PCI Genomics

Title *

Nucleosome patterns in four plant pathogenic fungi with contrasted genome structuresuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Colin Clairet, Nicolas Lapalu, Adeline Simon, Jessica L. Soyer, Muriel Viaud, Enric Zehraoui, Berengere Dalmais, Isabelle Fudal, Nadia PontsPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2022

Picture *

Abstract *

<p style="text-align: justify;">Fungal pathogens represent a serious threat towards agriculture, health, and environment. Control of fungal diseases on crops necessitates a global understanding of fungal pathogenicity determinants and their expression during infection. Genomes of phytopathogenic fungi are often compartmentalized: the core genome contains housekeeping genes whereas the fast-evolving genome mainly contains transposable elements and species-specific genes. In this study, we analysed nucleosome landscapes of four phytopathogenic fungi with contrasted genome organizations to describe and compare nucleosome repartition patterns in relation with genome structure and gene expression level. We combined MNase-seq and RNA-seq analyses to concomitantly map nucleosome-rich and transcriptionally active regions during fungal growth in axenic culture; we developed the MNase-seq Tool Suite (MSTS) to analyse and visualise data obtained from MNase-seq experiments in combination with other genomic data and notably RNA-seq expression data. We observed different characteristics of nucleosome profiles between species, as well as between genomic regions within the same species. We further linked nucleosome repartition and gene expression. Our findings support that nucleosome positioning and occupancies are subjected to evolution, in relation with underlying genome sequence modifications. Understanding genomic organization and its role in expression regulation is the next gear to understand complex cellular mechanisms and their evolution.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@genomics.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw data are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/?term=PRJNA580372, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE150127, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE162838, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE162839You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@genomics.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw scripts are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@genomics.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw codes are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

None

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Epigenomics, Fungi

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Genomics. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2021-04-17 10:32:41

Recommender

Sébastien Bloyer

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a preprint