Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 67, Issue 3, pp 291–300 | Cite as

The Excess of Small Inverted Repeats in Prokaryotes

  • Emmanuel D. Ladoukakis
  • Adam Eyre-Walker


Recent analyses have shown that there is a large excess of perfect inverted repeats in many prokaryotic genomes but not in eukaryotic ones. This difference could be due to a genuine difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes or to differences in the methods and types of data analyzed – full genome versus protein coding sequences. We used simulations to show that the method used previously tends to underestimate the expected number of inverted repeats. However, this bias is not large and cannot explain the excess of inverted repeats observed in real data. In contrast, our method is unbiased. When both methods are applied to bacterial protein coding sequences they both detect an excess of inverted repeats, which is much lower than previously reported in whole prokaryotic genomes. This suggests that the reported large excess of inverted repeats is due to repeats found in intergenic regions. These repeats could be due to transcription factor binding sites, or other types of repetitive DNA, on opposite strands of the DNA sequence. In contrast, the smaller, but significant, excess of inverted repeats that we report in protein coding sequences may be due to sequence-directed mutagenesis (SDM). SDM is a process where one copy of a small, imperfect, inverted repeat corrects the other copy via strand misalignment, resulting in a perfect repeat and a series of mutations. We show by simulation that even very low levels of SDM, relative to the rate of point mutation, can generate a substantial excess of inverted repeats.


Sequence-directed mutagenesis Genomic pattern Prokaryotic genomes 



E.L. was funded by a Marie Curie fellowship, A.E.-W. was funded by the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.


  1. Achaz G, Rocha EP, Netter P, Coissac E (2002) Origin and fate of repeats in bacteria. Nucleic Acids Res 30:2987–2994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bi X, Liu LF (1996) DNA rearrangement mediated by inverted repeats. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:819–823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blatt NB, Osborne SE, Cain RJ, Glick GD (1993) Conformational studies of hairpin sequences from the ColE1 cruciform. Biochimie 75:433–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blisser JJ (1998) DNA inverted repeats and human diseases. Front Biosci 3:d408–d418Google Scholar
  5. Charlseworth J, Eyre-Walker A (2006) The rate of adaptive evolution in enteric bacteria. Mol Biol Evol 23:1348–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chuzhanova N, Abeysinghe SS, Krawczak M, Cooper DN (2003) Translocation and gross deletion breakpoints in human inherited disease and cancer II: potential involvement of repetitive sequence elements in secondary structure formation between DNA ends. Hum Mutat 22:245–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark MA, Moran NA, Baumann P (1999) Sequence evolution in bacterial endosymbionts having extreme base compositions. Mol Biol Evol 16:1586–1598PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fieldhouse D, Golding B (1991) A source of small repeats in genomic DNA. Genetics 129:563–572PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fleischmann RD, Adams MD, White O et al (1995) Whole-genome random sequencing and assembly of Haemophilus influenzae Rd. Science 269:496–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Halliday JA, Glickman BW (1991) Mechanisms of spontaneous mutation in DNA repair-proficient Escherichia coli. Mutat Res 250:55–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hood DW, Deadman ME, Jennings MP, Bisercic M, Fleischmann RD, Venter JC, Moxon ER (1996) DNA repeats identify novel virulence genes in Haemophilus influenzae. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:11121–11125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karlin S, Mrazek J, Campbell AM (1997) Compositional biases of bacterial genomes and evolutionary implications. J Bacteriol 179:3899–3913PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kerr AR, Peden JF, Sharp PM (1997) Systematic base composition variation around the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium, but not Mycoplasma pneumoniae. Mol Microbiol 25:1177–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kleckner N (1981) Transposable elements in prokaryotes. Annu Rev Genet 15:341–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kramer PR, Stringer JR, Sinden RR (1996) Stability of an inverted repeat in a human fibrosarcoma cell. Nucleic Acids Res 24:4234–4241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ladoukakis ED, Eyre-Walker A (2007) Searching for sequence directed mutagenesis in eukaryotes. J Mol Evol 64:1–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lawrence JG, Ochman H (1997) Amelioration of bacterial genomes: rates of change and exchange. J Mol Evol 44:383–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lillo F, Basile S, Mantegna RN (2002) Comparative genomics study of inverted repeats in bacteria. Bioinformatics 18:971–979PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Okada Y, Newton J, Owen J, Tsugita A, Streisin G, Inouye M (1972) Molecular basis of a mutational hot spot in lysozyme gene of bacteriophage-T4. Nature 236:338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Raghunathan G, Jernigan RL, Miles HT, Sasisekharan V (1991) Conformational feasibility of a hairpin with two purines in the loop. 5′-d-GGTACIAGTACC-3′. Biochemistry 30:782–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ripley LS, Shoemaker NB (1982) Polymerase infidelity and frameshift mutation. Basic Life Sci 20:161–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosche WA, Trinh TQ, Sinden RR (1997) Leading strand specific spontaneous mutation corrects a quasipalindrome by an intermolecular strand switch mechanism. J Mol Biol 269:176–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Streisinger G, Okada Y, Emrich J, Newton J, Tsugita A, Terzaghi E, Inouye M (1966) Frameshift mutations and the genetic code. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 31:77–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. van Belkum A, Scherer S, van Alphen L, Verbrugh H (1998) Short-sequence DNA repeats in prokaryotic genomes. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 62:275–293PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. van Noort V, Worning P, Ussery DW, Rosche WA, Sinden RR (2003) Strand misalignments lead to quasipalindrome correction. Trends Genet 19:365–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Evolution and School of Life SciencesUniversity of SussexBrightonUK
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of CreteIraklionGreece
  3. 3.National Evolutionary Synthesis CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations