Evolution of Genome Size


The size of the genome represents one of the most strikingly variable yet poorly understood traits in eukaryotic organisms. Genomic comparisons suggest that most properties of genomes tend to increase with genome size, but the fraction of the genome that comprises transposable elements (TEs) and other repetitive elements tends to increase disproportionately. Neutral, nearly neutral and adaptive models for the evolution of genome size have been proposed, but strong evidence for the general importance of any of these models remains lacking, and improved understanding of factors driving the activity of TEs should also be considered. Fine‐scale investigation of the mutational and population‐genetic properties of both small and large insertions and deletions should help advance our understanding of how and why genome size evolution has occurred.

Key Concepts

  • Larger genomes tend to have larger amounts of most genome components, but the proportional representation of different types of DNA changes dramatically.
  • Transposable elements and other repetitive DNA represent a major determinant of genome size variation.
  • The importance of ancient whole genome duplication events in genome size evolution, particularly in plants, remains to be fully resolved.
  • Direct estimates of mutational patterns do not suggest that the relative rate and size of small insertion/deletion events are major contributors to genome size evolution.
  • Although broad‐scale patterns suggest a negative correlation between effective population size and genome size, comparative phylogenetic methods and comparisons of focal taxa have not suggested repeated shifts in genome size are tied to repeated changes in effective population size.
  • The extent and causes of between‐species changes in transposable element activity should be characterised, to better understand the drivers of genome expansion.

Keywords: genome evolution; population genomics; genome size; indels; C value; transposable elements

Figure 1. Phylogenetically corrected correlations (independent contrasts) between total genome size and genomic properties. From Elliott and Gregory .
Figure 2. Relation between amount of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) gained/lost due to small indels (calculated as the total size of small insertions minus the total size of small deletions) per single nucleotide mutation and genome size, from direct estimation of insertion and deletion events in mutation studies. Estimates from Caenorhabditis elegans (Denver et al., ), Drosophila melanogaster (Schrider et al., ), Arabidopsis thaliana (Yang et al., 2015), Apis mellifera (Yang et al., 2015), Oryza sativa (Yang et al., 2015), Chlamydomonas rheinhardtii (Ness et al., ), Schizosaccharomyces pombe (Farlow et al., ), Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Zhu et al., ) and Paramecium tetraurelia (Sung et al., ).
Figure 3. Factors driving changes in transposable element abundance.


Ågren JA and Wright SI (2011) Co‐evolution between transposable elements and their hosts: a major factor in genome size evolution? Chromosome Research 19 (6): 777–786.

Ågren JA, Huang HR and Wright SI (2016) Transposable element evolution in the allotetraploid Capsella bursa‐pastoris. American Journal of Botany 103 (7): 1197–1202.

Ai B, Wang ZS and Ge S (2012) Genome size is not correlated with effective population size in the Oryza species. Evolution 66 (10): 3302–3310.

Baucom RS, Estill JC, Chaparro C, et al. (2009) Exceptional diversity, non‐random distribution, and rapid evolution of retroelements in the B73 maize genome. PLoS Genetics 5 (11): e1000732.

Bennett MD, Leitch IJ and Hanson L (2008) DNA amounts in two samples of angiosperm weeds. Annals of Botany 82 (A): 121–134.

Bennett MD, Price HJ and Johnston JS (2008) Anthocyanin inhibits propidium iodide DNA fluorescence in Euphorbia pulcherrima: implications for genome size variation and flow cytometry. Annals of Botany 101 (6): 777–790.

Bennett MD and Leitch IJ (2011) Nuclear DNA amounts in angiosperms: targets, trends and tomorrow. Annals of Botany 107 (3): 467–590.

Bensasson D, Petrov DA, Zhang DX, Hartl DL and Hewitt GM (2001) Genomic gigantism: DNA loss is slow in mountain grasshoppers. Molecular Biology and Evolution 18 (2): 246–253.

Chalopin D, Naville M, Plard F, Galiana D and Volff JN (2015) Comparative analysis of transposable elements highlights mobilome diversity and evolution in vertebrates. Genome Biology and Evolution 7 (2): 567–580.

Charlesworth B and Charlesworth D (1983) The population dynamics of transposable elements. Genetics Research 42: 1–27.

Charlesworth B (1996) The changing sizes of genes. Nature 384 (6607): 315–316.

De Smet R, Adams KL, Vandepoele K, et al. (2013) Convergent gene loss following gene and genome duplications creates single‐copy families in flowering plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110: 2898–2903.

Denver DR, Morris K, Lynch M and Thomas WK (2004) High mutation rate and Predominance of insertions in the Caenorhabditis elegans nuclear genome. Nature 430 (7000): 679–682.

El Baidouri M and Panaud O (2013) Comparative genomic paleontology across plant kingdom reveals the dynamics of TE‐driven genome evolution. Genome Biology and Evolution 5 (5): 954–965.

Elliott TA and 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 B: Biological Sciences 370 (1678): 20140331.

Farlow A, Long H, Arnoux S, et al. (2015) The Spontaneous mutation rate in the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Genetics 201 (2): 737–744.

Greilhuber J, Borsch T, Müller K, et al. (2006) Smallest angiosperm genomes found in lentibulariaceae, with chromosomes of bacterial size. Plant Biology 8 (6): 770–777.

Gregory TR (2002) Genome size and developmental complexity. Genetica 115 (1): 131–146.

Gregory TR (2003) Is small indel bias a determinant of genome size? Trends in Genetics 19 (9): 485–488.

Gregory TR (2005) Genome size evolution in animals. In: Gregory TR (ed) The Evolution of the Genome, pp. 3–87. San Diego: Elsevier.

Gregory TR (2016) Animal Genome Size Database. http://www.genomesize.com

Haag‐Liautard C, Dorris M, Maside X, et al. (2007) Direct estimation of per nucleotide and genomic deleterious mutation rates in Drosophila. Nature 445 (7123): 82–85.

Hickey DA (1982) Selfish DNA: a sexually‐transmitted nuclear parasite. Genetics 101 (3–4): 519–531.

Hollister JD, Smith LM, Guo YL, et al. (2011) Transposable elements and small RNAs contribute to gene expression divergence between Arabidopsis thaliana and Arabidopsis lyrata. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 (6): 2322–2327.

Hu TT, Pattyn P, Bakker EG, et al. (2011) The Arabidopsis lyrata genome sequence and the basis of rapid genome size change. Nature Genetics 43 (5): 476–481.

Islas S, Becerra A, Luigi Luisi P and Lazcano A (2004) Comparative genomics and the gene complement of a minimal cell. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 34: 243–256.

Keightley PD, Trivedi U, Thomson M, et al. (2009) Analysis of the genome sequences of three Drosophila melanogaster spontaneous mutation accumulation lines. Genome Research 19 (7): 1195–1201.

Kirik A, Salomon S and Puchta H (2000) Species‐specific double‐strand break repair and genome evolution in plants. EMBO Journal 19 (20): 5562–5566.

Le Rouzic A, Boutin TS and Capy P (2007) Long‐term evolution of transposable elements. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (49): 19375–19380.

Leitch IJ and Bennett MD (2004) Genome downsizing in polyploid plants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 82: 651–663.

Leushkin EV, Bazykin GA and Kondrashov AS (2013) Strong mutational bias toward deletions in the Drosophila melanogaster genome is compensated by selection. Genome Biology and Evolution 5 (3): 514–524.

Long Q, Rabanal FA, Meng D, et al. (2013) Massive genomic variation and strong selection in Arabidopsis thaliana lines from Sweden. Nature Genetics 45 (8): 884–890.

Lynch M and Conery JS (2000) The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290 (5494): 1151–1155.

Lynch M and Conery JS (2003) The origins of genome complexity. Science 302 (5649): 1401–1404.

Lysak MA, Koch MA, Beaulieu JM, Meister A and Leitch IJ (2009) The dynamic ups and downs of genome size evolution in Brassicaceae. Molecular Biology and Evolution 26 (1): 85–98.

Ma J, Devos KM and Bennetzen JL (2004) Analyses of LTR‐retrotransposon structures reveal recent and rapid genomic DNA loss in rice. Genome Research 14 (5): 860–869.

Meagher TR and Vassiliadis C (2005) Phenotypic impacts of repetitive DNA in flowering plants. New Phytologist 168 (1): 71–80.

Ness RW, Morgan AD, Vasanthakrishnan RB, Colegrave N and Keightley PD (2015) Extensive de novo mutation rate variation between individuals and across the genome of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Genome Research 25 (11): 1739–1749.

Nuzhdin SV and Mackay TF (1994) Direct determination of retrotransposon Transposition rates in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics Research 63 (2): 139–144.

Nystedt B, Street NR, Wetterbom A, et al. (2013) The Norway spruce genome sequence and conifer genome evolution. Nature 497 (7451): 579–584.

Petrov DA, Lozovskaya ER and Hartl DL (1996) High intrinsic rate of DNA loss in Drosophila. Nature 384 (6607): 346–349.

Petrov DA, Sangster TA, Johnston JS, Hartl DL and Shaw KL (2000) Evidence for DNA loss as a determinant of genome size. Science 287 (5455): 1060–1062.

Piegu B, Guyot R, Picault N, et al. (2006) Doubling genome size without polyploidization: dynamics of retrotransposition‐driven genomic expansions in Oryza australiensis, a wild relative of rice. Genome Research 16 (10): 1262–1269.

Rayburn AL and Auger JA (1990) Genome size variation in Zea mays ssp. mays adapted to different altitudes. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 79 (4): 470–474.

Schrider DR, Houle D, Lynch M and Hahn MW (2013) Rates and genomic consequences of spontaneous mutational events in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 194 (4): 937–954.

Slotte T, Hazzouri KM, Ågren JA, et al. (2013) The Capsella rubella genome and the genomic consequences of rapid mating system evolution. Nature Genetics 45 (7): 831–835.

Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Bennett MD and Leitch IJ (2003) Evolution of genome size in the angiosperms. American Journal of Botany 90 (11): 1596–1603.

Soltis PS and Soltis DE (2016) Ancient WGD events as drivers of key innovations in angiosperms. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 30: 159–165.

Sung W, Tucker AE, Doak TG, et al. (2012) Extraordinary genome stability in the ciliate Paramecium tetraurelia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (47): 19339–19344.

Tenaillon MI, Hollister JD and Gaut BS (2010) A triptych of the evolution of plant transposable elements. Trends in Plant Science 15 (8): 471–478.

Thomas CA (1971) The genetic organization of chromosomes. Annual Review of Genetics 5: 237–256.

Tsukaya H (2013) Does ploidy level directly control cell size? Counterevidence from Arabidopsis genetics. PLoS One 8 (12): e83729.

Whitney KD, Baack EJ, Hamrick JL, et al. (2010) A role for nonadaptive processes in plant genome size evolution? Evolution 64 (7): 2097–2109.

Whitney KD and Garland T Jr (2010) Did genetic drift drive increases in genome complexity? PLoS Genetics 6 (8). pii: e1001080.

Wright SI, Ness RW, Foxe JP and Barrett SCH (2008) Genomic consequences of outcrossing and selfing in plants. International Journal of Plant Sciences 169 (1): 105–118.

Wright NA, Gregory TR and Witt CC (2014) Metabolic 'engines' of flight drive genome size reduction in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 281 (1779): 20132780.

Yang S, Wang L, Huang J, et al. (2015) Parent‐progeny sequencing indicates higher mutation rates in heterozygotes. Nature 523: 463–467.

Zhu YO, Siegal ML, Hall DW and Petrov DA (2014) Precise estimates of mutation rate and spectrum in yeast. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111 (22): E2310–E2318.

Further Reading

Gregory TR (ed) (2005) The Evolution of the Genome. San Diego: Elsevier.

Lynch M (2007) The Origin of Genome Architecture. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc..

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Wright, Stephen I(Jan 2017) Evolution of Genome Size. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0023983]