Phylogenomics: Leaving negative ancestors behind

  1. Sergio A Muñoz-Gómez  Is a corresponding author
  2. Andrew J Roger  Is a corresponding author
  1. Dalhousie University, Canada

For more than a century bacteriologists have used the Gram stain reaction to classify bacteria. The Gram stain is a violet-colored dye that is retained by Gram-positive bacteria but not by Gram-negative bacteria. These different reactions to the stain reflect fundamental differences in the cell envelopes of these bacteria: Gram-positive bacteria usually have a single cell membrane that is encased by a thick wall made of a polymer called peptidoglycan, whereas Gram-negative bacteria tend to have two membranes with a thin wall of peptidoglycan sandwiched between them.

The tree of life contains about 30 bacterial phyla, but only three of them contain bacteria that are surrounded by a single cell membrane, which are also known as “monoderms”. The remaining phyla contain bacteria with two cell membranes, and most of these “diderms” have large molecules called lipopolysaccharides (LPS) in their outer membranes. However, at least two phyla comprise diderms that do not have LPS.

The evolutionary relationships between monoderms and diderms have remained uncertain for many years. It is generally thought that the monodermic cell plan evolved from the more complex didermic cell plan in a single simplification event (see, for example, Cavalier-Smith, 2006). However, it is possible that diderms could have evolved from monoderms (Dawes, 1981; Tocheva, 2011). Now, in eLife, Simonetta Gribaldo of the Institut Pasteur and co-workers – including Luísa Antunes and Daniel Poppleton as joint first authors – report that monodermic bacteria evolved from ancestral didermic bacteria not once but multiple times by losing the outer membrane from their cell envelopes (Antunes et al., 2016).

Antunes et al. focused on the Firmicutes, a phylum that contains a mixture of monoderms and diderms. By analyzing the genomes of more than 200 members of the phylum, they showed that the two didermic groups – the Negativicutes and the Halanaerobiales – are not each other's closest relatives and are, instead, more closely related to one or more of the monodermic groups. Furthermore, they demonstrate that the biosynthetic machinery for synthesizing their LPS has not been transferred between them nor acquired from elsewhere. Instead, the outer membrane of the didermic firmicutes appears to have been inherited vertically from a distant ancestor. These results suggest that the monodermic firmicutes evolved at least five times from an ancestral and more complex didermic cell plan (Figure 1).

Evolution of the Firmicutes phylum. 

(A) Didermic firmicutes have a cytoplasmic membrane (shown in blue), a peptidoglycan cell wall (gray) and an outer membrane (green), whereas monodermic firmicutes have a cytoplasmic membrane and a peptidoglycan cell wall, but no outer membrane. Antunes et al. show that the ancestral didermic cell plan of the Firmicutes phylum has been lost at least five times. Most lineages lost their outer membranes to become monoderms (thick gray lines), but the Negativicutes and the Halanaerobiales retained the ancestral didermic cell plan (thick green lines). (B) Major transitions between bacterial cell plans within the Firmicutes phylum. Ancestral sporulating diderms (similar to the Negativicutes and the Halanaerobiales) convergently gave rise to classical sporulating monoderms (e.g., Bacillus and Clostridium), which lost the capacity to form endospores in some linages (e.g., Lactobacillus). Endospores are shown as cells within cells.

Comparative analyses of the genomes of Negativicutes and Halanaerobiales also allowed Antunes et al. to make inferences about the nature and evolution of their didermic envelopes. Notably, and unusually, most of the genes required for the biogenesis of the outer membrane clustered in a large genomic region in both groups. Moreover, these two groups have envelope appendages (such as flagella and pili) that resemble the envelope appendages of other diderms (in other phyla) more than they resemble those of their close monodermic relatives. Finally, didermic firmicutes appear to retain ancestral systems for the biogenesis of their outer membranes.

The root of the bacterial tree of life remains a mystery and we do not know whether the last common ancestor of all bacteria was a monoderm or a diderm, and whether it produced endospores or not. It is reasonable to assume that the classical diderms that contain LPS have a single origin (Sutcliffe, 2010; Tocheva et al., 2016; Sutcliffe and Dover, 2016), and that they plausibly evolved via an endospore released by an ancestral monoderm (Dawes, 1981; Vollmer, 2012; Tocheva et al., 2011). And now the work of Antunes et al. suggests that most Firmicutes lineages became secondarily monodermic on multiple occasions. Is the same true for the Actinobacteria and the Chloroflexi, the other two phyla that contain monoderms? It is also noteworthy that the three monodermic phyla tend to cluster in many analyses, and are relatively close to the presumed root of the bacterial tree of life (Raymann et al., 2015; Hug et al., 2016), although resolution remains poor at the deepest phylogenetic levels. A more robust phylogenetic framework for bacteria is needed to make sense of these observations.

To better understand the large-scale evolutionary history of bacteria, we need to answer why, how and when the major structural differences among the prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea) came to be. Antunes et al. have provided some answers to the last question (and also shown that a given major structural change can happen more than once), and planted the seeds to answer the first two questions with regard to the evolution of monodermic bacteria. Future biochemical, ultrastructural and genomic characterization of novel prokaryotic lineages, such as the CPR taxa (short for candidate phyla radiation taxa; Hug et al., 2016), will provide more raw material to reconstruct the phenotypic evolution of prokaryotes. The syntheses of these data, together with a robust phylogenetic tree of the prokaryotes, will no doubt provide new insights into the major changes in cell evolution and help to clarify the nature of the last common ancestor of bacteria.

References

  1. Book
    1. Dawes IW
    (1981)
    Sporulation in evolution
    In: Carlile MJ, Collins JF, Moseley BEB, editors. Cellular and Molecular Aspects of Microbial Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 85–130.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sergio A Muñoz-Gómez

    Centre for Comparative Genomics and Evolutionary Bioinformatics, CIFAR Program in Integrated Microbial Biodiversity and the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
    For correspondence
    sergio.munoz@dal.ca
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6200-474X
  2. Andrew J Roger

    Centre for Comparative Genomics and Evolutionary Bioinformatics, CIFAR Program in Integrated Microbial Biodiversity and the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
    For correspondence
    Andrew.Roger@Dal.Ca
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published:
  2. Version of Record updated:

Copyright

© 2016, Muñoz-Gómez et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,296
    views
  • 314
    downloads
  • 3
    citations

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

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Sergio A Muñoz-Gómez
  2. Andrew J Roger
(2016)
Phylogenomics: Leaving negative ancestors behind
eLife 5:e20061.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20061
  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Dan Wu, Venkateswararao Eeda ... Weidong Wang
    Research Article

    Overnutrition engenders the expansion of adipose tissue and the accumulation of immune cells, in particular, macrophages, in the adipose tissue, leading to chronic low-grade inflammation and insulin resistance. In obesity, several proinflammatory subpopulations of adipose tissue macrophages (ATMs) identified hitherto include the conventional ‘M1-like’ CD11C-expressing ATM and the newly discovered metabolically activated CD9-expressing ATM; however, the relationship among ATM subpopulations is unclear. The ER stress sensor inositol-requiring enzyme 1α (IRE1α) is activated in the adipocytes and immune cells under obesity. It is unknown whether targeting IRE1α is capable of reversing insulin resistance and obesity and modulating the metabolically activated ATMs. We report that pharmacological inhibition of IRE1α RNase significantly ameliorates insulin resistance and glucose intolerance in male mice with diet-induced obesity. IRE1α inhibition also increases thermogenesis and energy expenditure, and hence protects against high fat diet-induced obesity. Our study shows that the ‘M1-like’ CD11c+ ATMs are largely overlapping with but yet non-identical to CD9+ ATMs in obese white adipose tissue. Notably, IRE1α inhibition diminishes the accumulation of obesity-induced metabolically activated ATMs and ‘M1-like’ ATMs, resulting in the curtailment of adipose inflammation and ensuing reactivation of thermogenesis, without augmentation of the alternatively activated M2 macrophage population. Our findings suggest the potential of targeting IRE1α for the therapeutic treatment of insulin resistance and obesity.

    1. Cell Biology
    Dharmendra Kumar Nath, Subash Dhakal, Youngseok Lee
    Research Advance

    Understanding how the brain controls nutrient storage is pivotal. Transient receptor potential (TRP) channels are conserved from insects to humans. They serve in detecting environmental shifts and in acting as internal sensors. Previously, we demonstrated the role of TRPγ in nutrient-sensing behavior (Dhakal et al., 2022). Here, we found that a TRPγ mutant exhibited in Drosophila melanogaster is required for maintaining normal lipid and protein levels. In animals, lipogenesis and lipolysis control lipid levels in response to food availability. Lipids are mostly stored as triacylglycerol in the fat bodies (FBs) of D. melanogaster. Interestingly, trpγ deficient mutants exhibited elevated TAG levels and our genetic data indicated that Dh44 neurons are indispensable for normal lipid storage but not protein storage. The trpγ mutants also exhibited reduced starvation resistance, which was attributed to insufficient lipolysis in the FBs. This could be mitigated by administering lipase or metformin orally, indicating a potential treatment pathway. Gene expression analysis indicated that trpγ knockout downregulated brummer, a key lipolytic gene, resulting in chronic lipolytic deficits in the gut and other fat tissues. The study also highlighted the role of specific proteins, including neuropeptide DH44 and its receptor DH44R2 in lipid regulation. Our findings provide insight into the broader question of how the brain and gut regulate nutrient storage.