Abstract

Evolutionary differences in gene regulation between humans and lower mammalian experimental systems are incompletely understood, a potential translational obstacle that is challenging to surmount in neurons, where primary tissue availability is poor. Rodent-based studies show that activity-dependent transcriptional programs mediate myriad functions in neuronal development, but the extent of their conservation in human neurons is unknown. We compared activity-dependent transcriptional responses in developing human stem cell-derived cortical neurons with those induced in developing primary- or stem cell-derived mouse cortical neurons. While activity-dependent gene-responsiveness showed little dependence on developmental stage or origin (primary tissue vs. stem cell), notable species-dependent differences were observed. Moreover, differential species-specific gene ortholog regulation was recapitulated in aneuploid mouse neurons carrying human chromosome-21, implicating promoter/enhancer sequence divergence as a factor, including human-specific activity-responsive AP-1 sites. These findings support the use of human neuronal systems for probing transcriptional responses to physiological stimuli or indeed pharmaceutical agents.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jing Qiu

    School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jamie McQueen

    School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Bilada Bilican

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Owen Dando

    School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Dario Magnani

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Karolina Punovuori

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0297-1225
  7. Bhuvaneish T Selvaraj

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Matthew Livesey

    School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ghazal Haghi

    School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Samuel Heron

    School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Karen Burr

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Rickie Patani

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Rinku Rajan

    School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Olivia Sheppard

    Department of Neurodegenerative Disease, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Peter C Kind

    School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Ian Simpson

    School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Victor LJ Tybulewicz

    Division of Immune Cell Biology, MRC National Institute for Medical Research, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2439-0798
  18. David JA Wyllie

    School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4957-6049
  19. Elizabeth MC Fisher

    Department of Neurodegenerative Disease, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Sally Lowell

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4018-9480
  21. Siddharthan Chandran

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    siddharthan.chandran@ed.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Giles E Hardingham

    School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    Giles.Hardingham@ed.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7629-5314

Funding

Medical Research Council

  • Giles E Hardingham

Wellcome

  • Giles E Hardingham

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Anne West, Duke University School of Medicine, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Animals used in this study were treated in accordance with UK Animal Scientific Procedures Act (1986) and the work subject to local ethical review approval by the University of Edinburgh Ethical Review Committee. The relevant project licence is 7009008, and the use of genetically modified organisms approved by local committee reference SBMS 13_007.

Version history

  1. Received: August 12, 2016
  2. Accepted: September 30, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 1, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: October 12, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: November 2, 2016 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record updated: November 8, 2016 (version 4)

Copyright

© 2016, Qiu et al.

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

Metrics

  • 3,338
    views
  • 691
    downloads
  • 24
    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. Jing Qiu
  2. Jamie McQueen
  3. Bilada Bilican
  4. Owen Dando
  5. Dario Magnani
  6. Karolina Punovuori
  7. Bhuvaneish T Selvaraj
  8. Matthew Livesey
  9. Ghazal Haghi
  10. Samuel Heron
  11. Karen Burr
  12. Rickie Patani
  13. Rinku Rajan
  14. Olivia Sheppard
  15. Peter C Kind
  16. Ian Simpson
  17. Victor LJ Tybulewicz
  18. David JA Wyllie
  19. Elizabeth MC Fisher
  20. Sally Lowell
  21. Siddharthan Chandran
  22. Giles E Hardingham
(2016)
Evidence for evolutionary divergence of activity-dependent gene expression in developing neurons
eLife 5:e20337.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20337

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20337

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Foteini Karapanagioti, Úlfur Águst Atlason ... Sebastian Obermaier
    Research Article

    The emergence of new protein functions is crucial for the evolution of organisms. This process has been extensively researched for soluble enzymes, but it is largely unexplored for membrane transporters, even though the ability to acquire new nutrients from a changing environment requires evolvability of transport functions. Here, we demonstrate the importance of environmental pressure in obtaining a new activity or altering a promiscuous activity in members of the amino acid-polyamine-organocation (APC)-type yeast amino acid transporters family. We identify APC members that have broader substrate spectra than previously described. Using in vivo experimental evolution, we evolve two of these transporter genes, AGP1 and PUT4, toward new substrate specificities. Single mutations on these transporters are found to be sufficient for expanding the substrate range of the proteins, while retaining the capacity to transport all original substrates. Nonetheless, each adaptive mutation comes with a distinct effect on the fitness for each of the original substrates, illustrating a trade-off between the ancestral and evolved functions. Collectively, our findings reveal how substrate-adaptive mutations in membrane transporters contribute to fitness and provide insights into how organisms can use transporter evolution to explore new ecological niches.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Yannick Schäfer, Katja Palitzsch ... Jaanus Suurväli
    Research Article Updated

    Copy number variation in large gene families is well characterized for plant resistance genes, but similar studies are rare in animals. The zebrafish (Danio rerio) has hundreds of NLR immune genes, making this species ideal for studying this phenomenon. By sequencing 93 zebrafish from multiple wild and laboratory populations, we identified a total of 1513 NLRs, many more than the previously known 400. Approximately half of those are present in all wild populations, but only 4% were found in 80% or more of the individual fish. Wild fish have up to two times as many NLRs per individual and up to four times as many NLRs per population than laboratory strains. In contrast to the massive variability of gene copies, nucleotide diversity in zebrafish NLR genes is very low: around half of the copies are monomorphic and the remaining ones have very few polymorphisms, likely a signature of purifying selection.