Talks focused on how cleavage at the transposon ends occurs. CorentinTalks focused on how cleavage

Talks focused on how cleavage at the transposon ends occurs. Corentin
Talks focused on how cleavage at the transposon ends occurs. Corentin Claeys Bouuaert (University of Nottingham, UK) reported experiments also using Mos1 that support the view that the active transposase form is indeed a dimer but that a single protomer bound to each end carries out a double strand break that is, cleaves both the 5′ and 3′ strands at each end. However, it remains to be determined how a single protomer can promote cleavage PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25636517 of both DNA strands. Rasika Harshey (University of Texas, USA) provided a key insight into a long-standing issue in Mu transposition of how donor site DNA that contains the 5′ ends of the transposon is cleaved upon integration into the bacterial chromosome to form the Mu lysogen. She has identified a 5′ end endonuclease activity in the Mu transposase that performs the 3′ end cleavage and target-joining steps. Two other talks dealt with how transposon target sites are found. Joe Peters (Cornell University, USA) discussed his findings that the Tn7 TnsE protein interacts with the bacterial processivity factor and is thus recruited preferentially to replicating DNA. Nancy Craig (Johns Hopkins University, USA) presented work demonstrating that, in a heterologous Saccharomyces cerevisiae system, the favoured chromosomal targets of the insect hAT element Hermes are nucleosome-free regions.Session 4: non-long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposons and group II introns The session on non-LTR retrotransposons and group II introns illustrated both the continued activity of these elements in altering the human RG7800 cost genome and the remarkable diversity of regulatory mechanisms of the various PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28404814 non-LTR elements. Talks by Haig Kazazian (University of Pennsylvania, USA) and John Moran (University of Michigan, USA) described new approaches to detect the remarkable level of ongoing L1 activity in the human genome. The Kazazian talk utilized a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based approach combined with next generation sequencing to look at L1 diversity in 25 different human genomes. He found that there were typically about 285 L1 inserts which were polymorphic between any two different individuals and approximately 10,000 such polymorphisms among the 25 individuals surveyed. The Moran study utilized a paired-end sequencing procedure on fosmids from different individuals that allowed identification of full-length and, therefore,potentially active elements in six geographically distinct individuals. This approach avoids the use of PCR which aided in testing the retrotransposition potential of these elements, and they found that highly active elements are much more common in the genome than previously predicted. The L1 talks were rounded out by Elena Khazina (MaxPlanck-Institute for Developmental Biology, Tuebingen, Germany), who presented an elegant model of L1 open reading frame (ORF)1p function based on crystal structure determination at the 1.4 angstrom level. She found a strikingly flexible structure between the required RNA recognition motif (RRM) and C-terminal (CTD) domain that suggests a need for a dynamic structure in functional ORF1p. Tom Eickbush (University of Rochester, USA) pushed his studies on the target-primed reverse transcription of insect R2 elements to a new level by demonstrating that their processing from the ribosomal transcripts in which they are initially made is the result of a conserved ribozyme domain that specifically cleaves at the 5′ end of the functional R2 RNA. There were two talks on SINEs from.