1. Evolutionary Biology
  2. Neuroscience
Download icon

Evidence for evolutionary divergence of activity-dependent gene expression in developing neurons

Short Report
  • Cited 16
  • Views 2,856
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2016;5:e20337 doi: 10.7554/eLife.20337

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. T Ian Simpson

    School of Informatics, 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:" 0000-0003-0495-7187
  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.

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.

Reviewing Editor

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

Publication 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

  • 2,856
    Page views
  • 640
    Downloads
  • 16
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Thibaut Brunet et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Amoeboid cell types are fundamental to animal biology and broadly distributed across animal diversity, but their evolutionary origin is unclear. The closest living relatives of animals, the choanoflagellates, display a polarized cell architecture (with an apical flagellum encircled by microvilli) that resembles that of epithelial cells and suggests homology, but this architecture differs strikingly from the deformable phenotype of animal amoeboid cells, which instead evoke more distantly related eukaryotes, such as diverse amoebae. Here, we show that choanoflagellates subjected to confinement become amoeboid by retracting their flagella and activating myosin-based motility. This switch allows escape from confinement and is conserved across choanoflagellate diversity. The conservation of the amoeboid cell phenotype across animals and choanoflagellates, together with the conserved role of myosin, is consistent with homology of amoeboid motility in both lineages. We hypothesize that the differentiation between animal epithelial and crawling cells might have evolved from a stress-induced switch between flagellate and amoeboid forms in their single-celled ancestors.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Rémi Allio et al.
    Research Article

    In a context of ongoing biodiversity erosion, obtaining genomic resources from wildlife is essential for conservation. The thousands of yearly mammalian roadkill provide a useful source material for genomic surveys. To illustrate the potential of this underexploited resource, we used roadkill samples to study the genomic diversity of the bat-eared fox (Otocyon megalotis) and the aardwolf (Proteles cristatus), both having subspecies with similar disjunct distributions in Eastern and Southern Africa. First, we obtained reference genomes with high contiguity and gene completeness by combining Nanopore long reads and Illumina short reads. Then, we showed that the two subspecies of aardwolf might warrant species status (P. cristatus and P. septentrionalis) by comparing their genome-wide genetic differentiation to pairs of well-defined species across Carnivora with a new Genetic Differentiation index (GDi) based on only a few resequenced individuals. Finally, we obtained a genome-scale Carnivora phylogeny including the new aardwolf species.