gb-2007-8-1-r5 GBJ Research <p>Update of the <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>PEST genome assembly</p> Sharakhova V Maria msharakh@vt.edu Hammond P Martin mhammond@ebi.ac.uk Lobo F Neil nlobo@nd.edu Krzywinski Jaroslaw jkrzywin@uta.edu Unger F Maria munger1@nd.edu Hillenmeyer E Maureen maureenh@stanford.edu Bruggner V Robert rbruggne@nd.edu Birney Ewan birney@ebi.ac.uk Collins H Frank frank@nd.edu

Center for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, University of Notre Dame, Galvin Life Sciences Building, Notre Dame, IN 46556-0369, USA

Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture and Life Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0319, USA

European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK

Department of Biology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, USA

School of Medicine - IDP - Biomedical Informatics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

 Genome Biology 1465-6906 2007 8 1 R5 http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/1/R5 17210077 10.1186/gb-2007-8-1-r5 26 7 2006 24 10 2006 8 1 2007 08 01 2007 2007 Sharakhova et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Anopheles genome assembly update

An update on the Anopheles gambiae PEST genome assembly places about 33% of previously unmapped sequences on the chromosomes.

Abstract

Background

The genome of Anopheles gambiae, the major vector of malaria, was sequenced and assembled in 2002. This initial genome assembly and analysis made available to the scientific community was complicated by the presence of assembly issues, such as scaffolds with no chromosomal location, no sequence data for the Y chromosome, haplotype polymorphisms resulting in two different genome assemblies in limited regions and contaminating bacterial DNA.

Results

Polytene chromosome in situ hybridization with cDNA clones was used to place 15 unmapped scaffolds (sizes totaling 5.34 Mbp) in the pericentromeric regions of the chromosomes and oriented a further 9 scaffolds. Additional analysis by in situ hybridization of bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clones placed 1.32 Mbp (5 scaffolds) in the physical gaps between scaffolds on euchromatic parts of the chromosomes. The Y chromosome sequence information (0.18 Mbp) remains highly incomplete and fragmented among 55 short scaffolds. Analysis of BAC end sequences showed that 22 inter-scaffold gaps were spanned by BAC clones. Unmapped scaffolds were also aligned to the chromosome assemblies in silico, identifying regions totaling 8.18 Mbp (144 scaffolds) that are probably represented in the genome project by two alternative assemblies. An additional 3.53 Mbp of alternative assembly was identified within mapped scaffolds. Scaffolds comprising 1.97 Mbp (679 small scaffolds) were identified as probably derived from contaminating bacterial DNA. In total, about 33% of previously unmapped sequences were placed on the chromosomes.

Conclusion

This study has used new approaches to improve the physical map and assembly of the A. gambiae genome.

 Genome studies Molecular biology Bioinformatics

Background

The genome of Anopheles gambiae, the major vector of malaria in Africa, was sequenced by a whole-genome shotgun approach 1. Physical mapping of the genome was conducted by in situ hybridization of about 2,000 bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clones on ovarian nurse cell polytene chromosomes. As a result, in the first publication of the A. gambiae physical map, 67 scaffolds equivalent to 227 mega-base-pairs (Mbp) were assigned to chromosomes. Of these, 52 scaffolds were oriented. However, approximately 18% of the assembled A. gambiae genome was represented in scaffolds that did not have a chromosomal location assigned. About 50 Mbp in the assembly were assigned with arbitrary order and orientation to an unmapped chromosome 2. In this study, new approaches were used to improve the physical map and assembly of the A. gambiae genome.

The most poorly mapped parts of the A. gambiae genome were the pericentromeric regions of the chromosomes. These chromosomal regions are made up of highly and moderately repetitive DNA sequences 34 that are extremely depleted of genes 5 and form specific heterochromatic structures on chromosomes 67. Pericentromeric heterochromatin plays an important role in many biological processes, such as cell division 8, meiotic pairing 9, regulation of DNA replication and gene expression 1011, and is generally associated with gene silencing 1213. However, the assembly and physical mapping of these regions is a difficult part of any genome project 141516171819. In Drosophila melanogaster, for example, one-third of the 180 Mbp genome is centric heterochromatin; but in the first genome publication only 2% of the sequence reads contained heterochromatic simple sequence repeats 20, and only 3 scaffolds corresponding to 3.8 Mb were mapped in centromeric areas 14.

According to Cot analysis, 33% (about 86 Mbp) of the A. gambiae genome corresponds to repetitive elements 21. The highest density of repeats is located in pericentromeric regions and forms the completely heterochromatic Y chromosome 22. In contrast with Drosophila, short simple repeats are not expanded in the A. gambiae genome; therefore, cloning of the heterochromatic portion of the genome was more successful. However, in the first publication of the A. gambiae genome only 9 scaffolds, with a total size of 3.3 Mbp, were mapped to pericentromeric regions on chromosomes 1. Mapping is difficult because BAC clones representing pericentromeric regions are likely to map to multiple locations due to their high repeat content. In previous work 27 BAC clones hybridized to all centromeric regions on the chromosomes and 116 BAC clones hybridized to pericentromeric regions and multiple locations on the chromosomes 1. To determine the genomic location of heterochromatic scaffolds, cDNA clones from the Normalized Anopheles Pool (ANGNAP1) library with sequences matching regions of these scaffolds were mapped to the chromosomes. Additionally, this approach was used to orient scaffolds that were not previously oriented. For some scaffolds, PCR amplified DNA of genes predicted in the scaffolds was used for physical mapping.

No sequence data were assigned to the Y chromosome in the original publication of the A. gambiae genome 1. Subsequent studies revealed numerous repetitive sequences on the Y chromosome, including four families of satellite DNA and a massive accumulation of several transposable elements, consistent with the fully heterochromatic nature of that chromosome 2324. Only one Y-specific scaffold contained an open reading frame that appeared to correspond to a gene fragment and was expressed exclusively in males. However, a recent extensive bioinformatics-based search failed to reveal other Y-linked scaffolds containing gene sequences 25.

Another significant problem in the A. gambiae genome assembly was the existence of 64 physical gaps between the mapped scaffolds 1. BAC and cDNA clones were used for in situ hybridization to physically assign 5 scaffolds with a total size of 1.3 Mbp in these gaps. In addition, systematic in silico analysis of BAC end sequences (BESs) from the ND-1 1 and ND-TAM 26 BAC libraries identified BAC clones that span a third of the physical gaps. The sequencing of these clones would allow further improvement of the A. gambiae genome assembly.

Genetic variation within the A. gambiae genome posed another challenge for mapping and assembly 1. A. gambiae is a highly polymorphic species, characterized by the presence of five chromosomal forms (Bamako, Mopti, Savanna, Bissau and Forest); sympatric populations of the Bamako, Mopti and Savanna forms are at least partially isolated from each other in Mali. These chromosomal forms can be identified by paracentric inversions of the 2R chromosomal arm and have different adaptation to certain climatic conditions and human environments 272829. Moreover, an additional type of polymorphism, termed M and S molecular forms, has been revealed in natural populations of A. gambiae by differences in ribosomal DNA 3031. The PEST strain, selected for the genome sequencing because it had the standard chromosomal arrangement, was produced by crossing a laboratory strain originating in Nigeria with the offspring of field-collected A. gambiae from western Kenya 1. As a result of the high level of polymorphism within the strain, some regions of the genome appeared as two different assemblies ('haplotypes') within the set of scaffolds. Holt et al. 1 estimated that the presence of alternative assemblies led to overrepresentation of the size of the genome by about 21.3 Mbp. Additional analysis of the scaffold sequences in silico identified 144 previously unplaced scaffolds totaling 8.18 Mbp that are probable alternative assemblies of regions already placed on the chromosomes. In addition, 20 cases totaling 3.53 Mbp of sequence were identified where the adjacent ends of large mapped scaffolds appear to be alternative assemblies of the same region.

The genomic libraries used for the sequencing of the A. gambiae genome were contaminated by bacterial DNA 1. By bioinformatics approaches, 679 scaffolds with a total size of 1.97 Mbp were determined to be derived from contaminating bacterial DNA.

Results

The revised A. gambiae PEST assembly is available at GenBank. The scaffold entries have information about alternative assembly regions and all other corresponding information. The new RefSeq entries reflect the revised chromosome assemblies (GenBank: CM000356-CM000360).

Physical mapping and scaffold orientation in the pericentromeric regions

Pericentromeric regions are probably under-represented in the genome assembly because the scaffolds from these regions, although assembled, cannot be localized on the chromosome. The likely reason they fail to localize correctly is that they contain a large percentage of highly repeated sequences, so large probes such as the BAC clones previously used to map the scaffolds give ambiguous results - hybridization to multiple regions. This was overcome by using unique sequences in the scaffolds as probes for in situ hybridization on the ovarian polytene chromosomes. A good source of unique sequences is cDNAs from unique genes encoded in the scaffolds. To detect the genes in the unassigned scaffolds, cDNA sequences from the ANGNAP1 library were compared to the scaffold sequences. Clones representing unique sequences near the ends of the scaffolds were selected for use as probes for in situ hybridization. To differentiate scaffold ends, cDNAs from opposite ends were labeled with red Cy3 and blue Cy5 dyes. Typical results from in situ hybridizations using this technique are shown in Figure 1. The results from numerous hybridization experiments demonstrated that the scaffolds could generally be oriented on the polytene chromosome when the labeled target sequences were located more than 100 kb apart on the scaffold. In some cases, cDNAs were not available to represent the unique sequences at the end of a scaffold; in those cases, probes were made by PCR amplification of unique sequence from BAC clones. Although the use of PCR amplified genes was less successful than the use of cDNA sequences, three scaffolds (AAAB01008973, AAAB01008949 and AAAB01008942) were positioned by this technique.

<p>Figure 1</p>

Results of in situ hybridization of cDNA clones to the heterochromatic regions on the polytene chromosomes of A. gambiae

Results of in situ hybridization of cDNA clones to the heterochromatic regions on the polytene chromosomes of A. gambiae. Two cDNA clones were labeled with red Cy3 and blue Cy5 dyes and hybridized to the polytene chromosomes: the red signals indicate the beginning and the blue signals show the end of the scaffolds. The location of the scaffolds, (a) AAAB01008973, (b) AAAB01008961 and (c) AAAB01008971, were indicated by in situ hybridization of the cDNA clones: ANP1272B11, ANP1141F09 (a); ANP1302A01, ANP1344A01 (b) and ANP131B08, ANP121D04 (c) on the chromosome X (a), 2 (b) and 3 (c).

Chromosome X

By cDNA and PCR fragment physical mapping, four scaffolds with lengths between 400 and 600 kbp were placed in the pericentromeric region on chromosome X (Additional data file 1). Scaffolds AAAB01008973 and AAAB01008858 were localized and oriented to the distal part of the X chromosome pericentromeric region 6 (Figure 2a). Scaffolds AAAB01008967 and AAAB01008976 were mapped more proximally to the pericentromeric region (Figure 2a). Orientation of these scaffolds was not possible because cDNA clones within the scaffolds hybridized to the same places on the chromosome. By the same method, previously mapped but unoriented scaffolds AAAB01008975 and AAAB01008885 were oriented (Figure 2a). Scaffold AAAB01008861 was oriented and mapped more precisely as the most proximal scaffold on the X chromosome (Figure 2a). Two cDNA clones from that scaffold were localized to the most proximal part of the pericentomeric heterochromatin. cDNA clone ANGNAP1293B02, which hybridized to the condensed heterochromatic band on the X chromosome, also labeled nucleoli in all cells on the slide. BLASTN analysis demonstrated significant similarity of this cDNA to ribosomal RNA genes of A. albimanus and Aedes albopictus. These genes are not currently annotated in the A. gambiae genome. This area of the X chromosome has a significant number of gaps, which may have hindered in silico annotation. BLASTN analysis also showed localization of A. gambiae ribosomal RNA genes in scaffold AAAB01008976, which is the adjacent mapped scaffold. Thus, this area can be described as a nucleolar-organizing region for the polytene X chromosome.

<p>Figure 2</p>

Scaffolds located in pericentromeric regions on A. gambiae chromosomes

Scaffolds located in pericentromeric regions on A. gambiae chromosomes. Black and red lines and arrows on the left side of the picture correspond to the scaffolds previously and newly mapped to the pericentromeric regions of chromosomes (a) X, (b) 2 and (c) 3, respectively; blue arrows indicate newly oriented scaffolds. The dots on the arrows show the beginning of the scaffolds and the arrowheads correspond to the end of the scaffolds. The scaffolds are identified by the last four digits of the scaffold ID. The scale on the left side of the chromosomes indicates divisions and subdivisions in these regions. Black arrows on the right side of the picture show the location of the PCR amplified gene-fragments and BAC and cDNA clones.

Chromosome 2

Four scaffolds were mapped to the pericentromeric region of chromosome 2 (Additional data file 1). Two scaffolds AAAB01008949 and AAAB01008897 were placed on the right arm (2R) of this chromosome (Figure 2b). Scaffold AAAB01008942 was assigned to the very proximal end of the 2L arm (Figure 2b), and scaffold AAAB01008026 was mapped on the distal part of region 20A (Figure 2b). Both scaffolds mapped to the 2L arm have been oriented. The distal boundary of scaffold AAAB01008987 was also mapped to the telomeric region of the 2R arm. The last BAC clone, 170B21, from this scaffold hybridized to the pair of distal dark bands in subdivision 7A. Additional analysis of previously mapped BAC clones showed that the telomeric end of the 2L chromosomal arm was covered by scaffold AAAB01008807.

Chromosome 3

Eight scaffolds were assigned to the pericentromeric region of chromosome 3 (Additional data file 1; Figure 2c). Scaffold AAAB01008822 was localized on the distal part of region 37D on the 3R arm. Scaffold AAAB01008943 covered the proximal part of this region and reached the centromeric block of 3R. Scaffolds AAAB01008957, AAAB01008972, AAAB01008985 and AAAB01008981 have been placed in region 38A of the 3L arm. Only two of these scaffolds, AAAB01008943 and AAAB01008972, have been oriented. In addition, scaffold AAAB01008795 was oriented in the region 38C, and the distal boundary of the scaffold AAAB01008849 was more precisely mapped in region 38C (Figure 2c).

The gene content and amounts of transposable elements and short simple repeats were compared between euchromatic and heterochromatic scaffolds across all chromosomes. Gene density in heterochromatin varies but, on average (2 per 100 kbp), is 40% that of the gene density in euchromatin (5 per 100 kbp). In the most centromeric scaffolds, gene content was as low as 0.2 per 100 kbp. The most significant components of the heterochromatic scaffolds are transposable elements: about 50% of the sequences were found to have similarities to the known transposable elements. The content of repeat elements shorter than 200 bp is two-fold higher in heterochromatic scaffolds (8.7%) than in euchromatic scaffolds (4.7%).

Y-linked scaffolds

Recently, four satellite DNA families were reported from the male-specific Y chromosome 24; however, the complete list of scaffolds harboring these satellite sequences was not published. In the present study, 54 such scaffolds have been identified using BLASTN searches. All 54 scaffolds are considered here as Y-linked (Additional data file 2). They usually have short sequences and are composed entirely of repeats of a given satellite family. The few exceptions correspond to scaffolds with juxtaposed arrays of different satellite families or of a satellite DNA and a transposable element fragment. Scaffolds containing Y-linked satellite DNA have a total length of 134 kb. Including the Y-linked scaffold detected previously 23, the overall length of the Y chromosome scaffolds identified in the A. gambiae genome reaches only 182 kb, making it still the most poorly explored part of the genome. None of the Y-specific scaffolds have been physically mapped, as in situ hybridization experiments were conducted only on polytene chromosomes from ovarian nurse cells.

Assembly improvement in euchromatic regions

Analysis of BAC clones by in situ hybridization was used to assign four additional scaffolds (AAAB01008862, AAAB01008456, AAAB01008882, AAAB01008090) to the euchromatic chromosomal regions (Additional data file 1). In addition, scaffold AAAB01008838 was assigned to an inter-scaffold gap on 3L by in situ hybridization of cDNA clones. Scaffold AAAB01008882 was not included in the final 2L chromosome assembly because of the possibility of some miss-assembly.

A BLASTN analysis of BESs was utilized to identify 94 BAC clones that mapped in the vicinity of the 36 inter-scaffold gaps between scaffolds placed on chromosomes. These BAC clones were further examined manually to identify those that spanned gaps. On chromosome 2R, 13 BAC clones were identified that covered 11 gaps. Two BAC clones were identified on 2L that spanned one gap, two BAC clones on 3R covered two gaps and 19 BAC clones were identified on 3L that crossed a total of eight gaps. No BAC clones were identified that covered gaps on the X chromosome (Additional data file 3). In total, 36 BAC clones were identified that could be used to sequence through 22 gaps on the Anopheles genome assembly. As discussed below, 12 of these 22 gaps have also been bridged by finding that adjacent scaffold ends appear to represent alternative assemblies of the same region (Table 1).

<p>Table 1</p>

Scaffolds from the current Anopheles gambiae genome golden path

No.

Scaffold accession number

Full length of scaffold*

Scaffold begin

Scaffold end

Assembly status to the next scaffold

BAC clones crossing gap between current and next scaffold

X chromosome

Telomere end

1

AAAB01008846

11308833

4C

1D

Not joined

2

AAAB01008847

3715079

1D

5A

Not joined

3

AAAB01008963

2230633

5A

5C

Not joined

4

AAAB01008811

3062431

5C

6

Not joined

5

AAAB01008973

600295

6

6

Not joined

6

AAAB01008958

589940

6

6

Not joined

7

AAAB01008852

409660

6

6

Not joined

8

AAAB01008975

935344

6

6

Not joined

9

AAAB01008885

267815

6

6

Not joined

10

AAAB01008967

438965

6

6

Not joined

11

AAAB01007622

14705

6

6

Not joined

12

AAAB01008976

589797

6

6

Not joined

13

AAAB01008861

109611

6

6

Not joined

X chromosome

Centromere end

2R chromosome

Telomere end

14

AAAB01008987

16222597

10D

7A

Bridged

17O20

15

AAAB01008799

2774677

11B

10D

Not joined

16

AAAB01008859

12516315

13E

11B

Bridged

122O11

17

AAAB01008879

2921310

14A

14C

Joined

18

AAAB01008794

932688

14D

14D

Joined

19

AAAB01008982

1015562

14D

14E

Joined and bridged

155O10

20

AAAB01008904

1759265

14E

15B

Joined

21

AAAB01008851

2082253

15C

15C

Joined and bridged

179J17

22

AAAB01008820

590116

15D

15C

Joined and bridged

30L16

23

AAAB01008888

3396474

15D

16A

Not joined

24

AAAB01008844

2866027

16B

16D

Joined and bridged

21H06

25

AAAB01008805

646796

16D

16D

Not joined

26

AAAB01008862

212521

16D

16D

Not joined

27

AAAB01008978

1934381

16D

17B

Bridged

124P12

28

AAAB01008817

1590424

17C

17C

Bridged

16N20, 105N12

29

AAAB01008880

4233641

18A

18C

Not joined

30

AAAB01008898

4120773

18C

19C

Bridged

105P15

31

AAAB01008952

1118246

19D

19C

Not joined

32

AAAB01008961

516376

19D

19D

Bridged

174H20, 127O12

33

AAAB01008850

840256

19D

19D

Bridged

07F16

34

AAAB01008977

457753

19D

19D

Not joined

35

AAAB01008949

335163

19E

19E

Not joined

36

AAAB01008897

259841

19E

19E

Not joined

2R chromosome

Centromere end

2L chromosome

Centromere end

37

AAAB01008942

373146

20A

20A

Not joined

38

AAAB01008026

124951

20A

20A

Not joined

39

AAAB01008864

318965

20B

20B

Not joined

40

AAAB01008968

3184012

20D

20B

Bridged

01I16, 01J12

41

AAAB01008905

1027887

20D

20D

Not joined

42

AAAB01008948

3345744

21A

21B

Not joined

43

AAAB01008456

41134

21B

21B

Not joined

44

AAAB01008827

28099

21B

21B

Not joined

45

AAAB01008900

4906461

21C

21F

Not joined

46

AAAB01008810

494023

21F

22A

Not joined

47

AAAB01008960

23099915

22A

25D

Not joined

48

AAAB01008807

12309988

28D

25D

Not joined

2Lchromosome

Telomere end

3R chromosome

Telomere end

49

AAAB01008964

12399987

30E

29A

Joined

50

AAAB01008944

6709423

30E

31D

Joined

51

AAAB01008984

12483120

32A

33D

Joined and bridged

11E04

52

AAAB01008835

1771096

33D

34A

Joined

53

AAAB01008797

1002333

34A

34B

Not joined

54

AAAB01008839

2408169

34C

34B

Joined and bridged

08B11

55

AAAB01008980

16417966

34C

37D

Not joined

56

AAAB01008822

56627

37D

37D

Not joined

57

AAAB01008971

377729

37D

37D

Not joined

58

AAAB01008943

173243

37D

37D

Not joined

3R chromosome

Centromere end

3L chromosome

Centromere end

59

AAAB01008981

219224

38A

38A

Not joined

60

AAAB01008985

236235

38A

38A

Not joined

61

AAAB01008972

744379

38A

38A

Not joined

62

AAAB01008957

222192

38A

38A

Not joined

63

AAAB01008849

2994010

38C

38B

Not joined

64

AAAB01008906

127247

38C

38C

Not joined

65

AAAB01008795

347814

38C

38C

Not joined

66

AAAB01008933

2255294

38C

39B

Not joined

67

AAAB01008838

221210

39A

39A

Not joined

68

AAAB01008796

270581

39B

39B

Bridged

22E23, 119N12

69

AAAB01008848

1927899

39B

39C

Joined and bridged

133F8, 12F24

70

AAAB01008979

1577277

40A

39C

Joined

71

AAAB01008951

359421

40A

40A

Joined and bridged

02H06

72

AAAB01008823

3392972

41A

40B

Joined and bridged

04P06, 10C06, 08F18

73

AAAB01008793

402616

41A

41A

Joined and bridged

160H13

74

AAAB01008804

907607

41B

41A

Joined

75

AAAB01008816

6058108

42B

41B

Not joined

76

AAAB01008966

3863510

43B

42C

Joined

77

AAAB01008956

1048260

43B

43B

Joined and bridged

128N23

78

AAAB01008090

381451

43B

43B

Joined and bridged

131N20, 143K17, 23C10

79

AAAB01008834

2541584

43D

43B

Bridged

12N18, 08K01, 102F22, 172A24, 19C24, 23K03

80

AAAB01008986

12698247

46D

43D

Not joined

3L chromosome

Telomere end

*This represents the original scaffold lengths. When adjacent scaffolds overlap, part of one of the scaffolds was designated as an alternative assembly and excluded from the chromosome assembly (see Additional data file 6). The 28 scaffolds shown in bold have been newly mapped or oriented.

Detection of polymorphic and bacterial specific scaffolds

To identify scaffolds from polymorphic regions, unmapped scaffolds were aligned to the chromosome assemblies using the program exonerate 32, allowing alignments to extend through gaps and possible insertions and deletions in the scaffolds. This revealed 144 scaffolds, of sizes between 15 kbp and 415 kbp and totaling 8.186 Mbp, that aligned over their entire length to a previously mapped, larger scaffold (Additional data file 4). The two aligned alternatives for these regions differed in sequence by between 1.2% and 4.6%, with 90% of the pairs showing sequence differences within the range 1.7% to 3.7%. Such scaffolds probably represent alternative assemblies of the chromosome region and indicate parts of the genome where two haplotypes may have been segregating within the sequenced PEST strain. Seven scaffolds from this list were also physically mapped to appropriate chromosomal locations.

Because such alternative assemblies could also occur at the ends of adjacent scaffolds, physically mapped scaffolds were also examined to detect ends that represented alternative assemblies of the same region. Two approaches were taken. First, all scaffolds were compared to all other scaffolds using exonerate, and long alignments of high identity that involved scaffold ends were examined. All such alignments detected involved pairs of scaffold ends that had been placed next to one another on the chromosome by physical mapping. Secondly, adjacent scaffold ends were aligned with Dotter, and the alignments were inspected visually. A final list of 21 scaffold segments on 18 scaffolds considered to be alternative assemblies was prepared by inspection of the exonerate and Dotter alignments (Additional data file 5). All these cases were in regions of chromosome arms 2R, 3L or 3R that were previously proposed to be segregating for distinct haplotypes in the PEST strain 1. The range of sequence difference for the final set of aligned sequences was 2.0% to 4.0%. The segment with the higher quality sequence assembly, judged by number of gaps and separation of mapped BAC ends, was retained as part of the AgamP3 chromosome assembly. The lower quality segment was designated as an alternative assembly region (Figure 3). Approximately 3.53 Mbp of sequence were removed from the chromosomes by this approach and 20 gaps in the assembly were closed.

<p>Figure 3</p>

Example of joining scaffolds where adjacent ends are alternative assemblies of the same region

Example of joining scaffolds where adjacent ends are alternative assemblies of the same region. (a) Using physical mapping techniques, scaffolds AAAB01008904 and AAAB0108851 are placed adjacent to one another on chromosome arm 2R. In the previous genome assembly, MOZ2, the scaffolds were placed with an arbitrary 10 kbp of gap between them. (b) After alignment of scaffolds using Exonerate and Dotter, it was clear that there was about 64 kbp of sequence overlap between the 3' end of AAAB01008904 and the 5' end of AAAB0108851. Based on BAC coverage of each scaffold and gaps in each of the scaffold sequences, we chose to keep the overlapping region from AAAB01008904 (base-pairs 1102797 to 1759265) and use it for the new chromosome assembly. (c) The corresponding overlapping region from AAAB0108851 (base-pairs 1 to 635373) was deemed to be an alternative assembly segment, with the rest of the scaffold kept as part of the chromosome assembly. The regions retained as parts of chromosome arm 2R were placed adjacent to each other with no inter- scaffold gap.

Initial analyses revealed that some of the unmapped scaffolds harbored sequences with unexpectedly high similarity to bacterial proteins. Thirty-two such scaffolds were tested for their presence in the mosquito genome by PCR amplification of A. gambiae PEST strain genomic DNA from embryos using PCR primer pairs specific to these scaffolds (Additional data file 6). Despite repeated attempts, none of the primer pairs yielded any specific products. The combined evidence of high sequence similarity to bacterial genes and negative PCR results strongly suggested that the bacterial-like sequences constitute a contaminant of the A. gambiae genome assembly, rather than an integral part of the A. gambiae genome (data not shown). To identify all such potential bacterial scaffolds, the entire unmapped scaffold set was compared against NCBI's nr protein database. Scaffolds were identified as bacterial contaminants if they had no high similarity to other A. gambiae scaffolds and top hits against the scaffold were only to bacterial proteins with E values at least five orders of magnitude higher than any hits to proteins from eukaryotic organisms. A set of 679 scaffolds, totaling 1.97 Mbp, matched these criteria and are thus regarded as bacterial (Additional data file 6).

The revised assembly (AgamP3) has a total of 80 scaffolds assigned to and ordered on the chromosome arms X, 2R, 2L, 3R and 3L (Table 1). The 28 scaffolds shown in bold have been newly mapped or oriented. In 10 cases, adjacent scaffolds are bridged by BAC clones that have their ends mapped to the two different scaffolds. In 20 cases adjacent scaffolds have been joined because their ends represent alternative assemblies of the same region; 12 of these joins are also supported by bridging BACs. Thus, three different approaches have proved valuable for improving the assembly of the genome: additional physical mapping, detailed in silico analysis of the scaffold sequences, and further mapping of BAC clone end sequences.

Discussion

The result of this work is an improved view of the A. gambiae genome assembly. In the sequencing and assembly phase of the A. gambiae genome project, a significant amount of the heterochromatic DNA was successfully cloned and sequenced 1. However, enrichment of the repetitive DNA in pericentromeric regions limited the initial effort to physically map these regions. Only 9 scaffolds with total size 3.3 Mbp were mapped in pericentromeric regions of chromosomes. Figure 4a compares this updated version of the A. gambiae assembly (AgamP3) with the previous version 1. The most significant differences between these two versions are seen in the pericentromeric areas of all chromosomes. The updated version of the genome has 24 scaffolds with a total size of 8.64 Mbp in pericentromeric areas. These results are comparable with data obtained for the D. melanogaster genome. In the first publication of the fruit fly genome, only 3.8 Mbp were mapped to centromeric areas 20. Release 3 of the Drosophila whole-genome shotgun sequence assembly (WGS3) significantly extended the assembly into the centric heterochromatin; 20.7 Mbp of sequence was identified as heterochromatic 33. Both Drosophila and Anopheles genome assemblies have 16 large scaffolds with sizes bigger then 250 kbp in the heterochromatic regions of the chromosomes.

<p>Figure 4</p>

A comparison of the initial and updated versions of the Anopheles gambiae genome assembly

A comparison of the initial and updated versions of the Anopheles gambiae genome assembly.(a) The scaffolds from the previous and updated versions of the genome are shown by gray and pink bars, respectively. Purple stripes on the scaffolds indicate alternative haplotype scaffolds with sizes bigger than 50 kbp. Black bars correspond to the BAC clones that cross inter-scaffold gaps. (b) The updated status of the A. gambiae genome project. Sectors correspond to the previously mapped scaffolds, additionally physically mapped scaffolds, alternative haplotype scaffolds, Y-specific scaffolds, bacterial contaminant scaffolds and the remaining scaffolds that are not assigned to the chromosomes.

This AgamP3 assembly does not complete any of the centromeric regions on the chromosomes, and it is unclear if any of the scaffolds now mapped to centromeric regions actually include functional centromeric sequences. No large blocks of simple repeats appear in the scaffolds that have been mapped in heterochromatic regions. The amount of short repeats (smaller then 200 bp) in different heterochromatic scaffolds varies from 1% to 34%. The functional approximately 420 kbp Drosophila centromere is composed of large blocks of repeats (350 kbp) and more complex sequence composed of transposable elements 34. The situation is similar in Arabidopsis chromosomes, where the centromeric regions contain tandem 180 bp repeats with a total size of about 0.5 to 3 Mbp, and the surrounding area is enriched in moderate repeats and transposable elements 1617. In neither case does the initial genome assembly reach the centromeric region, and special efforts were required for cloning and sequencing the centromeres.

According to in situ results, the only telomeric region covered by scaffolds in the A. gambiae assembly is on the 2L arm. All three satellite sequences previously described as telomeric 3536 have been identified in this scaffold. The in situ results for the distal most BAC clones in the scaffolds closest to the telomeric regions on the other chromosomal arms showed that they are located several bands from the ends of the chromosomes.

The gene content in areas around centromeres is comparable between Anopheles, Drosophila and Arabidopsis genomes. Gene density in the Anopheles genome is 5 per 100 kbp in euchromatic scaffolds, 2 per 100 kbp in pericentromeric and 0.2 per 100 kbp in the three most centromeric scaffolds. In the Drosophila genome the gene content is higher in euchromatin at 11 genes per 100 kbp 20 and the same at 2 per 100 kbp around the heterochromatin-euchromatin junction 33. Arabidobsis has an even higher gene content in euchromatic areas of about 25 per 100 kbp, 1.5 in the genetically identified centromeric region and 0.9 in the region enriched in repetitive elements 16. As in Drosophila 37 and Arabidopsis 16, the Anopheles genome does not have a sharp boundary between hetero- and euchromatin.

Figure 4a shows 22 gaps between scaffolds in the A. gambiae genome that can be covered by additional sequencing of BAC clones, which would decrease the number of scaffolds in the genome assembly. The great progress in finishing the Drosophila genome has come as a result of the additional sequencing of overlapping BAC clones, sub-clones and PCR products 38. Release 3 of the Drosophila genome is represented by 13 scaffolds with a total of 37 sequencing gaps in the euchromatic portion of the genome.

In the initial report of the A. gambiae genomic sequence, Holt et al. 1 described considerable genetic variation within the PEST strain and suggested, partly on the basis of finding regions with very high single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) density, that the PEST strain continued to segregate into two different haplotypes for certain regions of the genome. These regions would have derived from the divergent Mopti and Savanna chromosomal forms that contributed to the construction of the PEST strain. Thomasova et al. 39 sequenced BAC clones in the Pen1 area of the PEST genome and found a 3.3% sequence difference in a 122 kbp region of BAC clone overlap, suggesting that this polymorphism in PEST was not simply an artifact of assembling a highly polymorphic colony. This study has identified 141 distinct scaffolds that probably represent alternative assemblies for regions totaling 8.2 Mbp, and an additional 3.5 Mbp previously mapped to chromosomes. Figure 4a shows the location of the alternative haplotype scaffolds with sizes bigger than 50 kbp. Adjacent pairs of scaffolds that have overlapping alternative assemblies on their ends are shown as single scaffolds on the picture of the new A. gambiae assembly.

It remains possible that some of the sequences designated as alternative haplotype assemblies are actually real duplications. However, the regions identified overlap with those previously found to have high SNP densities, and the alternative assemblies for a region differed in sequence by between 1.2% and 4.6%, similar to the previously reported difference found from BAC sequencing 39. The identification of scaffolds that represent alternative assemblies enables duplicates to be removed from the set of scaffolds making up the genomic assembly and enables the elimination of artifactual genes from the predicted A. gambiae gene set. It will also facilitate initial studies of both non-coding and gene allelic differences between the two contributing chromosomal forms. It is important to note, however, that the two alternative assemblies of a region are unlikely to accurately represent the two alternative 'haplotypes' that may have been segregating in the PEST strain. Instead, the assembly process may produce two assemblies, both of which are a mosaic of the two haplotypes. Additional scaffolds or scaffold regions that represent alternative assemblies may still be present within the set described here as the revised genomic assembly AgamP3. In this study, 15 kbp was selected as the shortest alignment that could reliably be classified as two alternative assemblies, reasoning that smaller alignments could represent different transposons. In addition, some polymorphic regions may have been assembled as artifactual tandem duplications within a single scaffold 1; this study has not attempted to eliminate such regions.

The A. gambiae genomic sequences are expected to contain some level of contamination from bacteria, particularly from those found in the gut 1. Currently, 679 scaffolds have been identified as apparently bacterial. However, the actual number of bacterial scaffolds within the A. gambiae assembly may be larger. The selected list includes only scaffolds with BLAST hits to bacterial sequences having a cutoff value of E = 10-15. It is likely that some scaffolds with smaller sequence similarity to bacterial sequences currently available in GenBank also have bacterial origin.

Moreover, the assembly refinements described in this paper have a direct impact on the predicted genome wide set of genes. The most recent gene set based on the previous assembly 40 included 422 gene predictions on scaffolds or scaffold segments now classified as alternative assemblies. The scaffolds now designated as bacterial contaminants had 328 gene predictions already marked as of likely bacterial origin, and an additional 522 not so marked. Inspection of these showed that many had domains suggesting a likely bacterial origin, and none were unequivocally eukaryotic. Hence the first gene set based on the new assembly 41 benefits from the removal of some duplicate predictions (artifactual paralogues) for genes represented in two alternative assemblies of the same chromosome region and from the absence of predictions derived from bacterial contaminants.

Conclusion

Use of cDNA and BAC clones and PCR amplified gene-fragments as probes for in situ hybridization and additional in silico analysis of the scaffold sequences have led to an overall improvement of the A. gambiae genome assembly. A total of about 15 Mbp has been added to the mapped part of the genome, about 2 Mbp has been removed as bacterial specific and about 12 Mbp has been reclassified as probable alternative assemblies (Figure 4b). One-third of the previously unmapped portion of the A. gambiae genome has been assigned to a chromosomal location. Removal of the probable bacterial and alternative assembly scaffolds has reduced the genome from the original total of 278 Mbp in the Moz2 assembly to 264 Mbp (without gaps), which is much closer to the CoT estimate of 260 Mbp of Besansky and Powell 21. Moreover, even this new genome size estimate is likely to be somewhat inflated because of residual, small haplotype and bacterial contamination scaffolds. While the AgamP3 assembly can clearly be improved by sequencing BAC clones that cross inter-scaffold gaps or a careful analysis of mate pair violations among the genomic DNA clones sequenced in the original genome project, the upcoming genome projects for the A. gambiae S and M molecular forms 42 is almost certain to produce a significantly improved assembly for one or both of these two new A. gambiae genomes.

Materials and methods

In situ hybridization

Three different types of probe were used for in situ hybridization: cDNA clones, BAC clones and PCR amplified genes. The cDNA clones were selected from the ANGNAP1 library using BLASTN searching against each of the unmapped and unoriented scaffolds. A pair of cDNA clones from genes on opposite ends of the scaffold and each with a single location in the genome were considered as the candidates for in situ hybridization. BAC clones from ND-1 1 or ND-Tam 26 libraries and PCR amplified gene-fragments were identified within the scaffolds using the mappings displayed in the VectorBase genome viewer 41. Primer design for gene-fragment amplification was done using the Primer 3 program. The cDNA probes were prepared using the FastPlasmid Mini kit (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) and BAC clone DNA was isolated by standard procedures 43. Both types of probe were labeled with Cy3-AP3-dUTP or Cy5-AP3-dUTP (GE Healthcare UK Ltd (formerly Amersham Biosciences Corp.), Little Chalfont, Buckinghamshire, UK) using the GIBCO BRL Nick Translation labeling system. Amplified gene-fragment DNA was prepared by standard PCR amplification procedures 43. To prevent non-specific amplification we utilized an appropriate BAC clone DNA as a template for PCR. PCR product was labeled with Cy3-AP3-dUTP or Cy5-AP3-dUTP (GE Healthcare UK Ltd) using the Random Primers DNA Labeling System (Invitrogen, Karlsruht, Germany). To obtain polytene chromosome preparations, ovaries from the SUA strain at the appropriate stage were dissected into fresh Carnoy's solution (ethanol: glacial acetic acid, 3:1). Ovaries were gently pressed with a cover slip in 50% propionic acid, dipped in liquid nitrogen, then cover slips were removed and slides were dehydrated in 50%, 70%, 95%, and 100% ethanol. DNA probes were hybridized to the chromosomes by standard procedures 44 and then chromosomes were washed in 0.2XSSC, counterstained with YOYO-1 and mounted in DABCO 45. Fluorescent signals were detected using a Bio-Rad MRC 1024 Scanning Confocal System (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA).

Estimation of gene, transposable element and short repeat density in scaffolds

The genomic sequences of A. gambiae scaffolds were downloaded from the VectorBase website 41. For the estimation of gene density in scaffolds, 12,600 assembled expressed sequence tags from a Normalized Head library, Normalized Fat Body library and a pooled library were placed on scaffolds using BLAST, requiring an E value of <10-20. For the analysis of the simple repeat content with sizes smaller then 200 bp, we used Tandem Repeats Finder 46. The percentage of sequences corresponding to the known transposable elements was found using the RepeatMasker program 47. Two custom databases were used for the search: the database of the A. gambiae transposable elements (Maria Sharakhova and Frank Collins, unpublished data) and the database of natural transposable element sequences identified in D. melanogaster by M Ashburner et al. 48.

Identification of the Y-specific scaffolds

Scaffolds containing Y chromosome-specific satellite DNA families were regarded as Y-linked. They were identified using randomly selected monomer sequence of each of the four Y-specific satellite DNA families 24 as a query in local BLASTN searches against the A. gambiae genome database.

Finding BAC clones bridging physical gaps between scaffolds

To identify BAC clones spanning gaps, BLASTN was utilized. A. gambiae BESs that demonstrated significant similarity (E < 10-50) to scaffolds on either side of gaps were selected. From this pool, BACs were identified as crossing gaps if paired BESs fulfilled the following criteria: matching the A. gambiae genomic sequence with an E value of <10-75, having the appropriate relative orientation, and preferably not being repeated on the scaffolds. The sequence length between the BES and the gap was then determined to identify the shortest BAC that crossed the gap, if more than one was identified, using the VectorBase genome viewer.

Identification of polymorphic and bacterial contaminant scaffolds

To detect polymorphic scaffolds in the A. gambiae genome, unmapped scaffolds greater than 15 kbp in length were mapped to the release 2 chromosome assemblies using the program exonerate 32. Alignment was carried out with exonerate's non-equivalence region (NER) model, which permits alignments to be carried on across the gaps within scaffolds and across possible insertions and deletions. Scaffolds were identified as representing putative alternative assemblies for a region if >97% of the unmapped scaffold was aligned to a chromosome region (where this figure includes any segments treated as non-equivalence regions) and there was >95% sequence identity in the aligned segments. A similar approach was used to identify ends of mapped scaffolds that might represent alternative assemblies of the same region. Selected scaffolds were also aligned and examined using Dotter 49. Scaffolds were identified as derived from contaminating bacterial DNA if they were unmapped and if the scaffolds appeared to encode only proteins of prokaryotic origin. Scaffold sequences were compared with all proteins in GenBank using BLASTX and were designated as bacterial if they had a hit to a prokaryotic protein with an E value that was <10-15 and 5 orders of magnitude lower than that of the best hit to a eukaryotic protein. To assess the risk of false positive results, we took scaffolds previously mapped to the A. gambiae chromosome arms, broke them into pieces of size equal to the average length of all putative contaminant scaffolds, and then searched them for prokaryotic-like proteins in the same manner. None of the mapped scaffolds would have been designated as bacterial by this procedure.

Additional data files

The following additional data are available with the online version of this paper. Additional data file 1 contains a table listing scaffolds mapped to chromosomes. Additional data file 2 contains a table listing Y chromosome scaffolds. Additional data file 3 contains a table listing BAC clones that span scaffold gaps. Additional data file 4 contains a table containing a list of alternative assemblies. Additional data file 5 contains a table that lists segments of joined scaffolds that represent alternative assemblies of adjacent mapped scaffolds. Additional data file 6 contains a table that lists bacterial specific scaffolds.

<p>Additional data file 1</p>

Scaffolds additionally mapped to the chromosomes

Scaffold AAAB01008882 was not included in the final 2L chromosome assembly because of concerns about possible mis-assembly of part of the scaffold.

Click here for file

 <p>Additional data file 2</p>

Scaffolds mapped to the Y chromosome

Scaffolds mapped to the Y chromosome.

Click here for file

 <p>Additional data file 3</p>

BAC clones that span gaps between scaffolds

BAC clones that span gaps between scaffolds.

Click here for file

 <p>Additional data file 4</p>

Scaffolds representing alternative assemblies

Scaffolds representing alternative assemblies.

Click here for file

 <p>Additional data file 5</p>

Segments of the joined scaffolds that represent alternative assemblies of the adjacent mapped scaffolds

Chr: the chromosome that the scaffolds are mapped to. Alt_Scaffold: the scaffold with sequence overlap considered to be an alternative assembly to the golden path. Chr_Scaffold: the scaffold with sequence overlap used for the golden path. as_start: start of the overlap on the scaffold with the alternative assembly segment (Alt_Scaffold). as_end: end of the overlap on the Alt_Scaffold. cs_start: start of the overlap on the scaffold where the overlap segment is used for the golden path (Chr_Scaffold). cs_end: end of the overlap on the Chr_Scaffold. Chr_Start: start of the overlap region, in chromosomal coordinates. Chr_End: end of the overlap region, in chromosomal coordinates. as_to_cs: orientation of the Alt_Scaffold with respect to the Chr_Scaffold. as_to_chr: orientation of the Alt_Scaffold with respect to the chromosome.

Click here for file

 <p>Additional data file 6</p>

Bacterial specific scaffolds

Bacterial specific scaffolds.

Click here for file

Acknowledgements

We thank Marcelo Bento Soares (University of Iowa) for helping us with construction and normalization of the ANGNAP1 cDNA library. This work was supported by NIAID cooperative agreement U01 AI 48846 and by the NIAID VectorBase Bioinformatics Resource Center contract number HHSN 266200400039C to FHC.

 <p>The genome sequence of the malaria mosquito <it>Anopheles gambiae</it>.</p> Holt RA Subramanian GM Halpern A Sutton GG Charlab R Nusskern DR Wincker P Clark AG Ribeiro JM Wides R Science 2002 298 129 149 10.1126/science.1076181 12364791 <p>The <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>genome: an update.</p> Mongin E Louis C Holt RA Birney E Collins FH Trends Parasitol 2004 20 49 52 10.1016/j.pt.2003.11.003 14747013 <p>From the biology of heterochromatin.</p> John B Heterochromatin: Molecular and Structural Aspects Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Verma RS 1988 1 147 <p>The beta heterochromatic sequences flanking the I elements are themselves defective transposable elements.</p> Vaury C Bucheton A Pelisson A Chromosoma 1989 98 215 224 10.1007/BF00329686 2555116 <p>Heterochromatin and gene expression in <it>Drosophila</it>.</p> Weiler KS Wakimoto BT Annu Rev Genet 1995 29 577 605 10.1146/annurev.ge.29.120195.003045 8825487 <p>Uber α- und β-Heterochromatin sowie Konstanz und Bau der Chromomeren bei <it>Drosophila</it></p> Heitz E Biol Zentbl 1934 54 588 609 <p>Polytene chromosomes, heterochromatin, and position effect variegation.</p> Zhimulev IF Adv Genet 1998 37 1 566 9352629 <p>Requirement of heterochromatin for cohesion at centromeres.</p> Bernard P Maure JF Partridge JF Genier S Javerzat JP Allshire RC Science 2001 294 2539 2542 10.1126/science.1064027 11598266 <p>Direct evidence of a role for heterochromatin in meiotic chromosome segregation.</p> Dernburg AF Sedat JW Hawley RS Cell 1996 86 135 146 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80084-7 8689681 <p>Nuclear dynamics: where genes are and how they got there.</p> Swedylow JR Lamond AI Genome Biol 2001 2 REVIEWS0002 138913 11276427 <p>Order and disorder in the nucleus.</p> Marshall WF Curr Biol 2002 12 R185 192 10.1016/S0960-9822(02)00724-8 11882311 <p>Heterochromatin function in complex genomes.</p> Henikoff S Biochim Biophys Acta 2000 1470 O1 8 10656988 <p>Heterochromatin: new possibilities for the inheritance of structure.</p> Grewal SI Elgin SC Curr Opin Genet Dev 2002 12 178 187 10.1016/S0959-437X(02)00284-8 11893491 <p>A BAC-based physical map of the major autosomes of <it>Drosophila melanogaster</it>.</p> Hoskins RA Nelson CR Berman BP Laverty TR George RA Ciesiolka L Naeemuddin M Arenson AD Durbin J David RG Science 2000 287 2271 2274 10.1126/science.287.5461.2271 10731150 <p>Y chromosome and other heterochromatic sequences of the <it>Drosophila melanogaster </it>genome: how far can we go?</p> Carvalho AB Vibranovski MD Carlson JW Celniker SE Hoskins RA Rubin GM Sutton GG Adams MD Myers EW Clark AG Genetica 2003 117 227 237 10.1023/A:1022900313650 12723702 <p>Genetic definition and sequence analysis of <it>Arabidopsis </it>centromeres.</p> Copenhaver GP Nickel K Kuromori T Benito MI Kaul S Lin X Bevan M Murphy G Harris B Parnell LD Science 1999 286 2468 2474 10.1126/science.286.5449.2468 10617454 <p>Using <it>Arabidopsis </it>to understand centromere function: progress and prospects.</p> Copenhaver GP Chromosome Res 2003 11 255 262 10.1023/A:1022887926807 12769292 <p>Lessons from the human genome: transitions between euchromatin and heterochromatin.</p> Horvath JE Bailey JA Locke DP Eichler EE Hum Mol Genet 2001 10 2215 2223 10.1093/hmg/10.20.2215 11673404 <p>The structure and evolution of centromeric transition regions within the human genome.</p> She X Horvath JE Jiang Z Liu G Furey TS Christ L Clark R Graves T Gulden CL Alkan C Nature 2004 430 857 864 10.1038/nature02806 15318213 <p>The genome sequence of <it>Drosophila melanogaster</it></p> Adams MD Celniker SE Holt RA Evans CA Gocayne JD Amanatides PG Scherer SE Li PW Hoskins RA Galle RF Science 2000 287 2185 2195 10.1126/science.287.5461.2185 10731132 <p>Reassociation kinetics of <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>(<it>Diptera: Culicidae</it>) DNA.</p> Besansky NJ Powell JR J Med Entomol 1992 29 125 128 1552521 <p>From mosquito genomes: structure, organization, and evolution.</p> Rai KS Black WC IV Advances in Genetics San Diego: Academic Press, a Harcourt Science and Technology Company Hall JC, Dunlap JC, Friedmann T, Giannell F 1999 41 2 33 <p>Isolation and characterization of Y chromosome sequences from the African malaria mosquito <it>Anopheles gambiae</it>.</p> Krzywinski J Nusskern DR Kern MK Besansky NJ Genetics 2004 166 1291 1302 1470776 15082548 10.1534/genetics.166.3.1291 <p>Satellite DNA from the Y chromosome of the malaria vector <it>Anopheles gambiae</it>.</p> Krzywinski J Sangare D Besansky N Genetics 2005 169 185 196 1448884 15466420 10.1534/genetics.104.034264 <p>Gene finding on the Y: fruitful strategy in <it>Drosophila </it>does not deliver in <it>Anopheles</it>.</p> Krzywinski J Chrystal MA Besansky NJ Genetica 2006 126 369 375 10.1007/s10709-005-1985-3 16636930 <p>Construction of a BAC library and generation of BAC end sequence-tagged connectors for genome sequencing of the African malaria mosquito <it>Anopheles gambiae</it></p> Hong YS Hogan JR Wang X Sarkar A Sim C Loftus BJ Ren C Huff ER Carlile JL Black K Mol Genet Genomics 2003 268 720 728 12655398 <p>Chromosomal differentiation and adaptation to human environments in the <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>complex.</p> Coluzzi M Sabatini A Petrarca V Di Deco MA Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1979 73 483 497 10.1016/0035-9203(79)90036-1 394408 <p>A polytene chromosome analysis of the <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>species complex.</p> Coluzzi M Sabatini A Della Torre A Di Deco MA Petrarca V Science 2002 298 1415 1418 10.1126/science.1077769 12364623 <p>The distribution and inversion polymorphism of chromosomally recognized taxa of the <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>complex in Mali, West Africa.</p> Toure YT Petrarca V Traore SF Coulibaly A Maiga HM Sankare O Sow M Di Deco MA Coluzzi M Parassitologia 1998 40 477 511 10645562 <p>Molecular evidence of incipient speciation within <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>s.s. in West Africa.</p> della Torre A Fanello C Akogbeto M Dossou-yovo J Favia G Petrarca V Coluzzi M Insect Mol Biol 2001 10 9 18 10.1046/j.1365-2583.2001.00235.x 11240632 <p>On the distribution and genetic differentiation of <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>s.s. molecular forms.</p> della Torre A Tu Z Petrarca V Insect Biochem Mol Biol 2005 35 755 769 10.1016/j.ibmb.2005.02.006 15894192 <p>Automated generation of heuristics for biological sequence comparison.</p> Slater GS Birney E BMC Bioinformatics 2005 6 31 10.1101/gr.3767105 16339359 <p>Heterochromatic sequences in a <it>Drosophila </it>whole-genome shotgun assembly.</p> Hoskins RA Smith CD Carlson JW Carvalho AB Halpern A Kaminker JS Kennedy C Mungall CJ Sullivan BA Sutton GG Genome Biol 2002 3 reasearch0085.1 0085.16 10.1186/gb-2002-3-12-research0085 <p>Sequence analysis of a functional <it>Drosophila </it>centromere.</p> Sun X Le HD Wahlstrom JM Karpen GH Genome Res 2003 13 182 194 420369 12566396 10.1101/gr.681703 <p>Molecularcharacterization of the <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>2L telomeric region via an integrated transgene.</p> Biessmann H Donath J Walter MF Insect Mol Biol 1996 5 11 20 8630530 <p>DNA organization and length polymorphism at the 2L telomeric region of <it>Anopheles gambiae</it>.</p> Biessmann H Kobeski F Walter MF Kasravi A Roth CW Insect Mol Biol 1998 7 83 93 10.1046/j.1365-2583.1998.71054.x 9459432 <p>Genetic and bioinformatic analysis of 41C and the 2R heterochromatin of <it>Drosophila melanogaster </it>: a window on the heterochromatin-euchromatin junction.</p> Myster SH Wang F Cavallo R Christian W Bhotika S Anderson CT Peifer M Genetics 2004 166 807 822 1470754 15020470 10.1534/genetics.166.2.807 <p>Finishing a whole-genome shotgun: release 3 of the <it>Drosophila melanogaster </it>euchromatic genome sequence.</p> Celniker SE Wheeler DA Kronmiller B Carlson JW Halpern A Patel S Adams M Champe M Dugan SP Frise E Genome Biol 2002 3 research0079.1 0079.14 10.1186/gb-2002-3-12-research0079 <p>Comparative genomic analysis in the region of a major <it>Plasmodium </it>-refractoriness locus of <it>Anopheles gambiae</it>.</p> Thomasova D Ton LQ Copley RR Zdobnov EM Wang X Hong YS Sim C Bork P Kafatos FC Collins FH Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002 99 8179 8184 123041 12060762 10.1073/pnas.082235599 <p>Ensembl v20.2b.1 (1 April 2004)</p> http://ensembl.lcb.uu.se:8080/Anopheles_gambiae/whatsnew/v20_2b_1.html <p>'VectorBase' Database (Ensembl release v37.3.1)</p> http://www.vectorbase.org <p>National Human Genome Research Institute: NIH NewsRelease</p> http://www.genome.gov/15014493 Sambrook J Frisch EF Maniatis T Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press 2 1989 <p>A technique for nucleic acid <it>in situ </it>hybridization to polytene chr of mosquitoes in the <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>complex.</p> Kumar V Collins FH Insect Mol Biol 1994 3 41 47 8069415 <p>Inversions and gene order shuffling in <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>and <it>A. funestus</it>.</p> Sharakhov IV Serazin AC Grushko OG Dana A Lobo N Hillenmeyer ME Westerman R Romero-Severson J Costantini C Sagnon N Science 2002 298 182 185 10.1126/science.1076803 12364797 <p>Tandem Repeats Finder</p> http://tandem.bu.edu/trf/trf.html <p>Institute for System Biology: RepeatMasker</p> http://www.repeatmasker.org <p>Berkeley Drosophila Genome Project</p> http://www.fruitfly.org <p>A dot-matrix program with dynamic threshold control suited for genomic DNA and protein sequence analysis.</p> Sonnhammer ELL Durbin R Gene 1995 167 GC1 GC10 10.1016/0378-1119(95)00714-8 8566757