All the instructions required for life are encoded in the set of DNA present in a cell. It therefore seems natural to think that every bit of this genetic information should serve the organism. And yet most species carry parasitic ‘transposable’ sequences, or transposons, whose only purpose is to multiply and insert themselves at other positions in the genome.

It is possible for cells to suppress these selfish elements. Chemical marks can be deposited onto the DNA to temporarily ‘silence’ transposons and prevent them from being able to move and replicate. However, this sometimes comes at a cost: the repressive chemical modifications can spread to nearby genes that are essential for the organism and perturb their function.

Strangely, the prevalence of transposons varies widely across the tree of life. These sequences form the majority of the genome of certain species – in fact, they represent about half of the human genetic information. But their abundance is much lower in other organisms, forming a measly 6% of the genome of puffer fish for instance. Even amongst fruit fly species, the prevalence of transposable elements can range between 2% and 25%. What explains such differences?

Huang et al. set out to examine this question through the lens of transposon silencing, systematically comparing how this process impacts nearby regions in six species of fruit flies. This revealed variations in the strength of the side effects associated with transposon silencing, resulting in different levels of perturbation on neighbouring genes. A stronger impact was associated with the species having fewer transposons in its genome, suggesting that an evolutionary pressure is at work to keep the abundance of transposons at a low level in these species. Further analyses showed that the genes which determine how silencing marks are distributed may also be responsible for the variations in the impact of transposon silencing. They could therefore be the ones driving differences in the abundance of transposons between species.

Overall, this work sheds light on the complex mechanisms shaping the evolution of genomes, and it may help to better understand how transposons are linked to processes such as aging and cancer.

Transposable elements (TEs) are widespread genetic parasites that copy and insert themselves across host genomes. The presence and movement of TEs could impair host genome functions. TEs disrupt genes and functional elements (Finnegan, 1992), introduce ectopic regulatory sequences (Chuong et al., 2017), and trigger highly deleterious chromosomal rearrangements through nonhomologous recombination (Langley et al., 1988; Montgomery et al., 1991). Nevertheless, the ability to self-replicate has allowed TEs to successfully occupy nearly all eukaryotic genomes surveyed (reviewed in Wells and Feschotte, 2020). Within a eukaryotic genome, TEs are prevalent in both gene-poor, repeat-rich heterochromatic and gene-rich euchromatic regions (e.g., Kaminker et al., 2002; Bergman et al., 2006). TEs in the heterochromatic genome are oftentimes fragmented, losing their ability to replicate (e.g., Hoskins et al., 2007; Hoskins et al., 2015). On the contrary, euchromatic TEs, which could intersperse with functional elements, commonly retain the potential to replicate, making them active players for not only their own evolutionary dynamics, but also the function and evolution of the euchromatic genome. Because of that and the technical challenges associated with identifying TEs in the heterochromatic regions (Salzberg and Yorke, 2005; Treangen and Salzberg, 2011), studies have been largely focused on the evolution of TEs in the euchromatic genome. Intriguingly, the abundance of TEs in the euchromatic genome substantially varies across the phylogenetic tree (Huang et al., 2012; Elliott and Gregory, 2015; Wells and Feschotte, 2020). For instance, in the assembled vertebrate genomes, which mostly consist of euchromatic regions, the proportion occupied by TEs ranges from only 6% in pufferfish (Volff et al., 2003) to more than 65% in salamander (Nowoshilow et al., 2018). Even within the same genus, genomic TE abundance differs widely (e.g., 2.5–25% of assembled genome sequences in Drosophila; Clark et al., 2007; Rius et al., 2016). Deciphering the role of this prevalent parasite in shaping genome evolution has remained a central question in genomics (Kazazian, 2004; Feschotte and Pritham, 2007; Arkhipova and Kumar, 2018); however, the ultimate causes of such dramatic divergence in TE abundance in the euchromatic genome remain unclear.

Theoretical analyses proposed that, in panmictic host populations with unrestricted recombination, TE abundance is determined by how quickly TEs replicate and how fast they are removed from the populations by natural selection against their harmful fitness effects (Charlesworth and Charlesworth, 1983, reviewed in Lee and Langley, 2010). Under this model, divergent genome-wide TE abundance could be driven by between-species differences in the strength of selection against TEs. Currently available evolutionary models that address this possibility have focused on population genetic parameters that influence the efficacy of selection removing TEs, such as mating systems (Wright and Schoen, 1999; Dolgin and Charlesworth, 2006; Boutin et al., 2012) and effective population size (Lynch and Conery, 2003). Yet, empirical support for such a hypothesis has been mixed (Dolgin et al., 2008; Lockton and Gaut, 2010; de la Chaux et al., 2012; Arunkumar et al., 2015; Agren et al., 2014; Mérel et al., 2021; Oggenfuss et al., 2021). On the other hand, between-species differences in the magnitude of harmful effects exerted by TEs, and accordingly the strength of selection against TEs, could also determine genomic TE abundance, a plausible hypothesis that is yet to have empirical investigations.

A new avenue for exploring how these genetic parasites shape the function and evolution of eukaryotic genomes was opened by the recently discovered host-directed silencing of TEs and the associated ‘inadvertent’ deleterious epigenetic effects (reviewed in Choi and Lee, 2020). To counteract the selfish increase of TEs in host genomes, eukaryotic hosts have evolved small RNA-mediated mechanisms to transcriptionally silence TEs (reviewed in Slotkin and Martienssen, 2007; Czech et al., 2018; Deniz et al., 2019). Host protein complexes are guided by small RNAs to TEs with complementary sequences, which is followed by the recruitment of methyltransferases that modify DNA or histone tails at TE sequences (Qi et al., 2006; Aravin et al., 2008; Wang and Elgin, 2011; Sienski et al., 2012; Le Thomas et al., 2013). Such a process results in the enrichment of DNA methylation or di- and tri-methylation on lysine 9 of histone H3 (H3K9me2/3), both repressive epigenetic modifications that are typically found in heterochromatic regions and associated with repressed gene expression (reviewed in Pikaard and Mittelsten Scheid, 2014; Allis and Jenuwein, 2016). This repressed transcription of TEs results in reduced RNA intermediates (for RNA-based TEs) and proteins (e.g., transposase and reverse transcriptase) necessary for TE replication, effectively slowing the selfish propagation of TEs.

While such epigenetic silencing of TEs should benefit their hosts, studies in various model species have found that repressive marks enriched at silenced TEs ‘spread’ beyond TE boundaries, leading to local enrichment of such marks at TE-adjacent sequences across the euchromatic genomes (i.e., Mus, Drosophila, Arabidopsis, and Oryza; Rebollo et al., 2012; Sienski et al., 2012; Pezic et al., 2014; Lee, 2015; Quadrana et al., 2016; Choi and Purugganan, 2018, reviewed in Choi and Lee, 2020). Furthermore, TEs with such effects were observed to have lower population frequencies (Hollister and Gaut, 2009; Lee, 2015; Lee and Karpen, 2017), suggesting that selection acts to remove them. These discoveries highlight the potential importance of TE-triggered epigenetic effects in shaping genome evolution. Interestingly, the strength of TE-mediated local enrichment of repressive marks substantially varies between distantly related taxa (reviewed in Choi and Lee, 2020). Investigations on pairs of closely related species further revealed that this ‘epigenetic effect of TE’ differs and is stronger in the species with fewer euchromatic TEs (Arabidopsis thaliana vs. Arabidopsis lyrata and Drosophila melanogaster vs. Drosophila simulans; Hollister et al., 2011; Lee and Karpen, 2017). These observations spurred our previous hypothesis that, across species, different TE-mediated enrichment of repressive marks could result in varying functional consequences and thus differences in the strength of selection against TEs, eventually contributing to divergent TE abundance in the euchromatic genome (Lee and Karpen, 2017). We further postulated that this difference in TE-mediated epigenetic effects could have resulted from species-specific genetic modulation of the repressive chromatin landscape (Lee and Karpen, 2017), which was shown to determine the spreading of repressive epigenetic marks from constitutive heterochromatin into adjacent euchromatic sequences (reviewed in Girton and Johansen, 2008; Elgin and Reuter, 2013).

To fully examine the hypothesis that varying host chromatin landscape drives between-species differences of TEs through epigenetic mechanisms, one needs to connect species-specific regulation of chromatin landscape, TE-mediated enrichment of repressive marks, the associated functional consequence and resultant selection against TEs, and genomic TE abundance. However, former analyses that compared TE-mediated epigenetic effects between species have limited sampling (two species) and thus lack sufficient statistical power for robust inference (Hollister et al., 2011; Lee and Karpen, 2017). Also, support for key links of the hypothesis is lacking. For instance, selection against TE-mediated epigenetic effects was expected to result from the associated reducing effects on the expression of neighboring genes. Yet, investigations in multiple taxa reported weak or no associations between the epigenetic effects of TEs and neighboring gene expression (Quadrana et al., 2016; Stuart et al., 2016; Lee and Karpen, 2017; Choi and Purugganan, 2018, reviewed in Kelleher et al., 2020; Choi and Lee, 2020). These inconclusive observations cast doubt on the possibility that TE-mediated epigenetic effects impair host fitness by silencing neighboring genes and whether this particular deleterious consequence indeed shapes genome evolution. Furthermore, previous comparisons of population frequencies between TEs with and without epigenetic effects, an approach used to infer the strength of natural selection removing TEs, could not exclude the confounding influence of other harmful effects of TEs on their population frequencies (e.g., Hollister and Gaut, 2009; Lee, 2015). Accordingly, those analyses could not unequivocally support selection against TE-mediated epigenetic effects. Multi-species studies that span an appropriate evolutionary distance and connect the missing links in the proposed hypothesis would be needed to test the predicted importance of TE-mediated epigenetic effects in determining between-species differences of TEs.

In this study, we investigated the prevalence of TE-mediated local enrichment of repressive epigenetic marks, or ‘TE-mediated epigenetic effects’, in the euchromatic genome of six species in the D. melanogaster subgroup (diverged around 10 MYR; Obbard et al., 2012, Figure 1A). These species are from the two well-studied species complexes (melanogaster and yakuba complexes), providing good phylogenetic resolution to address the role of TE-mediated epigenetic effects in genome evolution. While TE insertions in all species studied result in robust local enrichment of repressive epigenetic marks, the strength of such effects varies substantially within genomes, among species, and between species complexes. Our larger sample size allowed us to re-examine the still debated question about the impacts of TE-mediated enrichment of repressive marks on neighboring gene expression, which surprisingly revealed their complex interactions. Importantly, our multi-species analysis provides the power to test the predicted associations between TE abundance in the euchromatic genome, TE-mediated epigenetic effects, selection against such effects, and host chromatin environment, while uncovering the evolutionary causes for the wide variety of TE abundance between species.

Figure 1 with 8 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

The replicative nature of TEs has made them successful at occupying nearly all eukaryotic genomes. Yet, their ‘success’, or genomic abundance, drastically varies across the phylogenetic tree (Huang et al., 2012; Elliott and Gregory, 2015; Wells and Feschotte, 2020) and between closely related species (Hu et al., 2011; Rius et al., 2016; Legrand et al., 2019), raising important questions regarding the evolutionary causes and functional consequences of varying genomic TE abundance. It is worth noting that most studies about the evolution of TE abundance, including ours, mainly concern insertions in the euchromatic genome. Although TEs are highly abundant in the heterochromatic genome, these TEs are typically fragmented (Hoskins et al., 2007; Hoskins et al., 2015) and would no longer be part of the ‘life cycle’ of TEs. The role of euchromatic TEs in determining the abundance and evolutionary dynamics of TEs in the heterochromatic genome is still a largely unaddressed question, mainly due to the challenges associated with assembling TEs in repeat-rich heterochromatic sequences (Salzberg and Yorke, 2005; Treangen and Salzberg, 2011, but see Khost et al., 2017; Chang and Larracuente, 2019; Chang et al., 2019).

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the large variation in euchromatic TE abundance. Phylogenetic signals may explain some of the differences between distantly related taxa (Wells and Feschotte, 2020) and, sometimes, between species within a taxa (Szitenberg et al., 2016). Variation in TE activities was also postulated to contribute to the wide variability of TE abundance (Chen et al., 2019; Wong et al., 2019, but see Ho et al., 2021). Still another plausible cause is systematic differences in the strength of natural selection removing TEs between species. Investigations of this hypothesis have been largely focused on population genetic parameters that influence the efficacy of natural selection, such as mating systems (Wright and Schoen, 1999; Dolgin et al., 2008; Boutin et al., 2012; Arunkumar et al., 2015; Agren et al., 2014) and effective population size (Lynch and Conery, 2003; Mérel et al., 2021). Here, our multi-species study tested step-by-step yet another evolutionary mechanism by which the strength of selection removing TEs could differ—through differences in the epigenetic effects of TEs that are driven by species-specific host chromatin landscape.

In this study, we investigated the prevalence, variability, and evolutionary importance of ‘the epigenetic effects of TEs’—TE-mediated local enrichment of repressive epigenetic marks—in the euchromatic genomes of six Drosophila species. These species come from two important and well-studied complexes within the melanogaster species subgroup (melanogaster and yakuba complexes), providing good phylogenetic resolution to decipher the evolutionary role of epigenetic mechanisms in shaping species-specific TE abundance. We observed that TE-mediated local enrichment of repressive marks is prevalent in all species studied and widely varies both within and between genomes. Interestingly, in addition to the intrinsic biological properties of TEs, our analyses revealed that host genetic background plays a critical role in determining the strength of TE-mediated epigenetic effects. These TE-mediated enrichments of repressive marks alter the epigenetic states of neighboring euchromatic sequences, including actively transcribing genes. Importantly, TEs exerting such epigenetic effects are selected against across multiple species, and the strength of this TE-mediated epigenetic effect negatively correlates with genomic TE abundance within species complex. Our findings extend previous studies based on few species and provide one of the first support for the importance of the inadvertent harmful effects of TE epigenetic silencing in shaping divergent genomic TE landscapes.

Curiously, we only found a negative association between genomic TE abundance and the magnitude of TE-mediated H3K9me2 enrichment across species, but not the extent of the spreading, even though these two indexes of a TE significantly correlate within genomes (Figure 1—figure supplement 2). Similarly, the evidence for selection against TE-mediated epigenetic effects is stronger for the magnitude of TE-induced H3K9me2 enrichment than for the extent (Figure 4). Previous empirical (Belyaeva and Zhimulev, 1991; Talbert and Henikoff, 2000) and theoretical (Erdel and Greene, 2016) studies have suggested that the spreading of repressive heterochromatic marks is a nonlinear process. Accordingly, the extent of the spreading of repressive marks from TEs could be sensitive to the genomic context and subject to substantial stochasticity. This echoes our observations that the transcription of genes influences the extent of TE-mediated H3K9me2 spreading, but not the magnitude of H3K9me2 enrichment (Figure 3D and Figure 3—figure supplement 10; also see below). The magnitude of TE-mediated H3K9me2 enrichment, which is estimated in windows right next to TE boundary, may thus be a more direct measurement of the strength of TE-mediated epigenetic effects and more indicative of the associated harmful impacts.

One of our most surprising findings is perhaps the limited evidence in supporting that TE-mediated epigenetic effects reduce neighboring gene expression on a genome-wide scale. While TE-mediated epigenetic effects increase the enrichment of repressive epigenetic marks at adjacent genes, we found limited associations between such effects and gene expression within genomes (Figure 3A and B). Comparing the expression of homologous alleles with and without TEs showing epigenetic effects also reached the same conclusion (Figure 3C). These observations echo previously reported lack of genome-wide associations between TE-induced enrichment of repressive epigenetic marks and the expression of neighboring genes in several model organisms (Quadrana et al., 2016; Stuart et al., 2016; Lee and Karpen, 2017; Choi and Purugganan, 2018) and are consistent with the wider observation that TEs upstream or downstream to genes are not predominantly associated with reduced gene expression (Goubert et al., 2020; Ullastres et al., 2021; Rech et al., 2022, reviewed in Kelleher et al., 2020; Choi and Lee, 2020). The limited impacts of TE-mediated H3K9me2 enrichment on gene expression could have resulted from the complex relationship between repressive epigenetic modification and gene expression (de Wit et al., 2007; Yasuhara and Wakimoto, 2008; Riddle et al., 2011; Meng et al., 2016; Caizzi et al., 2016), the varying sensitivity of genes to the enrichment of repressive marks (Rudolph et al., 2007; Vogel et al., 2009; Riddle et al., 2011), and the presence of other types of variants that also modulate gene expression (Stranger et al., 2007). Interestingly, our findings suggested another possibility—the transcription of genes, in return, influences TE-mediated epigenetic effects across genomes. Specifically, we found a more restricted spreading of repressive marks from TEs on the side facing a gene than on the intergenic side, and this difference is mainly observed for TEs near the promoters of highly expressed genes (Figure 3—figure supplement 12). It is worth noting that this difference in the extent of H3K9me2 spreading between the two sides of a TE is unlikely driven by the presence of insulator sequences (Gaszner and Felsenfeld, 2006) because of the limited associations between the presence of insulator sequences and the reduction in TE-mediated H3K9me2 spreading on the genic side (Figure 3—figure supplement 13). On the other hand, active histone modifications enriched at transcriptionally active genes could antagonize the assembly of heterochromatin (Allshire and Madhani, 2018), potentially restraining the spreading of repressive marks from silenced TEs. Consistently, in mice, active histone modification was reported to spread from an actively transcribing candidate gene into an adjacent TE (Rebollo et al., 2012). Similarly, active gene transcription at Drosophila miranda neo-Y chromosome was found to impede the formation of heterochromatin (Wei et al., 2020). Future analysis of the distributions of active histone modifications may help reveal the mechanistic cause for our observed genome-wide dependencies of the extent of TE-mediated epigenetic effects on the transcriptional activities of adjacent euchromatic genes.

If not due to reducing the expression of adjacent genes, what functional consequences of TE-mediated epigenetic effects could have impaired host fitness and led to the observed selection against these TEs? Euchromatic TEs enriched with repressive epigenetic marks were reported to spatially interact with constitutive heterochromatin through phase separation mechanisms, a process observed to alter 3D structures of genomes and inferred to lower host fitness (Lee et al., 2020). In addition, the epigenetic effects of TEs could shift the usual DNA repair process in the gene-rich euchromatic genome, perturbing the maintenance of local genome integrity. This is because double-stranded breaks happening in constitutive heterochromatin are repaired through a distinct cellular process from those in the euchromatic genome, owing to the enrichment of repressive epigenetic modifications (Chiolo et al., 2011; Janssen et al., 2016; Janssen et al., 2019). Still, the variance of gene expression was shown to be shaped by natural selection (Metzger et al., 2015; Duveau et al., 2018). Given the variegating properties of the spreading of repressive marks (reviewed in Elgin and Reuter, 2013), TE-mediated epigenetic effects could have shifted the variance, instead of the mean, of neighboring gene expression, impacting host fitness.

Building upon our findings of the prevalence and variability of TE-mediated epigenetic effects and selection against such effects, our multi-species analysis provides strong support for the previously proposed role of TE-mediated epigenetic effects in determining genomic TE abundance (Figure 6). This interpretation is based on the assumption that TE copy number is at equilibrium and transposition rates of TEs are similar across species, leaving the strength of selection removing TEs being the major determinant of genomic TE abundance (Charlesworth and Charlesworth, 1983). By combining transcriptomic analysis and Drosophila genetics experiment, we further revealed that between-species differences in TE-mediated epigenetic effects could be driven by species-specific expression levels of host genetic factors that modulate heterochromatin. These findings connect the evolution of host genome (genomic TE abundance) with chromatin landscape through the inadvertent harmful effects of the epigenetic silencing of TEs (Figure 6). Curiously, the negative association between TE-mediated H3K9me2 enrichment and genomic TE abundance was only observed within species complex, pointing that the importance TE-mediated epigenetic effects in determining genomic TE abundance may be on a short evolutionary time scale. Specifically, even though we found stronger epigenetic effects of TEs in species of the yakuba complex than those in the melanogaster complex, TEs are more abundant in the former. This accumulation of TEs in the genomes of yakuba complex is in line with previously observed greater net gains of intron sequences (Presgraves, 2006) and duplicated genes (Hahn et al., 2007) in D. yakuba than those in the lineage leading to melanogaster complex, which could suggest a higher tolerance of D. yakuba genome with gained sequences. Such lineage-specific mechanism that shapes the gain and loss of sequences over the entire genome may also play an important role in determining genomic TE abundance and potentially override the influence of selection against varying TE-mediated epigenetic effects on a longer evolutionary time scale.

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

It is worth noting that teasing apart the causality of the observed associations between the epigenetic effects and genomic abundance of TEs is challenging. A reduction in effective population size and accordingly weakened effectiveness of natural selection at removing TEs could drive the accumulation of TEs in some of the species (e.g., Mérel et al., 2021). Under this scenario, selection may favor epigenetic regulation that limits excessive inadvertent spreading of repressive marks from euchromatic TEs, which could also result in our observed weaker TE-mediated epigenetic effects in species with abundant TEs. Moreover, even if the difference in genomic TE abundance is indeed the ‘consequence’, varying efficacy of selection in purging deleterious TE insertions could also contribute to the observed between-species difference in TE abundance. Specifically, within species complex, estimated nucleotide polymorphism, an indicator for effective population size (Charlesworth, 2009), largely follows a similar rank order to our observed magnitude of TE-mediated H3K9me2 enrichment (nucleotide polymorphism, melanogaster complex: D. simulans > D. mauritiana > D. melanogaster (Langley et al., 2012; Meiklejohn et al., 2018) and yakuba complex: D. tessieri > D. yakuba > D. santomea (Bachtrog et al., 2006); the only difference in the rank order being the epigenetic effect of TEs is stronger in D. mauritiana than in D. simulans, Figure 5A). More effective selection at removing TEs in species with larger effective population size (but also stronger epigenetic effects of TEs) is another plausible driver for varying TE abundance that our analysis could not rule out.

Our study focuses on late-stage embryos and would capture the averaged epigenetic effects of TEs across heterogeneous cell types at this developmental stage. If TE-mediated epigenetic effects vary minimally across tissues or cell types, our estimate serves as a good proxy to study the associated fitness consequence. Yet, if TE-mediated enrichment of repressive marks substantially varies between tissues and cell types that have different importance in shaping individual functions, our estimate could fail to capture the most relevant variation in TE-mediated epigenetic effects that determine individual fitness. Even though we did find evidence supporting selection against TE-mediated enrichment of repressive marks that was estimated from whole embryos, future investigation on the variability of such effects across tissues and cell types will be important for the finer dissection of the role of TE-mediated epigenetic effects in individual fitness and, thus, genomic TE abundance.

Proper maintenance of heterochromatin ensures genome function and integrity (reviewed in Janssen et al., 2018). Intriguingly, the expression level (see above), copy number (Levine et al., 2012; Ross et al., 2013; Helleu and Levine, 2018), and amino acid sequences (Levine et al., 2012; Sasaki et al., 2019) of heterochromatin structural and enzymatic components have been observed to vary substantially within and between species. The abundance and composition of heterochromatic repeats also rapidly turnover between genomes (Larracuente, 2014; Wei et al., 2014; Wei et al., 2018). While variation in these genetic factors was postulated to contribute to the evolution of heterochromatin functions (e.g., Ferree and Barbash, 2009; Helleu and Levine, 2018; Mills et al., 2019), our discoveries further extend their evolutionary impacts from the gene-poor genomic dark matter into the gene-rich euchromatin. Heterochromatin modulators may not only determine the local epigenetic impacts of euchromatic TEs on flanking sequences, but also shape TE abundance and, accordingly, the structure and function of the euchromatic genomes. The evolution of euchromatin and heterochromatin, two genomic compartments usually presumed to function independently, may be more interconnected than previously thought by the inadvertent deleterious epigenetic effects of a widespread genetic parasite.

Short-read data for ChIP-seq, RNA-seq, and Illumina whole-genome sequencing have been deposited to NCBI BioProject under accession number PRJNA855483. PacBio long-read data and genome assembly of D. melanogaster ORw1118 strain have been deposited to NCBI BioProject under accession number PRJNA855235.

1. 1. Lee YCG

   (2022) NCBI BioProject

   ID PRJNA855235. Evolutionary causes and consequences of transposable elements' epigenetic effects.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/?term=PRJNA855235
2. 1. Lee YCG

   (2022) NCBI BioProject

   ID PRJNA855483. Evolutionary causes and consequences of transponsable elements' epigenetic effects.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA855483

1. 1. Lack JB

   (2015) NCBI

   ID SRP006733. "1000" Drosophila Genomes - DPGP3.

   https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/index.html?view=study&acc=SRP006733
2. 1. Rogers RL

   (2014) NCBI

   ID SRP040290. Drosophila simulans strain:multiple Genome sequencing.

   https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/index.html?view=study&acc=SRP040290
3. 1. Rogers RL

   (2014) NCBI

   ID SRP029453. Drosophila yakuba strain:multiple Genome sequencing.

   https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/index.html?view=study&acc=SRP029453
4. 1. Garrigan D
   2. Kingan SB
   3. Geneva AJ
   4. Vedanayagam JP
   5. Presgraves DC

   (2014) NCBI

   ID SRP012053. Drosophila mauritiana genome sequencing.

   https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/index.html?view=study&acc=SRP012053

1. 1. Agren JÅ
   2. Wang W
   3. Koenig D
   4. Neuffer B
   5. Weigel D
   6. Wright SI

   (2014) Mating system shifts and transposable element evolution in the plant genus Capsella

   BMC Genomics 15:602.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-602

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Allis CD
   2. Jenuwein T

   (2016) The molecular hallmarks of epigenetic control

   Nature Reviews. Genetics 17:487–500.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.59

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Allshire RC
   2. Madhani HD

   (2018) Ten principles of heterochromatin formation and function

   Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 19:229–244.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2017.119

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Aravin AA
   2. Sachidanandam R
   3. Bourc’his D
   4. Schaefer C
   5. Pezic D
   6. Toth KF
   7. Bestor T
   8. Hannon GJ

   (2008) A piRNA pathway primed by individual transposons is linked to de novo DNA methylation in mice

   Molecular Cell 31:785–799.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2008.09.003

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Arkhipova IR
   2. Kumar S

   (2018) Neutral theory, transposable elements, and eukaryotic genome evolution

   Molecular Biology and Evolution 35:1332–1337.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy083

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Arunkumar R
   2. Ness RW
   3. Wright SI
   4. Barrett SCH

   (2015) The evolution of selfing is accompanied by reduced efficacy of selection and purging of deleterious mutations

   Genetics 199:817–829.

   https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.114.172809

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. Software

   1. Babraham Bioinformatics

   (2022) Trim Galore, version GPL v3

   Babraham Bioinformatics.

   https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/trim_galore/
8. 1. Bachtrog D
   2. Thornton K
   3. Clark A
   4. Andolfatto P

   (2006) Extensive introgression of mitochondrial DNA relative to nuclear genes in the Drosophila yakuba species group

   Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution 60:292–302.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb01107.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Barrón MG
   2. Fiston-Lavier AS
   3. Petrov DA
   4. González J

   (2014) Population genomics of transposable elements in Drosophila

   Annual Review of Genetics 48:561–581.

   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-120213-092359

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Belyaeva ES
    2. Zhimulev IF

    (1991) Cytogenetic and molecular aspects of position effect variegation in Drosophila

    Chromosoma 100:453–466.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00364556

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Bergman CM
    2. Quesneville H
    3. Anxolabéhère D
    4. Ashburner M

    (2006) Recurrent insertion and duplication generate networks of transposable element sequences in the Drosophila melanogaster genome

    Genome Biology 7:R112.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2006-7-11-r112

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Bolger AM
    2. Lohse M
    3. Usadel B

    (2014) Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data

    Bioinformatics 30:2114–2120.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Boutin TS
    2. Le Rouzic A
    3. Capy P

    (2012) How does selfing affect the dynamics of selfish transposable elements?

    Mobile DNA 3:5.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1759-8753-3-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Caizzi R
    2. Moschetti R
    3. Piacentini L
    4. Fanti L
    5. Marsano RM
    6. Dimitri P

    (2016) Comparative genomic analyses provide new insights into the evolutionary dynamics of heterochromatin in Drosophila

    PLOS Genetics 12:e1006212.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006212

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Camacho C
    2. Coulouris G
    3. Avagyan V
    4. Ma N
    5. Papadopoulos J
    6. Bealer K
    7. Madden TL

    (2009) BLAST+: architecture and applications

    BMC Bioinformatics 10:421.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-421

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Chakraborty M
    2. Emerson JJ
    3. Macdonald SJ
    4. Long AD

    (2019) Structural variants exhibit widespread allelic heterogeneity and shape variation in complex traits

    Nature Communications 10:1–11.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12884-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Chakraborty M
    2. Chang CH
    3. Khost DE
    4. Vedanayagam J
    5. Adrion JR
    6. Liao Y
    7. Montooth KL
    8. Meiklejohn CD
    9. Larracuente AM
    10. Emerson JJ

    (2021) Evolution of genome structure in the Drosophila simulans species complex

    Genome Research 31:380–396.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.263442.120

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Chang CH
    2. Chavan A
    3. Palladino J
    4. Wei X
    5. Martins NMC
    6. Santinello B
    7. Chen CC
    8. Erceg J
    9. Beliveau BJ
    10. Wu CT
    11. Larracuente AM
    12. Mellone BG

    (2019) Islands of retroelements are major components of Drosophila centromeres

    PLOS Biology 17:e3000241.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000241

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Chang CH
    2. Larracuente AM

    (2019) Heterochromatin-enriched assemblies reveal the sequence and organization of the Drosophila melanogaster Y chromosome

    Genetics 211:333–348.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.118.301765

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Charlesworth B
    2. Charlesworth D

    (1983) The population dynamics of transposable elements

    Genetical Research 42:1–27.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672300021455

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Charlesworth B
    2. Langley CH

    (1989) The population genetics of Drosophila transposable elements

    Annual Review of Genetics 23:251–287.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ge.23.120189.001343

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Charlesworth B

    (2009) Fundamental concepts in genetics: effective population size and patterns of molecular evolution and variation

    Nature Reviews. Genetics 10:195–205.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2526

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Chen J
    2. Lu L
    3. Benjamin J
    4. Diaz S
    5. Hancock CN
    6. Stajich JE
    7. Wessler SR

    (2019) Tracking the origin of two genetic components associated with transposable element bursts in domesticated rice

    Nature Communications 10:641.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08451-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Chiang C
    2. Layer RM
    3. Faust GG
    4. Lindberg MR
    5. Rose DB
    6. Garrison EP
    7. Marth GT
    8. Quinlan AR
    9. Hall IM

    (2015) SpeedSeq: ultra-fast personal genome analysis and interpretation

    Nature Methods 12:966–968.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3505

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Chiolo I
    2. Minoda A
    3. Colmenares SU
    4. Polyzos A
    5. Costes SV
    6. Karpen GH

    (2011) Double-strand breaks in heterochromatin move outside of a dynamic HP1a domain to complete recombinational repair

    Cell 144:732–744.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Choi JY
    2. Purugganan MD

    (2018) Evolutionary epigenomics of retrotransposon-mediated methylation spreading in rice

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 35:365–382.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx284

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Choi JY
    2. Lee YCG

    (2020) Double-edged sword: the evolutionary consequences of the epigenetic silencing of transposable elements

    PLOS Genetics 16:e1008872.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008872

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Chuong EB
    2. Elde NC
    3. Feschotte C

    (2017) Regulatory activities of transposable elements: from conflicts to benefits

    Nature Reviews. Genetics 18:71–86.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.139

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Clark AG
    2. Eisen MB
    3. Smith DR
    4. Bergman CM
    5. Oliver B
    6. Markow TA
    7. Kaufman TC
    8. Kellis M
    9. Gelbart W
    10. Iyer VN
    11. Pollard DA
    12. Sackton TB
    13. Larracuente AM
    14. Singh ND
    15. Abad JP
    16. Abt DN
    17. Adryan B
    18. Aguade M
    19. Akashi H
    20. Anderson WW
    21. Aquadro CF
    22. Ardell DH
    23. Arguello R
    24. Artieri CG
    25. Barbash DA
    26. Barker D
    27. Barsanti P
    28. Batterham P
    29. Batzoglou S
    30. Begun D
    31. Bhutkar A
    32. Blanco E
    33. Bosak SA
    34. Bradley RK
    35. Brand AD
    36. Brent MR
    37. Brooks AN
    38. Brown RH
    39. Butlin RK
    40. Caggese C
    41. Calvi BR
    42. Bernardo de Carvalho A
    43. Caspi A
    44. Castrezana S
    45. Celniker SE
    46. Chang JL
    47. Chapple C
    48. Chatterji S
    49. Chinwalla A
    50. Civetta A
    51. Clifton SW
    52. Comeron JM
    53. Costello JC
    54. Coyne JA
    55. Daub J
    56. David RG
    57. Delcher AL
    58. Delehaunty K
    59. Do CB
    60. Ebling H
    61. Edwards K
    62. Eickbush T
    63. Evans JD
    64. Filipski A
    65. Findeiss S
    66. Freyhult E
    67. Fulton L
    68. Fulton R
    69. Garcia ACL
    70. Gardiner A
    71. Garfield DA
    72. Garvin BE
    73. Gibson G
    74. Gilbert D
    75. Gnerre S
    76. Godfrey J
    77. Good R
    78. Gotea V
    79. Gravely B
    80. Greenberg AJ
    81. Griffiths-Jones S
    82. Gross S
    83. Guigo R
    84. Gustafson EA
    85. Haerty W
    86. Hahn MW
    87. Halligan DL
    88. Halpern AL
    89. Halter GM
    90. Han MV
    91. Heger A
    92. Hillier L
    93. Hinrichs AS
    94. Holmes I
    95. Hoskins RA
    96. Hubisz MJ
    97. Hultmark D
    98. Huntley MA
    99. Jaffe DB
    100. Jagadeeshan S
    101. Jeck WR
    102. Johnson J
    103. Jones CD
    104. Jordan WC
    105. Karpen GH
    106. Kataoka E
    107. Keightley PD
    108. Kheradpour P
    109. Kirkness EF
    110. Koerich LB
    111. Kristiansen K
    112. Kudrna D
    113. Kulathinal RJ
    114. Kumar S
    115. Kwok R
    116. Lander E
    117. Langley CH
    118. Lapoint R
    119. Lazzaro BP
    120. Lee S-J
    121. Levesque L
    122. Li R
    123. Lin C-F
    124. Lin MF
    125. Lindblad-Toh K
    126. Llopart A
    127. Long M
    128. Low L
    129. Lozovsky E
    130. Lu J
    131. Luo M
    132. Machado CA
    133. Makalowski W
    134. Marzo M
    135. Matsuda M
    136. Matzkin L
    137. McAllister B
    138. McBride CS
    139. McKernan B
    140. McKernan K
    141. Mendez-Lago M
    142. Minx P
    143. Mollenhauer MU
    144. Montooth K
    145. Mount SM
    146. Mu X
    147. Myers E
    148. Negre B
    149. Newfeld S
    150. Nielsen R
    151. Noor MAF
    152. O’Grady P
    153. Pachter L
    154. Papaceit M
    155. Parisi MJ
    156. Parisi M
    157. Parts L
    158. Pedersen JS
    159. Pesole G
    160. Phillippy AM
    161. Ponting CP
    162. Pop M
    163. Porcelli D
    164. Powell JR
    165. Prohaska S
    166. Pruitt K
    167. Puig M
    168. Quesneville H
    169. Ram KR
    170. Rand D
    171. Rasmussen MD
    172. Reed LK
    173. Reenan R
    174. Reily A
    175. Remington KA
    176. Rieger TT
    177. Ritchie MG
    178. Robin C
    179. Rogers Y-H
    180. Rohde C
    181. Rozas J
    182. Rubenfield MJ
    183. Ruiz A
    184. Russo S
    185. Salzberg SL
    186. Sanchez-Gracia A
    187. Saranga DJ
    188. Sato H
    189. Schaeffer SW
    190. Schatz MC
    191. Schlenke T
    192. Schwartz R
    193. Segarra C
    194. Singh RS
    195. Sirot L
    196. Sirota M
    197. Sisneros NB
    198. Smith CD
    199. Smith TF
    200. Spieth J
    201. Stage DE
    202. Stark A
    203. Stephan W
    204. Strausberg RL
    205. Strempel S
    206. Sturgill D
    207. Sutton G
    208. Sutton GG
    209. Tao W
    210. Teichmann S
    211. Tobari YN
    212. Tomimura Y
    213. Tsolas JM
    214. Valente VLS
    215. Venter E
    216. Venter JC
    217. Vicario S
    218. Vieira FG
    219. Vilella AJ
    220. Villasante A
    221. Walenz B
    222. Wang J
    223. Wasserman M
    224. Watts T
    225. Wilson D
    226. Wilson RK
    227. Wing RA
    228. Wolfner MF
    229. Wong A
    230. Wong GK-S
    231. Wu C-I
    232. Wu G
    233. Yamamoto D
    234. Yang H-P
    235. Yang S-P
    236. Yorke JA
    237. Yoshida K
    238. Zdobnov E
    239. Zhang P
    240. Zhang Y
    241. Zimin AV
    242. Baldwin J
    243. Abdouelleil A
    244. Abdulkadir J
    245. Abebe A
    246. Abera B
    247. Abreu J
    248. Acer SC
    249. Aftuck L
    250. Alexander A
    251. An P
    252. Anderson E
    253. Anderson S
    254. Arachi H
    255. Azer M
    256. Bachantsang P
    257. Barry A
    258. Bayul T
    259. Berlin A
    260. Bessette D
    261. Bloom T
    262. Blye J
    263. Boguslavskiy L
    264. Bonnet C
    265. Boukhgalter B
    266. Bourzgui I
    267. Brown A
    268. Cahill P
    269. Channer S
    270. Cheshatsang Y
    271. Chuda L
    272. Citroen M
    273. Collymore A
    274. Cooke P
    275. Costello M
    276. D’Aco K
    277. Daza R
    278. De Haan G
    279. DeGray S
    280. DeMaso C
    281. Dhargay N
    282. Dooley K
    283. Dooley E
    284. Doricent M
    285. Dorje P
    286. Dorjee K
    287. Dupes A
    288. Elong R
    289. Falk J
    290. Farina A
    291. Faro S
    292. Ferguson D
    293. Fisher S
    294. Foley CD
    295. Franke A
    296. Friedrich D
    297. Gadbois L
    298. Gearin G
    299. Gearin CR
    300. Giannoukos G
    301. Goode T
    302. Graham J
    303. Grandbois E
    304. Grewal S
    305. Gyaltsen K
    306. Hafez N
    307. Hagos B
    308. Hall J
    309. Henson C
    310. Hollinger A
    311. Honan T
    312. Huard MD
    313. Hughes L
    314. Hurhula B
    315. Husby ME
    316. Kamat A
    317. Kanga B
    318. Kashin S
    319. Khazanovich D
    320. Kisner P
    321. Lance K
    322. Lara M
    323. Lee W
    324. Lennon N
    325. Letendre F
    326. LeVine R
    327. Lipovsky A
    328. Liu X
    329. Liu J
    330. Liu S
    331. Lokyitsang T
    332. Lokyitsang Y
    333. Lubonja R
    334. Lui A
    335. MacDonald P
    336. Magnisalis V
    337. Maru K
    338. Matthews C
    339. McCusker W
    340. McDonough S
    341. Mehta T
    342. Meldrim J
    343. Meneus L
    344. Mihai O
    345. Mihalev A
    346. Mihova T
    347. Mittelman R
    348. Mlenga V
    349. Montmayeur A
    350. Mulrain L
    351. Navidi A
    352. Naylor J
    353. Negash T
    354. Nguyen T
    355. Nguyen N
    356. Nicol R
    357. Norbu C
    358. Norbu N
    359. Novod N
    360. O’Neill B
    361. Osman S
    362. Markiewicz E
    363. Oyono OL
    364. Patti C
    365. Phunkhang P
    366. Pierre F
    367. Priest M
    368. Raghuraman S
    369. Rege F
    370. Reyes R
    371. Rise C
    372. Rogov P
    373. Ross K
    374. Ryan E
    375. Settipalli S
    376. Shea T
    377. Sherpa N
    378. Shi L
    379. Shih D
    380. Sparrow T
    381. Spaulding J
    382. Stalker J
    383. Stange-Thomann N
    384. Stavropoulos S
    385. Stone C
    386. Strader C
    387. Tesfaye S
    388. Thomson T
    389. Thoulutsang Y
    390. Thoulutsang D
    391. Topham K
    392. Topping I
    393. Tsamla T
    394. Vassiliev H
    395. Vo A
    396. Wangchuk T
    397. Wangdi T
    398. Weiand M
    399. Wilkinson J
    400. Wilson A
    401. Yadav S
    402. Young G
    403. Yu Q
    404. Zembek L
    405. Zhong D
    406. Zimmer A
    407. Zwirko Z
    408. Jaffe DB
    409. Alvarez P
    410. Brockman W
    411. Butler J
    412. Chin C
    413. Gnerre S
    414. Grabherr M
    415. Kleber M
    416. Mauceli E
    417. MacCallum I
    418. Drosophila 12 Genomes Consortium

    (2007) Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny

    Nature 450:203–218.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06341

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Comeron JM
    2. Ratnappan R
    3. Bailin S

    (2012) The many landscapes of recombination in Drosophila melanogaster

    PLOS Genetics 8:e1002905.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002905

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Cridland JM
    2. Macdonald SJ
    3. Long AD
    4. Thornton KR

    (2013) Abundance and distribution of transposable elements in two Drosophila QTL mapping resources

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 30:2311–2327.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst129

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Czech B
    2. Munafò M
    3. Ciabrelli F
    4. Eastwood EL
    5. Fabry MH
    6. Kneuss E
    7. Hannon GJ

    (2018) piRNA-guided genome defense: from biogenesis to silencing

    Annual Review of Genetics 52:131–157.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-120417-031441

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. de la Chaux N
    2. Tsuchimatsu T
    3. Shimizu KK
    4. Wagner A

    (2012) The predominantly selfing plant Arabidopsis thaliana experienced a recent reduction in transposable element abundance compared to its outcrossing relative Arabidopsis lyrata

    Mobile DNA 3:2.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1759-8753-3-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. de Wit E
    2. Greil F
    3. van Steensel B

    (2007) High-resolution mapping reveals links of HP1 with active and inactive chromatin components

    PLOS Genetics 3:e38.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030038

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Deniz Ö
    2. Frost JM
    3. Branco MR

    (2019) Regulation of transposable elements by DNA modifications

    Nature Reviews. Genetics 20:417–431.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-019-0106-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Deshpande G
    2. Calhoun G
    3. Schedl P

    (2005) Drosophila argonaute-2 is required early in embryogenesis for the assembly of centric/centromeric heterochromatin, nuclear division, nuclear migration, and germ-cell formation

    Genes & Development 19:1680–1685.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1316805

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Dimitri P
    2. Junakovic N

    (1999) Revising the selfish DNA hypothesis: new evidence on accumulation of transposable elements in heterochromatin

    Trends in Genetics 15:123–124.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-9525(99)01711-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Dobin A
    2. Davis CA
    3. Schlesinger F
    4. Drenkow J
    5. Zaleski C
    6. Jha S
    7. Batut P
    8. Chaisson M
    9. Gingeras TR

    (2013) STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner

    Bioinformatics 29:15–21.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Dolgin ES
    2. Charlesworth B

    (2006) The fate of transposable elements in asexual populations

    Genetics 174:817–827.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.106.060434

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Dolgin ES
    2. Charlesworth B
    3. Cutter AD

    (2008) Population frequencies of transposable elements in selfing and outcrossing Caenorhabditis nematodes

    Genetics Research 90:317–329.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672308009440

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Duveau F
    2. Hodgins-Davis A
    3. Metzger BP
    4. Yang B
    5. Tryban S
    6. Walker EA
    7. Lybrook T
    8. Wittkopp PJ

    (2018) Fitness effects of altering gene expression noise in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

    eLife 7:e37272.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37272

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Egelhofer TA
    2. Minoda A
    3. Klugman S
    4. Lee K
    5. Kolasinska-Zwierz P
    6. Alekseyenko AA
    7. Cheung MS
    8. Day DS
    9. Gadel S
    10. Gorchakov AA
    11. Gu T
    12. Kharchenko PV
    13. Kuan S
    14. Latorre I
    15. Linder-Basso D
    16. Luu Y
    17. Ngo Q
    18. Perry M
    19. Rechtsteiner A
    20. Riddle NC
    21. Schwartz YB
    22. Shanower GA
    23. Vielle A
    24. Ahringer J
    25. Elgin SCR
    26. Kuroda MI
    27. Pirrotta V
    28. Ren B
    29. Strome S
    30. Park PJ
    31. Karpen GH
    32. Hawkins RD
    33. Lieb JD

    (2011) An assessment of histone-modification antibody quality

    Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 18:91–93.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.1972

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Elgin SCR
    2. Reuter G

    (2013) Position-effect variegation, heterochromatin formation, and gene silencing in Drosophila

    Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 5:a017780.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a017780

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Elliott TA
    2. Gregory TR

    (2015) What’s in a genome? the C-value enigma and the evolution of eukaryotic genome content

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 370:20140331.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0331

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Erdel F
    2. Greene EC

    (2016) Generalized nucleation and looping model for epigenetic memory of histone modifications

    PNAS 113:E4180–E4189.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605862113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Ewing B
    2. Green P

    (1998)

    Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. II. Error probabilities

    Genome Research 8:186–194.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Felsenstein J

    (1974) The evolutionary advantage of recombination

    Genetics 78:737–756.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/78.2.737

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Ferree PM
    2. Barbash DA

    (2009) Species-specific heterochromatin prevents mitotic chromosome segregation to cause hybrid lethality in Drosophila

    PLOS Biology 7:e1000234.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000234

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Feschotte C
    2. Pritham EJ

    (2007) DNA transposons and the evolution of eukaryotic genomes

    Annual Review of Genetics 41:331–368.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genet.40.110405.090448

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Filion GJ
    2. van Bemmel JG
    3. Braunschweig U
    4. Talhout W
    5. Kind J
    6. Ward LD
    7. Brugman W
    8. de Castro IJ
    9. Kerkhoven RM
    10. Bussemaker HJ
    11. van Steensel B

    (2010) Systematic protein location mapping reveals five principal chromatin types in Drosophila cells

    Cell 143:212–224.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.09.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Finnegan DJ

    (1992) Transposable elements

    Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 2:861–867.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-437x(05)80108-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Flynn JM
    2. Hubley R
    3. Goubert C
    4. Rosen J
    5. Clark AG
    6. Feschotte C
    7. Smit AF

    (2020) RepeatModeler2 for automated genomic discovery of transposable element families

    PNAS 117:9451–9457.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921046117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Frolov MV
    2. Birchler JA

    (1998) Mutation in P0, a dual function ribosomal protein/apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease, modifies gene expression and position effect variegation in Drosophila

    Genetics 150:1487–1495.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/150.4.1487

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Garrigan D
    2. Kingan SB
    3. Geneva AJ
    4. Andolfatto P
    5. Clark AG
    6. Thornton KR
    7. Presgraves DC

    (2012) Genome sequencing reveals complex speciation in the Drosophila simulans clade

    Genome Research 22:1499–1511.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.130922.111

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Garrigan D
    2. Kingan SB
    3. Geneva AJ
    4. Vedanayagam JP
    5. Presgraves DC

    (2014) Genome diversity and divergence in Drosophila mauritiana: multiple signatures of faster X evolution

    Genome Biology and Evolution 6:2444–2458.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evu198

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Gaszner M
    2. Felsenfeld G

    (2006) Insulators: exploiting transcriptional and epigenetic mechanisms

    Nature Reviews. Genetics 7:703–713.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1925

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Girton JR
    2. Johansen KM

    (2008) Chromatin structure and the regulation of gene expression: the lessons of PEV in Drosophila

    Advances in Genetics 61:1–43.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2660(07)00001-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Goubert C
    2. Zevallos NA
    3. Feschotte C

    (2020) Contribution of unfixed transposable element insertions to human regulatory variation

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 375:20190331.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0331

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Gowen JW
    2. Gay EH

    (1934) Chromosome constitution and behavior in eversporting and mottling in Drosophila melanogaster

    Genetics 19:189–208.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/19.3.189

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Grabherr MG
    2. Haas BJ
    3. Yassour M
    4. Levin JZ
    5. Thompson DA
    6. Amit I
    7. Adiconis X
    8. Fan L
    9. Raychowdhury R
    10. Zeng Q
    11. Chen Z
    12. Mauceli E
    13. Hacohen N
    14. Gnirke A
    15. Rhind N
    16. di Palma F
    17. Birren BW
    18. Nusbaum C
    19. Lindblad-Toh K
    20. Friedman N
    21. Regev A

    (2011) Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-Seq data without a reference genome

    Nature Biotechnology 29:644–652.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1883

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Grafen A

    (1989) The phylogenetic regression

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 326:119–157.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1989.0106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Greil F
    2. de Wit E
    3. Bussemaker HJ
    4. van Steensel B

    (2007) HP1 controls genomic targeting of four novel heterochromatin proteins in Drosophila

    The EMBO Journal 26:741–751.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.emboj.7601527

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Hahn MW
    2. Han MV
    3. Han SG

    (2007) Gene family evolution across 12 Drosophila genomes

    PLOS Genetics 3:e197.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030197

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Helleu Q
    2. Levine MT

    (2018) Recurrent amplification of the heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1) gene family across diptera

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 35:2375–2389.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy128

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Hill WG
    2. Robertson A

    (1966)

    The effect of linkage on limits to artificial selection

    Genetical Research 8:269–294.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Ho EKH
    2. Bellis ES
    3. Calkins J
    4. Adrion JR
    5. Latta Iv LC
    6. Schaack S

    (2021) Engines of change: Transposable element mutation rates are high and variable within Daphnia magna

    PLOS Genetics 17:e1009827.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1009827

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Hollister JD
    2. Gaut BS

    (2009) Epigenetic silencing of transposable elements: A trade-off between reduced transposition and deleterious effects on neighboring gene expression

    Genome Research 19:1419–1428.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.091678.109

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Hollister JD
    2. Smith LM
    3. Guo YL
    4. Ott F
    5. Weigel D
    6. Gaut BS

    (2011) Transposable elements and small RNAs contribute to gene expression divergence between Arabidopsis thaliana and Arabidopsis lyrata

    PNAS 108:2322–2327.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018222108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Holt C
    2. Yandell M

    (2011) MAKER2: an annotation pipeline and genome-database management tool for second-generation genome projects

    BMC Bioinformatics 12:491.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-491

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Hoskins RA
    2. Carlson JW
    3. Kennedy C
    4. Acevedo D
    5. Evans-Holm M
    6. Frise E
    7. Wan KH
    8. Park S
    9. Mendez-Lago M
    10. Rossi F
    11. Villasante A
    12. Dimitri P
    13. Karpen GH
    14. Celniker SE

    (2007) Sequence finishing and mapping of Drosophila melanogaster heterochromatin

    Science 316:1625–1628.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1139816

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Hoskins RA
    2. Carlson JW
    3. Wan KH
    4. Park S
    5. Mendez I
    6. Galle SE
    7. Booth BW
    8. Pfeiffer BD
    9. George RA
    10. Svirskas R
    11. Krzywinski M
    12. Schein J
    13. Accardo MC
    14. Damia E
    15. Messina G
    16. Méndez-Lago M
    17. de Pablos B
    18. Demakova OV
    19. Andreyeva EN
    20. Boldyreva LV
    21. Marra M
    22. Carvalho AB
    23. Dimitri P
    24. Villasante A
    25. Zhimulev IF
    26. Rubin GM
    27. Karpen GH
    28. Celniker SE

    (2015) The Release 6 reference sequence of the Drosophila melanogaster genome

    Genome Research 25:445–458.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.185579.114

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Hu TT
    2. Pattyn P
    3. Bakker EG
    4. Cao J
    5. Cheng JF
    6. Clark RM
    7. Fahlgren N
    8. Fawcett JA
    9. Grimwood J
    10. Gundlach H
    11. Haberer G
    12. Hollister JD
    13. Ossowski S
    14. Ottilar RP
    15. Salamov AA
    16. Schneeberger K
    17. Spannagl M
    18. Wang X
    19. Yang L
    20. Nasrallah ME
    21. Bergelson J
    22. Carrington JC
    23. Gaut BS
    24. Schmutz J
    25. Mayer KFX
    26. Van de Peer Y
    27. Grigoriev IV
    28. Nordborg M
    29. Weigel D
    30. Guo YL

    (2011) The Arabidopsis lyrata genome sequence and the basis of rapid genome size change

    Nature Genetics 43:476–481.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.807

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Huang CRL
    2. Burns KH
    3. Boeke JD

    (2012) Active transposition in genomes

    Annual Review of Genetics 46:651–675.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-110711-155616

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. Software

    1. Huang Y

    (2022) TE population frequency analysis, version swh:1:rev:24218fab83996f657e489402c5ff1c4cc06bfe9c

    Software Heritage.

    https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:e8a29a082fb85376996ba58ccad333ab02738278;origin=https://github.com/harsh-shukla/TE_freq_analysis;visit=swh:1:snp:81910efac0d8d326402f111c4bd2fecd5c7696b3;anchor=swh:1:rev:24218fab83996f657e489402c5ff1c4cc06bfe9c
75. 1. Janssen A
    2. Breuer GA
    3. Brinkman EK
    4. van der Meulen AI
    5. Borden SV
    6. van Steensel B
    7. Bindra RS
    8. LaRocque JR
    9. Karpen GH

    (2016) A single double-strand break system reveals repair dynamics and mechanisms in heterochromatin and euchromatin

    Genes & Development 30:1645–1657.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.283028.116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Janssen A
    2. Colmenares SU
    3. Karpen GH

    (2018) Heterochromatin: guardian of the genheterochromatin: guardian of the genome

    Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 34:265–288.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-cellbio-100617-062653

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Janssen A
    2. Colmenares SU
    3. Lee T
    4. Karpen GH

    (2019) Timely double-strand break repair and pathway choice in pericentromeric heterochromatin depend on the histone demethylase dkdm4a

    Genes & Development 33:103–115.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.317537.118

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Kaminker JS
    2. Bergman CM
    3. Kronmiller B
    4. Carlson J
    5. Svirskas R
    6. Patel S
    7. Frise E
    8. Wheeler DA
    9. Lewis SE
    10. Rubin GM
    11. Ashburner M
    12. Celniker SE

    (2002) The transposable elements of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatin: a genomics perspective

    Genome Biology 3:RESEARCH0084.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2002-3-12-research0084

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Kapitonov VV
    2. Jurka J

    (2003) Molecular paleontology of transposable elements in the Drosophila melanogaster genome

    PNAS 100:6569–6574.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0732024100

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Kazazian HH

    (2004) Mobile elements: drivers of genome evolution

    Science 303:1626–1632.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089670

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Kelleher ES
    2. Barbash DA
    3. Blumenstiel JP

    (2020) Taming the turmoil within: New insights on the containment of transposable elements

    Trends in Genetics 36:474–489.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2020.04.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Kent TV
    2. Uzunović J
    3. Wright SI

    (2017) Coevolution between transposable elements and recombination

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 372:20160458.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0458

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Kharchenko PV
    2. Alekseyenko AA
    3. Schwartz YB
    4. Minoda A
    5. Riddle NC
    6. Ernst J
    7. Sabo PJ
    8. Larschan E
    9. Gorchakov AA
    10. Gu T
    11. Linder-Basso D
    12. Plachetka A
    13. Shanower G
    14. Tolstorukov MY
    15. Luquette LJ
    16. Xi R
    17. Jung YL
    18. Park RW
    19. Bishop EP
    20. Canfield TK
    21. Sandstrom R
    22. Thurman RE
    23. MacAlpine DM
    24. Stamatoyannopoulos JA
    25. Kellis M
    26. Elgin SCR
    27. Kuroda MI
    28. Pirrotta V
    29. Karpen GH
    30. Park PJ

    (2011) Comprehensive analysis of the chromatin landscape in Drosophila melanogaster

    Nature 471:480–485.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09725

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Khost DE
    2. Eickbush DG
    3. Larracuente AM

    (2017) Single-molecule sequencing resolves the detailed structure of complex satellite DNA loci in Drosophila melanogaster

    Genome Research 27:709–721.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.213512.116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Kokot M
    2. Długosz M
    3. Deorowicz S
    4. Berger B

    (2017) KMC 3: counting and manipulating k-mer statistics

    Bioinformatics 33:2759–2761.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx304

    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Koren S
    2. Walenz BP
    3. Berlin K
    4. Miller JR
    5. Bergman NH
    6. Phillippy AM

    (2017) Canu: scalable and accurate long-read assembly via adaptive k-mer weighting and repeat separation

    Genome Research 27:722–736.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.215087.116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Kouzarides T

    (2007) Chromatin modifications and their function

    Cell 128:693–705.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2007.02.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Lack JB
    2. Cardeno CM
    3. Crepeau MW
    4. Taylor W
    5. Corbett-Detig RB
    6. Stevens KA
    7. Langley CH
    8. Pool JE

    (2015) The Drosophila genome nexus: A population genomic resource of 623 Drosophila melanogaster genomes, including 197 from A single ancestral range population

    Genetics 199:1229–1241.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.115.174664

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Lam KWG
    2. Brick K
    3. Cheng G
    4. Pratto F
    5. Camerini-Otero RD

    (2019) Cell-type-specific genomics reveals histone modification dynamics in mammalian meiosis

    Nature Communications 10:3821.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11820-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Langley C H
    2. Montgomery E
    3. Hudson R
    4. Kaplan N
    5. Charlesworth B

    (1988) On the role of unequal exchange in the containment of transposable element copy number

    Genetical Research 52:223–235.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/s0016672300027695

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Langley CH
    2. Stevens K
    3. Cardeno C
    4. Lee YCG
    5. Schrider DR
    6. Pool JE
    7. Langley SA
    8. Suarez C
    9. Corbett-Detig RB
    10. Kolaczkowski B
    11. Fang S
    12. Nista PM
    13. Holloway AK
    14. Kern AD
    15. Dewey CN
    16. Song YS
    17. Hahn MW
    18. Begun DJ

    (2012) Genomic variation in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster

    Genetics 192:533–598.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.112.142018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Larracuente AM

    (2014) The organization and evolution of the Responder satellite in species of the Drosophila melanogaster group: dynamic evolution of a target of meiotic drive

    BMC Evolutionary Biology 14:233.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-014-0233-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Larson DE
    2. Abel HJ
    3. Chiang C
    4. Badve A
    5. Das I
    6. Eldred JM
    7. Layer RM
    8. Hall IM

    (2019) svtools: population-scale analysis of structural variation

    Bioinformatics 35:4782–4787.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz492

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Layer RM
    2. Chiang C
    3. Quinlan AR
    4. Hall IM

    (2014) LUMPY: a probabilistic framework for structural variant discovery

    Genome Biology 15:R84.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2014-15-6-r84

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Le Thomas A
    2. Rogers AK
    3. Webster A
    4. Marinov GK
    5. Liao SE
    6. Perkins EM
    7. Hur JK
    8. Aravin AA
    9. Tóth KF

    (2013) Piwi induces piRNA-guided transcriptional silencing and establishment of a repressive chromatin state

    Genes & Development 27:390–399.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.209841.112

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Lee YCG
    2. Langley CH

    (2010) Transposable elements in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 365:1219–1228.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0318

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Lee YCG

    (2015) The role of piRNA-mediated epigenetic silencing in the population dynamics of transposable elements in Drosophila melanogaster

    PLOS Genetics 11:e1005269.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005269

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Lee YCG
    2. Karpen GH

    (2017) Pervasive epigenetic effects of Drosophila euchromatic transposable elements impact their evolution

    eLife 6:e25762.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25762

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Lee YCG
    2. Ogiyama Y
    3. Martins NMC
    4. Beliveau BJ
    5. Acevedo D
    6. Wu C
    7. Cavalli G
    8. Karpen GH

    (2020) Pericentromeric heterochromatin is hierarchically organized and spatially contacts h3k9me2 islands in euchromatin

    PLOS Genetics 16:e1008673.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008673

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Legrand S
     2. Caron T
     3. Maumus F
     4. Schvartzman S
     5. Quadrana L
     6. Durand E
     7. Gallina S
     8. Pauwels M
     9. Mazoyer C
     10. Huyghe L
     11. Colot V
     12. Hanikenne M
     13. Castric V

     (2019) Differential retention of transposable element-derived sequences in outcrossing Arabidopsis genomes

     Mobile DNA 10:30.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/s13100-019-0171-6

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Levine MT
     2. McCoy C
     3. Vermaak D
     4. Lee YCG
     5. Hiatt MA
     6. Matsen FA
     7. Malik HS

     (2012) Phylogenomic analysis reveals dynamic evolutionary history of the Drosophila Heterochromatin Protein 1 (HP1) gene family

     PLOS Genetics 8:e1002729.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002729

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Li H
     2. Durbin R

     (2009) Fast and accurate short read alignment with burrows-wheeler transform

     Bioinformatics 25:1754–1760.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Li H

     (2011) A statistical framework for SNP calling, mutation discovery, association mapping and population genetical parameter estimation from sequencing data

     Bioinformatics 27:2987–2993.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr509

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Li Q
     2. Brown JB
     3. Huang H
     4. Bickel PJ

     (2011) Measuring reproducibility of high-throughput experiments

     The Annals of Applied Statistics 5:1752–1779.

     https://doi.org/10.1214/11-AOAS466

     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Li H

     (2018) Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences

     Bioinformatics 34:3094–3100.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty191

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. Software

     1. Li H

     (2022) Seqtk, version v1.3-r107-dirty

     GitHub.

     https://github.com/lh3/seqtk
107. 1. Locke J
     2. Kotarski MA
     3. Tartof KD

     (1988) Dosage-dependent modifiers of position effect variegation in Drosophila and a mass action model that explains their effect

     Genetics 120:181–198.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/120.1.181

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Lockton S
     2. Gaut BS

     (2010) The evolution of transposable elements in natural populations of self-fertilizing Arabidopsis thaliana and its outcrossing relative Arabidopsis lyrata

     BMC Evolutionary Biology 10:10.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-10-10

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Lynch M
     2. Conery JS

     (2003) The origins of genome complexity

     Science 302:1401–1404.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089370

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Martins EP
     2. Hansen TF

     (1997) Phylogenies and the comparative method: A general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data

     The American Naturalist 149:646–667.

     https://doi.org/10.1086/286013

     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Meiklejohn CD
     2. Landeen EL
     3. Gordon KE
     4. Rzatkiewicz T
     5. Kingan SB
     6. Geneva AJ
     7. Vedanayagam JP
     8. Muirhead CA
     9. Garrigan D
     10. Stern DL
     11. Presgraves DC

     (2018) Gene flow mediates the role of sex chromosome meiotic drive during complex speciation

     eLife 7:e35468.

     https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35468

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Meng D
     2. Dubin M
     3. Zhang P
     4. Osborne EJ
     5. Stegle O
     6. Clark RM
     7. Nordborg M

     (2016) Limited contribution of DNA methylation variation to expression regulation in Arabidopsis thaliana

     PLOS Genetics 12:e1006141.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006141

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Mérel V
     2. Gibert P
     3. Buch I
     4. Rodriguez Rada V
     5. Estoup A
     6. Gautier M
     7. Fablet M
     8. Boulesteix M
     9. Vieira C

     (2021) The worldwide invasion of Drosophila suzukii is accompanied by a large increase of transposable element load and a small number of putatively adaptive insertions

     Molecular Biology and Evolution 38:4252–4267.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msab155

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Metzger BPH
     2. Yuan DC
     3. Gruber JD
     4. Duveau F
     5. Wittkopp PJ

     (2015) Selection on noise constrains variation in a eukaryotic promoter

     Nature 521:344–347.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14244

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
115. 1. Mills WK
     2. Lee YCG
     3. Kochendoerfer AM
     4. Dunleavy EM
     5. Karpen GH

     (2019) RNA from a simple-tandem repeat is required for sperm maturation and male fertility in Drosophila melanogaster

     eLife 8:e48940.

     https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48940

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
116. 1. Montgomery EA
     2. Huang SM
     3. Langley CH
     4. Judd BH

     (1991) Chromosome rearrangement by ectopic recombination in Drosophila melanogaster: genome structure and evolution

     Genetics 129:1085–1098.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/129.4.1085

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
117. 1. Nakato R
     2. Shirahige K

     (2017) Recent advances in ChIP-seq analysis: from quality management to whole-genome annotation

     Briefings in Bioinformatics 18:279–290.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbw023

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
118. 1. Nègre N
     2. Brown CD
     3. Ma L
     4. Bristow CA
     5. Miller SW
     6. Wagner U
     7. Kheradpour P
     8. Eaton ML
     9. Loriaux P
     10. Sealfon R
     11. Li Z
     12. Ishii H
     13. Spokony RF
     14. Chen J
     15. Hwang L
     16. Cheng C
     17. Auburn RP
     18. Davis MB
     19. Domanus M
     20. Shah PK
     21. Morrison CA
     22. Zieba J
     23. Suchy S
     24. Senderowicz L
     25. Victorsen A
     26. Bild NA
     27. Grundstad AJ
     28. Hanley D
     29. MacAlpine DM
     30. Mannervik M
     31. Venken K
     32. Bellen H
     33. White R
     34. Gerstein M
     35. Russell S
     36. Grossman RL
     37. Ren B
     38. Posakony JW
     39. Kellis M
     40. White KP

     (2011) A cis-regulatory map of the Drosophila genome

     Nature 471:527–531.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09990

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
119. 1. Ninova M
     2. Godneeva B
     3. Chen YCA
     4. Luo Y
     5. Prakash SJ
     6. Jankovics F
     7. Erdélyi M
     8. Aravin AA
     9. Fejes Tóth K

     (2020) The SUMO Ligase Su(var)2-10 controls hetero- and euchromatic gene expression via establishing H3K9 trimethylation and negative feedback regulation

     Molecular Cell 77:571–585.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2019.09.033

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
120. 1. Nowoshilow S
     2. Schloissnig S
     3. Fei JF
     4. Dahl A
     5. Pang AWC
     6. Pippel M
     7. Winkler S
     8. Hastie AR
     9. Young G
     10. Roscito JG
     11. Falcon F
     12. Knapp D
     13. Powell S
     14. Cruz A
     15. Cao H
     16. Habermann B
     17. Hiller M
     18. Tanaka EM
     19. Myers EW

     (2018) The axolotl genome and the evolution of key tissue formation regulators

     Nature 554:50–55.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25458

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
121. 1. Obbard DJ
     2. Maclennan J
     3. Kim KW
     4. Rambaut A
     5. O’Grady PM
     6. Jiggins FM

     (2012) Estimating divergence dates and substitution rates in the Drosophila phylogeny

     Molecular Biology and Evolution 29:3459–3473.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss150

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
122. 1. Oggenfuss U
     2. Badet T
     3. Wicker T
     4. Hartmann FE
     5. Singh NK
     6. Abraham L
     7. Karisto P
     8. Vonlanthen T
     9. Mundt C
     10. McDonald BA
     11. Croll D

     (2021) A population-level invasion by transposable elements triggers genome expansion in A fungal pathogen

     eLife 10:e69249.

     https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.69249

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
123. 1. Park PJ

     (2009) ChIP-seq: advantages and challenges of a maturing technology

     Nature Reviews. Genetics 10:669–680.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2641

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
124. 1. Petrov DA
     2. Aminetzach YT
     3. Davis JC
     4. Bensasson D
     5. Hirsh AE

     (2003) Size matters: non-LTR retrotransposable elements and ectopic recombination in Drosophila

     Molecular Biology and Evolution 20:880–892.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msg102

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
125. 1. Petrov DA
     2. Fiston-Lavier AS
     3. Lipatov M
     4. Lenkov K
     5. González J

     (2011) Population genomics of transposable elements in Drosophila melanogaster

     Molecular Biology and Evolution 28:1633–1644.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msq337

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
126. 1. Pezic D
     2. Manakov SA
     3. Sachidanandam R
     4. Aravin AA

     (2014) piRNA pathway targets active LINE1 elements to establish the repressive H3K9me3 mark in germ cells

     Genes & Development 28:1410–1428.

     https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.240895.114

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
127. 1. Pikaard CS
     2. Mittelsten Scheid O

     (2014) Epigenetic regulation in plants

     Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 6:a019315.

     https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a019315

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
128. 1. Presgraves DC

     (2006) Intron length evolution in Drosophila

     Molecular Biology and Evolution 23:2203–2213.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msl094

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
129. 1. Qi Y
     2. He X
     3. Wang XJ
     4. Kohany O
     5. Jurka J
     6. Hannon GJ

     (2006) Distinct catalytic and non-catalytic roles of ARGONAUTE4 in RNA-directed DNA methylation

     Nature 443:1008–1012.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05198

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
130. 1. Quadrana L
     2. Bortolini Silveira A
     3. Mayhew GF
     4. LeBlanc C
     5. Martienssen RA
     6. Jeddeloh JA
     7. Colot V

     (2016) The Arabidopsis thaliana mobilome and its impact at the species level

     eLife 5:e15716.

     https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15716

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
131. 1. Quinlan AR
     2. Hall IM

     (2010) BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features

     Bioinformatics 26:841–842.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
132. 1. Rebollo R
     2. Miceli-Royer K
     3. Zhang Y
     4. Farivar S
     5. Gagnier L
     6. Mager DL

     (2012) Epigenetic interplay between mouse endogenous retroviruses and host genes

     Genome Biology 13:R89.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2012-13-10-r89

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
133. 1. Rech GE
     2. Radío S
     3. Guirao-Rico S
     4. Aguilera L
     5. Horvath V
     6. Green L
     7. Lindstadt H
     8. Jamilloux V
     9. Quesneville H
     10. González J

     (2022) Population-scale long-read sequencing uncovers transposable elements associated with gene expression variation and adaptive signatures in Drosophila

     Nature Communications 13:1948.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29518-8

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
134. 1. Riddle NC
     2. Minoda A
     3. Kharchenko PV
     4. Alekseyenko AA
     5. Schwartz YB
     6. Tolstorukov MY
     7. Gorchakov AA
     8. Jaffe JD
     9. Kennedy C
     10. Linder-Basso D
     11. Peach SE
     12. Shanower G
     13. Zheng H
     14. Kuroda MI
     15. Pirrotta V
     16. Park PJ
     17. Elgin SCR
     18. Karpen GH

     (2011) Plasticity in patterns of histone modifications and chromosomal proteins in Drosophila heterochromatin

     Genome Research 21:147–163.

     https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.110098.110

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
135. 1. Rius N
     2. Guillén Y
     3. Delprat A
     4. Kapusta A
     5. Feschotte C
     6. Ruiz A

     (2016) Exploration of the Drosophila buzzatii transposable element content suggests underestimation of repeats in Drosophila genomes

     BMC Genomics 17:344.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-016-2648-8

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
136. 1. Rogers RL
     2. Cridland JM
     3. Shao L
     4. Hu TT
     5. Andolfatto P
     6. Thornton KR

     (2014) Landscape of standing variation for tandem duplications in Drosophila yakuba and Drosophila simulans

     Molecular Biology and Evolution 31:1750–1766.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msu124

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
137. 1. Ross BD
     2. Rosin L
     3. Thomae AW
     4. Hiatt MA
     5. Vermaak D
     6. de la Cruz AFA
     7. Imhof A
     8. Mellone BG
     9. Malik HS

     (2013) Stepwise evolution of essential centromere funcstepwise evolution of essential centromere function in a Drosophila neogene

     Science 340:1211–1214.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1234393

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
138. 1. Rudolph T
     2. Yonezawa M
     3. Lein S
     4. Heidrich K
     5. Kubicek S
     6. Schäfer C
     7. Phalke S
     8. Walther M
     9. Schmidt A
     10. Jenuwein T
     11. Reuter G

     (2007) Heterochromatin formation in Drosophila is initiated through active removal of H3K4 methylation by the LSD1 homolog SU(VAR)3-3

     Molecular Cell 26:103–115.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2007.02.025

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
139. 1. Sabl JF
     2. Henikoff S

     (1996) Copy number and orientation determine the susceptibility of a gene to silencing by nearby heterochromatin in Drosophila

     Genetics 142:447–458.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/142.2.447

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
140. 1. Salzberg SL
     2. Yorke JA

     (2005) Beware of mis-assembled genomes

     Bioinformatics 21:4320–4321.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti769

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
141. 1. Sasaki E
     2. Kawakatsu T
     3. Ecker JR
     4. Nordborg M

     (2019) Common alleles of CMT2 and NRPE1 are major determinants of CHH methylation variation in Arabidopsis thaliana

     PLOS Genetics 15:e1008492.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008492

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
142. 1. Sentmanat MF
     2. Elgin SCR

     (2012) Ectopic assembly of heterochromatin in Drosophila melanogaster triggered by transposable elements

     PNAS 109:14104–14109.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1207036109

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
143. 1. Sexton T
     2. Yaffe E
     3. Kenigsberg E
     4. Bantignies F
     5. Leblanc B
     6. Hoichman M
     7. Parrinello H
     8. Tanay A
     9. Cavalli G

     (2012) Three-dimensional folding and functional organization principles of the Drosophila genome

     Cell 148:458–472.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.01.010

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
144. 1. Sienski G
     2. Dönertas D
     3. Brennecke J

     (2012) Transcriptional silencing of transposons by Piwi and maelstrom and its impact on chromatin state and gene expression

     Cell 151:964–980.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.10.040

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
145. 1. Singh N
     2. Morlock H
     3. Hanes SD

     (2011) The Bin3 RNA methyltransferase is required for repression of caudal translation in the Drosophila embryo

     Developmental Biology 352:104–115.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2011.01.017

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
146. 1. Slotkin RK
     2. Martienssen R

     (2007) Transposable elements and the epigenetic regulation of the genome

     Nature Reviews. Genetics 8:272–285.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2072

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
147. 1. Stranger BE
     2. Forrest MS
     3. Dunning M
     4. Ingle CE
     5. Beazley C
     6. Thorne N
     7. Redon R
     8. Bird CP
     9. de Grassi A
     10. Lee C
     11. Tyler-Smith C
     12. Carter N
     13. Scherer SW
     14. Tavaré S
     15. Deloukas P
     16. Hurles ME
     17. Dermitzakis ET

     (2007) Relative impact of nucleotide and copy number variation on gene expression phenotypes

     Science 315:848–853.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136678

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
148. 1. Stuart T
     2. Eichten SR
     3. Cahn J
     4. Karpievitch YV
     5. Borevitz JO
     6. Lister R

     (2016) Population scale mapping of transposable element diversity reveals links to gene regulation and epigenomic variation

     eLife 5:e20777.

     https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20777

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
149. 1. Swenson JM
     2. Colmenares SU
     3. Strom AR
     4. Costes SV
     5. Karpen GH

     (2016) The composition and organization of Drosophila heterochromatin are heterogeneous and dynamic

     eLife 5:e16096.

     https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16096

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
150. 1. Szitenberg A
     2. Cha S
     3. Opperman CH
     4. Bird DM
     5. Blaxter ML
     6. Lunt DH

     (2016) Genetic drift, not life history or RNAi, determine long-term evolution of transposable elements

     Genome Biology and Evolution 8:2964–2978.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evw208

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
151. 1. Talbert PB
     2. Henikoff S

     (2000) A reexamination of spreading of position-effect variegation in the white-roughest region of Drosophila melanogaster

     Genetics 154:259–272.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/154.1.259

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
152. 1. Thorvaldsdóttir H
     2. Robinson JT
     3. Mesirov JP

     (2013) Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV): high-performance genomics data visualization and exploration

     Briefings in Bioinformatics 14:178–192.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbs017

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
153. 1. Treangen TJ
     2. Salzberg SL

     (2011) Repetitive DNA and next-generation sequencing: computational challenges and solutions

     Nature Reviews. Genetics 13:36–46.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3117

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
154. 1. Turissini DA
     2. Matute DR

     (2017) Fine scale mapping of genomic introgressions within the Drosophila yakuba clade

     PLOS Genetics 13:e1006971.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006971

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
155. 1. Ullastres A
     2. Merenciano M
     3. González J

     (2021) Regulatory regions in natural transposable element insertions drive interindividual differences in response to immune challenges in Drosophila

     Genome Biology 22:265.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-021-02471-3

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
156. 1. Vogel MJ
     2. Pagie L
     3. Talhout W
     4. Nieuwland M
     5. Kerkhoven RM
     6. van Steensel B

     (2009) High-resolution mapping of heterochromatin redistribution in a Drosophila position-effect variegation model

     Epigenetics & Chromatin 2:1.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-8935-2-1

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
157. 1. Volff JN
     2. Bouneau L
     3. Ozouf-Costaz C
     4. Fischer C

     (2003) Diversity of retrotransposable elements in compact pufferfish genomes

     Trends in Genetics 19:674–678.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2003.10.006

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
158. 1. Wang SH
     2. Elgin SCR

     (2011) Drosophila Piwi functions downstream of piRNA production mediating a chromatin-based transposon silencing mechanism in female germ line

     PNAS 108:21164–21169.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107892109

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
159. 1. Wei KHC
     2. Grenier JK
     3. Barbash DA
     4. Clark AG

     (2014) Correlated variation and population differentiation in satellite DNA abundance among lines of Drosophila melanogaster

     PNAS 111:18793–18798.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421951112

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
160. 1. Wei KHC
     2. Lower SE
     3. Caldas IV
     4. Sless TJS
     5. Barbash DA
     6. Clark AG

     (2018) Variable rates of simple satellite gains across the Drosophila phylogeny

     Molecular Biology and Evolution 35:925–941.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy005

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
161. 1. Wei KHC
     2. Gibilisco L
     3. Bachtrog D

     (2020) Epigenetic conflict on a degenerating Y chromosome increases mutational burden in Drosophila males

     Nature Communications 11:5537.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19134-9

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
162. 1. Wells JN
     2. Feschotte C

     (2020) A field guide to eukaryotic transposable elements

     Annual Review of Genetics 54:539–561.

     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-040620-022145

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
163. 1. Wicker T
     2. Sabot F
     3. Hua-Van A
     4. Bennetzen JL
     5. Capy P
     6. Chalhoub B
     7. Flavell A
     8. Leroy P
     9. Morgante M
     10. Panaud O
     11. Paux E
     12. SanMiguel P
     13. Schulman AH

     (2007) A unified classification system for eukaryotic transposable elements

     Nature Reviews. Genetics 8:973–982.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2165

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
164. 1. Wong WY
     2. Simakov O
     3. Bridge DM
     4. Cartwright P
     5. Bellantuono AJ
     6. Kuhn A
     7. Holstein TW
     8. David CN
     9. Steele RE
     10. Martínez DE

     (2019) Expansion of a single transposable element family is associated with genome-size increase and radiation in the genus Hydra

     PNAS 116:22915–22917.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910106116

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
165. 1. Wright SI
     2. Schoen DJ

     (1999)

     Transposon dynamics and the breeding system

     Genetica 107:139–148.

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
166. 1. Yang HP
     2. Barbash DA

     (2008) Abundant and species-specific DINE-1 transposable elements in 12 Drosophila genomes

     Genome Biology 9:R39.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2008-9-2-r39

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
167. 1. Yasuhara JC
     2. Wakimoto BT

     (2008) Molecular landscape of modified histones in Drosophila heterochromatic genes and euchromatin-heterochromatin transition zones

     PLOS Genetics 4:e16.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0040016

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
168. 1. Zhang Y
     2. Liu T
     3. Meyer CA
     4. Eeckhoute J
     5. Johnson DS
     6. Bernstein BE
     7. Nusbaum C
     8. Myers RM
     9. Brown M
     10. Li W
     11. Liu XS

     (2008) Model-based analysis of chIP-Seq (MACS)

     Genome Biology 9:R137.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2008-9-9-r137

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Yuheng Huang

   Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1586-953X

2. Harsh Shukla

   Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, United States

   Contribution

   Software, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Yuh Chwen G Lee

   Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   grylee@uci.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0081-7892

• 4,569

  views

• 696

  downloads

• 20

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.