Units of measurement.

There sometimes is confusion surrounding the units employed in genome size publications. Genome sizes — the amount of DNA per copy of a genome — have traditionally been given in units of mass, namely picograms (1 pg = 10-12 g). More recently, people have been interested in knowing the number of base pairs per genome rather than genomic mass, which makes sense if one wishes to sequences those base pairs.

The fact is that essentially all genome size measurements represent relative estimates based on the density of stain or fluorescence of dye as compared to a standard (more on this in a later post), with the exception of truly complete genomic sequencing, which is very uncommon for eukaryotes. The units into which these relative data are converted is simply a matter of preference, and if one knows the mass of a given nucleotide then one can easily convert between picograms and base pairs. Indeed, Dolezel et al. (2003) did this calculation based on the following data:


The net result is that one easily can convert between picograms and base pairs as follows:

DNA content in bp = (0.978 x 109) x DNA content in pg

DNA content in pg = DNA content in bp / (0.978 x 109)

Yes, there will be a little bit of error involved if there are biases toward AT or GC in the genome. However, “by using the data in Table 1, relative weights of nucleotide pairs can be calculated as follows: AT = 615.3830 and GC = 616.3711, bearing in mind that one phosphodiester linkage involves a loss of one H2O molecule” (Dolezel et al. 2003). In other words, the difference is very slight and is negligible relative to the experimental error inherent in any genome size estimate.

To put it very simply, the units are interchangeable with

1 pg = 978 Mbp
.

————–

Dolezel, J., J. Bartos, H. Voglmayr, and J. Greilhuber. 2003. Nuclear DNA content and genome size of trout and human. Cytometry 51A: 127-128.


A nod to (and from) the Sandwalk.

Larry Moran recently gave the lab a nice nod on his Sandwalk blog. It seems fitting to have one of the first posts on this new blog be an act of reciprocity. So here, in photographic form, is a personal nod to Sandwalk from the Sandwalk.

I’ll probably post a more detailed discussion of the association between genome size, metabolic rate, and flight another day. In the meantime, you can check out the original paper by Chris Organ and colleagues in Nature and the very nice piece about it by Carl Zimmer in Science that prompted Larry’s post. There is also a discussion by Greg Laden which seems pretty reasonable overall.
_________________________________

Further reading:

Gregory, T.R. 2002. A bird’s-eye view of the C-value enigma: genome size, cell size, and metabolic rate in the class Aves. Evolution 56: 121-130.

Organ, C.L., A.M. Shedlock, A. Meade, M. Pagel, and S.V. Edwards. 2007. Origin of avian genome size and structure in non-avian dinosaurs. Nature 446: 180-184.

Zimmer, C. 2007. Jurassic genome. Science 315: 1358-1359.


My grad student made me do it.

One of the joys of advising graduate students is that you get to interact with people who have widely divergent backgrounds, expertise, and interests. It so happens that the newest member of the lab is an avid blogger, and has managed to convince me that this can be a useful means of communication (and perhaps a somewhat productive distraction from tedious duties). The net result, after consultation with our resident expert on options for the name, is Genomicron — a blog devoted to exploring genomic diversity and evolution. Due to time constraints I expect to only post semi-regularly for the foreseeable future, but this will provide a venue for discussing interesting and exciting developments in genomics, biodiversity science, and evolutionary biology*. Welcome.

TRG

* Assuming, of course, that anyone other than my students will read it.