Chimeric origins of ochrophytes and haptophytes revealed through an ancient plastid proteome

  1. Richard G Dorrell  Is a corresponding author
  2. Gillian Gile
  3. Giselle McCallum
  4. Raphaël Méheust
  5. Eric P Bapteste
  6. Christen M Klinger
  7. Loraine Brillet-Guéguen
  8. Katalina D Freeman
  9. Daniel J Richter
  10. Chris Bowler
  1. École Normale Supérieure, CNRS, Inserm, PSL Research University, France
  2. Arizona State University, United States
  3. Université Pierre et Marie Curie, France
  4. University of Alberta, Canada
  5. CNRS, UPMC, FR2424, ABiMS, Station Biologique, France
  6. Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, CNRS UMR 7144, France

Abstract

Plastids are supported by a wide range of proteins encoded within the nucleus and imported from the cytoplasm. These plastid-targeted proteins may originate from the endosymbiont, the host, or other sources entirely. Here, we identify and characterise 770 plastid-targeted proteins that are conserved across the ochrophytes, a major group of algae including diatoms, pelagophytes and kelps, that possess plastids derived from red algae. We show that the ancestral ochrophyte plastid proteome was an evolutionary chimera, with 25% of its phylogenetically tractable proteins deriving from green algae. We additionally show that functional mixing of host and plastid proteomes, such as through dual targeting, is an ancestral feature of plastid evolution. Finally, we detect a clear phylogenetic signal from one ochrophyte subgroup, the lineage containing pelagophytes and dictyochophytes, in plastid-targeted proteins from another major algal lineage, the haptophytes. This may represent a possible serial endosymbiosis event deep in eukaryotic evolutionary history.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Richard G Dorrell

    IBENS, Département de Biologie, École Normale Supérieure, CNRS, Inserm, PSL Research University, Paris, France
    For correspondence
    dorrell@biologie.ens.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6263-9115
  2. Gillian Gile

    School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Giselle McCallum

    IBENS, Département de Biologie, École Normale Supérieure, CNRS, Inserm, PSL Research University, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Raphaël Méheust

    Institut de Biologie Paris-Seine, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4847-426X
  5. Eric P Bapteste

    Institut de Biologie Paris-Seine, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Christen M Klinger

    Department of Cell Biology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Loraine Brillet-Guéguen

    CNRS, UPMC, FR2424, ABiMS, Station Biologique, Roscoff, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Katalina D Freeman

    School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Daniel J Richter

    Adaptation et Diversité en Milieu Marin, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, CNRS UMR 7144, Roscoff, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9238-5571
  10. Chris Bowler

    IBENS, Département de Biologie, École Normale Supérieure, CNRS, Inserm, PSL Research University, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

EMBO (ALTF 1124/2014)

  • Richard G Dorrell

ERC (Diatomite)

  • Chris Bowler

LouisD Foundation

  • Chris Bowler

FP7 (615274)

  • Eric P Bapteste

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

  • Chris Bowler

MEMO-LIFE (ANR- 10-LABX-54)

  • Chris Bowler

ANR (ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02)

  • Chris Bowler

ANR (ANR-11-BTBR-0008)

  • Daniel J Richter

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

Copyright

© 2017, Dorrell 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

  • 3,229
    views
  • 683
    downloads
  • 128
    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. Richard G Dorrell
  2. Gillian Gile
  3. Giselle McCallum
  4. Raphaël Méheust
  5. Eric P Bapteste
  6. Christen M Klinger
  7. Loraine Brillet-Guéguen
  8. Katalina D Freeman
  9. Daniel J Richter
  10. Chris Bowler
(2017)
Chimeric origins of ochrophytes and haptophytes revealed through an ancient plastid proteome
eLife 6:e23717.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23717

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23717

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Jingjing Li, Xinyue Wang ... Vincent Archambault
    Research Article

    In animals, mitosis involves the breakdown of the nucleus. The reassembly of a nucleus after mitosis requires the reformation of the nuclear envelope around a single mass of chromosomes. This process requires Ankle2 (also known as LEM4 in humans) which interacts with PP2A and promotes the function of the Barrier-to-Autointegration Factor (BAF). Upon dephosphorylation, BAF dimers cross-bridge chromosomes and bind lamins and transmembrane proteins of the reassembling nuclear envelope. How Ankle2 functions in mitosis is incompletely understood. Using a combination of approaches in Drosophila, along with structural modeling, we provide several lines of evidence that suggest that Ankle2 is a regulatory subunit of PP2A, explaining how it promotes BAF dephosphorylation. In addition, we discovered that Ankle2 interacts with the endoplasmic reticulum protein Vap33, which is required for Ankle2 localization at the reassembling nuclear envelope during telophase. We identified the interaction sites of PP2A and Vap33 on Ankle2. Through genetic rescue experiments, we show that the Ankle2/PP2A interaction is essential for the function of Ankle2 in nuclear reassembly and that the Ankle2/Vap33 interaction also promotes this process. Our study sheds light on the molecular mechanisms of post-mitotic nuclear reassembly and suggests that the endoplasmic reticulum is not merely a source of membranes in the process, but also provides localized enzymatic activity.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Bhumil Patel, Maryke Grobler ... Needhi Bhalla
    Research Article

    Meiotic crossover recombination is essential for both accurate chromosome segregation and the generation of new haplotypes for natural selection to act upon. This requirement is known as crossover assurance and is one example of crossover control. While the conserved role of the ATPase, PCH-2, during meiotic prophase has been enigmatic, a universal phenotype when pch-2 or its orthologs are mutated is a change in the number and distribution of meiotic crossovers. Here, we show that PCH-2 controls the number and distribution of crossovers by antagonizing their formation. This antagonism produces different effects at different stages of meiotic prophase: early in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 prevents double-strand breaks from becoming crossover-eligible intermediates, limiting crossover formation at sites of initial double-strand break formation and homolog interactions. Later in meiotic prophase, PCH-2 winnows the number of crossover-eligible intermediates, contributing to the designation of crossovers and ultimately, crossover assurance. We also demonstrate that PCH-2 accomplishes this regulation through the meiotic HORMAD, HIM-3. Our data strongly support a model in which PCH-2’s conserved role is to remodel meiotic HORMADs throughout meiotic prophase to destabilize crossover-eligible precursors and coordinate meiotic recombination with synapsis, ensuring the progressive implementation of meiotic recombination and explaining its function in the pachytene checkpoint and crossover control.