenetic tree that was compared with a Pol-based tree. Both LTR and Pol trees supported monophyly of retroviruses. In both, Pseudoviridae was ancestral to all other LTR retrotransposons. However, the LTR trees showed the chromovirus portion of Metaviridae clustering together with Pseudoviridae, dividing Metaviridae into two portions with distinct phylogeny.

Conclusion

The HMMs clearly demonstrated a unitary conserved structure of LTRs, supporting that they arose once during evolution. We attempted to follow the evolution of LTRs by tracing their functional foundations, that is, acquisition of RNAse H, a combined promoter/ polyadenylation site, integrase, hairpin priming and the primer binding site (PBS). Available information did not support a simple evolutionary chain of events.

Keywords:
LTR; Long terminal repeat; Retrotransposon; Retrovirus; Phylogeny; Genome evolution