1. Evolutionary Biology
Download icon

Gene family innovation, conservation and loss on the animal stem lineage

  1. Daniel J Richter
  2. Parinaz Fozouni
  3. Michael Eisen
  4. Nicole King  Is a corresponding author
  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 70
  • Views 6,532
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2018;7:e34226 doi: 10.7554/eLife.34226

Abstract

Choanoflagellates, the closest living relatives of animals, can provide unique insights into the changes in gene content that preceded the origin of animals. However, only two choanoflagellate genomes are currently available, providing poor coverage of their diversity. We sequenced transcriptomes of 19 additional choanoflagellate species to produce a comprehensive reconstruction of the gains and losses that shaped the ancestral animal gene repertoire. We identified ~1,944 gene families that originated on the animal stem lineage, of which only 39 are conserved across all animals in our study. In addition, ~372 gene families previously thought to be animal-specific, including Notch, Delta, and homologs of the animal Toll-like receptor genes, instead evolved prior to the animal-choanoflagellate divergence. Our findings contribute to an increasingly detailed portrait of the gene families that defined the biology of the Urmetazoan and that may underpin core features of extant animals.

Data availability

Raw sequencing reads have been deposited at the NCBI SRA under BioProject PRJNA419411 (19 choanoflagellate transcriptomes) and PRJNA420352 (S. rosetta polyA selection test). Transcriptome assemblies, annotations, and gene families are available on FigShare at DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.5686984. Transcriptome assemblies have also been submitted to the NCBI Transcriptome Shotgun Assembly database under BioProject PRJNA419411. Protocols have been deposited to protocols.io and are accessible at DOI: 10.17504/protocols.io.kwscxee.Details on the datasets available via figshare:Dataset 1. Final sets of contigs from choanoflagellate transcriptome assemblies. There is one FASTA file per sequenced choanoflagellate. We assembled contigs de novo with Trinity, followed by removal of cross-contamination that occurred within multiplexed Illumina sequencing lanes, removal of contigs encoding strictly redundant protein sequences, and elimination of noise contigs with extremely low (FPKM < 0.01) expression levels.Dataset 2. Final sets of proteins from choanoflagellate transcriptome assemblies. There is one FASTA file per sequenced choanoflagellate. We assembled contigs de novo with Trinity, followed by removal of cross-contamination that occurred within multiplexed Illumina sequencing lanes, removal of strictly redundant protein sequences, and elimination of proteins encoded on noise contigs with extremely low (FPKM < 0.01) expression levels.Dataset 3. Expression levels of assembled choanoflagellate contigs. Expression levels are shown in FPKM, as calculated by eXpress. Percentile expression rank is calculated separately for each choanoflagellate.Dataset 4. Protein sequences for all members of each gene family. This includes sequences from all species within the data set (i.e., it is not limited to the choanoflagellates we sequenced).Dataset 5. Gene families, group presences, and species probabilities. For each gene family, the protein members are listed. Subsequent columns contain inferred gene family presences in different groups of species, followed by probabilities of presence in individual species in the data set.Dataset 6. List of gene families present, gained and lost in last common ancestors of interest. A value of 1 indicates that the gene family was present, gained or lost; a value of 0 indicates that it was not. The six last common ancestors are: Ureukaryote, Uropisthokont, Urholozoan, Urchoanozoan, Urchoanoflagellate and Urmetazoan. Gains and losses are not shown for the Ureukaryote, as our data set only contained eukaryote species and was thus not appropriate to quantify changes occurring on the eukaryotic stem lineage.Dataset 7. Pfam, transmembrane, signal peptide, PANTHER and Gene Ontology annotations for all proteins. Annotations are listed for all proteins in the data set, including those not part of any gene family. Pfam domains are delimited by a tilde (~) and Gene Ontology terms by a semicolon (;). Transmembrane domains and signal peptides are indicated by the number present in the protein, followed by their coordinates in the protein sequence.Dataset 8. Pfam, transmembrane, signal peptide, PANTHER and Gene Ontology annotations aggregated by gene family. The proportion of proteins within the gene family that were assigned an annotation is followed by the name of the annotation. Multiple annotations are delimited by a semicolon (;)

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Daniel J Richter

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    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
  2. Parinaz Fozouni

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Michael Eisen

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7528-738X
  4. Nicole King

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    For correspondence
    nking@berkeley.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6409-1111

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Michael Eisen
  • Nicole King

National Institutes of Health

  • Nicole King

U.S. Department of Defense (National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship)

  • Daniel J Richter

National Science Foundation (Central Europe Summer Research Institute Fellowship)

  • Daniel J Richter

Chang-Lin Tien Fellowship in Environmental Sciences and Biodiversity

  • Daniel J Richter

Conseil Régional de Bretagne (Postdoctoral Fellowship)

  • Daniel J Richter

Investissements d'Avenir (ANR-11-BTBR-0008)

  • Daniel J Richter

National Science Foundation (955517)

  • Parinaz Fozouni

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Maximilian J Telford, University College London, United Kingdom

Publication history

  1. Received: December 10, 2017
  2. Accepted: May 26, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 31, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: June 15, 2018 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: July 3, 2018 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2018, Richter 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

  • 6,532
    Page views
  • 912
    Downloads
  • 70
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, 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)

  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Mathias Scharmann et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Differences between males and females are usually more subtle in dioecious plants than animals, but strong sexual dimorphism has evolved convergently in the South African Cape plant genus Leucadendron. Such sexual dimorphism in leaf size is expected largely to be due to differential gene expression between the sexes. We compared patterns of gene expression in leaves among 10 Leucadendron species across the genus. Surprisingly, we found no positive association between sexual dimorphism in morphology and the number or the percentage of sex-biased genes (SBGs). Sex bias in most SBGs evolved recently and was species specific. We compared rates of evolutionary change in expression for genes that were sex biased in one species but unbiased in others and found that SBGs evolved faster in expression than unbiased genes. This greater rate of expression evolution of SBGs, also documented in animals, might suggest the possible role of sexual selection in the evolution of gene expression. However, our comparative analysis clearly indicates that the more rapid rate of expression evolution of SBGs predated the origin of bias, and shifts towards bias were depleted in signatures of adaptation. Our results are thus more consistent with the view that sex bias is simply freer to evolve in genes less subject to constraints in expression level.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Jan Clemens et al.
    Research Article Updated

    How neural networks evolved to generate the diversity of species-specific communication signals is unknown. For receivers of the signals, one hypothesis is that novel recognition phenotypes arise from parameter variation in computationally flexible feature detection networks. We test this hypothesis in crickets, where males generate and females recognize the mating songs with a species-specific pulse pattern, by investigating whether the song recognition network in the cricket brain has the computational flexibility to recognize different temporal features. Using electrophysiological recordings from the network that recognizes crucial properties of the pulse pattern on the short timescale in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus, we built a computational model that reproduces the neuronal and behavioral tuning of that species. An analysis of the model’s parameter space reveals that the network can provide all recognition phenotypes for pulse duration and pause known in crickets and even other insects. Phenotypic diversity in the model is consistent with known preference types in crickets and other insects, and arises from computations that likely evolved to increase energy efficiency and robustness of pattern recognition. The model’s parameter to phenotype mapping is degenerate – different network parameters can create similar changes in the phenotype – which likely supports evolutionary plasticity. Our study suggests that computationally flexible networks underlie the diverse pattern recognition phenotypes, and we reveal network properties that constrain and support behavioral diversity.