Exploiting the architecture and the features of the microsporidian genomes to investigate diversity and impact of these parasites on ecosystems.

Fungal species play extremely important roles in ecosystems. Clustered at the base of the fungal kingdom are Microsporidia, a group of obligate intracellular eukaryotes infecting multiple animal lineages. Because of their large host spectrum and their implications in host population regulation, they influence food webs, and accordingly, ecosystem structure and function. Unfortunately, their ecological role is not well understood. Present also as highly resistant spores in the environment, their characterisation requires special attention. Different techniques based on direct isolation and/or molecular approaches can be considered to elucidate their role in the ecosystems, but integrating environmental and genomic data (for example, genome architecture, core genome, transcriptional and translational signals) is crucial to better understand the diversity and adaptive capacities of Microsporidia. Here, we review the current status of Microsporidia in trophic networks; the various genomics tools that could be used to ensure identification and evaluate diversity and abundance of these organisms; and how these tools could be used to explore the microsporidian life cycle in different environments. Our understanding of the evolution of these widespread parasites is currently impaired by limited sampling, and we have no doubt witnessed but a small subset of their diversity.

Identifying repeats and transposable elements in sequenced genomes: how to find your way through the dense forest of programs.

The production of genome sequences has led to another important advance in their annotation, which is closely linked to the exact determination of their content in terms of repeats, among which are transposable elements (TEs). The evolutionary implications and the presence of coding regions in some TEs can confuse gene annotation, and also hinder the process of genome assembly, making particularly crucial to be able to annotate and classify them correctly in genome sequences. This review is intended to provide an overview as comprehensive as possible of the automated methods currently used to annotate and classify TEs in sequenced genomes. Different categories of programs exist according to their methodology and the repeat, which they can identify. I describe here the main characteristics of the programs, their main goals and the difficulties they can entail. The drawbacks of the different methods are also highlighted to help biologists who are unfamiliar with algorithmic methods to understand this methodology better. Globally, using several different programs and carrying out a cross comparison of their results has the best chance of finding reliable results as any single program. However, this makes it essential to verify the results provided by each program independently. The ideal solution would be to test all programs against the same data set to obtain a true comparison of their actual performance.

Retrotransposons and retroviruses: analysis of the envelope gene.

Retroviruses and long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposons share a common structural organization. The main difference between these retroelements is the presence of a functional envelope (env) gene in retroviruses, which is absent or nonfunctional in LTR retrotransposons. Several similarities between these two groups of retroelements have been detected for the reverse transcriptase, gag, and integrase domains. Assuming that each of these domains shares a common ancestral sequence, several hypotheses could account for the emergence of retroviruses from LTR retrotransposons. In this context, the positions of elements such as gypsy and the members of the Ty3 subfamily are not clear, since they are classified as retroviruses but phylogenetically they are assigned to the LTR retrotransposon group. We compared the env gene products of these retroelements and identified two similar motifs in retroviruses and LTR retrotransposons. These two regions do not occur in the same order. If we assume that they are derived from the same ancestral sequence, this could result from independent acquisition of the various domains rather than the single acquisition of the whole env gene. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that the env gene was reorganized after being acquired. Trees based on these regions show that these two groups of elements are clearly distinguished. These trees are similar to those obtained from reverse transcriptase or integrase. In trees based on reverse transcriptase, the retroviruses with complete or partial env genes can be distinguished from the other LTR retrotransposons.

Is the evolution of transposable elements modular?

The evolution of transposable element structures can be analyzed in populations and species and by comparing the functional domains in the main classes of elements. We begin with a synthesis of what we know about the evolution of the mariner elements in the Drosophilidae family in terms of populations and species. We suggest that internal deletion does not occur at random, but appears to frequently occur between short internal repeats. We compared the functional domains of the DNA and/or amino acid sequences to detect similarities between the main classes of elements. This included the gag, reverse transcriptase, and envelope genes of retrotransposons and retroviruses, and the integrases of retrotransposons and retroviruses, and transposases of class II elements. We find that each domain can have its own evolutionary history. Thus, the evolution of transposable elements can be seen to be modular.