The Aquilegia genome provides insight into adaptive radiation and reveals an extraordinarily polymorphic chromosome with a unique history

  1. Danièle L Filiault
  2. Evangeline S Ballerini
  3. Terezie Mandáková
  4. Gökçe Aköz
  5. Nathan J Derieg
  6. Jeremy Schmutz
  7. Jerry Jenkins
  8. Jane Grimwood
  9. Shengqiang Shu
  10. Richard D Hayes
  11. Uffe Hellsten
  12. Kerrie Barry
  13. Juying Yan
  14. Sirma Mihaltcheva
  15. Miroslava Karafiátová
  16. Viktoria Nizhynska
  17. Elena M Kramer
  18. Martin A Lysak
  19. Scott A Hodges  Is a corresponding author
  20. Magnus Nordborg  Is a corresponding author
  1. Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria
  2. University of California, Santa Barbara, United States
  3. Masaryk University, Czech Republic
  4. Department of Energy, United States
  5. Centre of the Region Haná for Biotechnological and Agricultural Research, Czech Republic
  6. Harvard University, United States

Abstract

The columbine genus Aquilegia is a classic example of an adaptive radiation, involving a wide variety of pollinators and habitats. Here we present the genome assembly of A. coerulea 'Goldsmith', complemented by high-coverage sequencing data from 10 wild species covering the world-wide distribution. Our analyses reveal extensive allele sharing among species, and demonstrate that introgression and selection played a role in the Aquilegia radiation. We also present the remarkable discovery that the evolutionary history of an entire chromosome differs from that of the rest of the genome - a phenomenon which we do not fully understand, but which highlights the need to consider chromosomes in an evolutionary context.

Data availability

Species resequencingA. barnebyi (SRR7965809), A. aurea (SRR405095), A. vulgaris (SRR404349), A. sibirica (SRR405090), A. formosa (SRR408554), A. japonica (SRR413499), A. oxysepala (SRR413921), A. longissima (SRR7965810), A. chrysantha (SRR408559), A. pubescens (SRR7943924) are available in the Short Read Archive(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra).Whole genome Aquilegia coerulea 'Goldsmith'Sanger sequences used for genome assembly are available in the NCBI Trace Archive (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces).Aquilegia coerulea 'Goldsmith' ESTsAvailable in the NCBI Short Read Archive (SRR505574-SRR505578)Aquilegia formosa 412 ESTsAvailable in the NCBI dbEST (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/dbEST/)Aquilegia coerulea 'Goldsmith' X Aquilegia chrysantha mapping populationAvailable in the NCBI Short Read Archive (SRR8000449-SRR8000976)Aquilegia formosa x Aquilegia pubescens mapping populationAvailable in the NCBI Short Read Archive (Bioproject PRJNA489508).grandparentspub.1 (SRR7943925), pub.2 (SRR7943924), form.1 (SRR7790646), form.2 (SRR408554)F1sF1.1 (SRR7943926), F1.2 (SRR7943927)F2sSRR7814612-SRR7814614, SRR7814616-SRR7814619, SRR7814622, SRR7814624-SRR7814686, SRR7826362- SRR7826624RNAseqAvailable in the NCBI Short Read Archive: see Supplementary Table 5 for more details.Other filesA vcf containing biallelic SNPs called in all ten Aquilegia species and Semiaquilegia (AQ.Semi.all.biallelic.SNPs.vcf.gz) and text files of genomic positions passing filtration (AQ.only.kept.positions.txt.gz and AQ.Semi.kept.positions.txt.gz) are available for download at Dryad (doi:10.5061/dryad.j4j12v0).URLsThe A. coerulea 'Goldsmith' v3.1 genome release is available at: https://phytozome.jgi.doe.gov/

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Danièle L Filiault

    Gregor Mendel Institute, Vienna Biocenter, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Evangeline S Ballerini

    Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Terezie Mandáková

    CEITEC - Central-European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Gökçe Aköz

    Gregor Mendel Institute, Vienna Biocenter, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Nathan J Derieg

    Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Jeremy Schmutz

    Joint Genome Institute, Department of Energy, Walnut Creek, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Jerry Jenkins

    Joint Genome Institute, Department of Energy, Walnut Creek, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Jane Grimwood

    Joint Genome Institute, Department of Energy, Walnut Creek, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Shengqiang Shu

    Joint Genome Institute, Department of Energy, Walnut Creek, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Richard D Hayes

    Joint Genome Institute, Department of Energy, Walnut Creek, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Uffe Hellsten

    Joint Genome Institute, Department of Energy, Walnut Creek, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Kerrie Barry

    Joint Genome Institute, Department of Energy, Walnut Creek, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8999-6785
  13. Juying Yan

    Joint Genome Institute, Department of Energy, Walnut Creek, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Sirma Mihaltcheva

    Joint Genome Institute, Department of Energy, Walnut Creek, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Miroslava Karafiátová

    Institute of Experimental Botany, Centre of the Region Haná for Biotechnological and Agricultural Research, Olomouc, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Viktoria Nizhynska

    Gregor Mendel Institute, Vienna Biocenter, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Elena M Kramer

    Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Martin A Lysak

    CEITEC - Central-European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. Scott A Hodges

    Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, United States
    For correspondence
    scott.hodges@lifesci.ucsb.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  20. Magnus Nordborg

    Gregor Mendel Institute, Vienna Biocenter, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria
    For correspondence
    magnus.nordborg@gmi.oeaw.ac.at
    Competing interests
    Magnus Nordborg, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7178-9748

Funding

Czech Science Foundation (P501/12/G090)

  • Martin A Lysak

CEITEC 2020 (LQ1601)

  • Martin A Lysak

National Program of Sustainability I (LO1204)

  • Miroslava Karafiátová

Austrian Science Funds (FWF DK W1225-B20)

  • Gökçe Aköz

University of California, Santa Barbara (Harvey L. Karp Discovery Award)

  • Evangeline S Ballerini

National Institutes of Health (Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award F32GM103154)

  • Evangeline S Ballerini

National Science Foundation (IOS 1456317)

  • Scott A Hodges

National Science Foundation (DEB 1311390)

  • Nathan J Derieg
  • Scott A Hodges

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

Copyright

© 2018, Filiault 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

  • 6,918
    views
  • 1,039
    downloads
  • 115
    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. Danièle L Filiault
  2. Evangeline S Ballerini
  3. Terezie Mandáková
  4. Gökçe Aköz
  5. Nathan J Derieg
  6. Jeremy Schmutz
  7. Jerry Jenkins
  8. Jane Grimwood
  9. Shengqiang Shu
  10. Richard D Hayes
  11. Uffe Hellsten
  12. Kerrie Barry
  13. Juying Yan
  14. Sirma Mihaltcheva
  15. Miroslava Karafiátová
  16. Viktoria Nizhynska
  17. Elena M Kramer
  18. Martin A Lysak
  19. Scott A Hodges
  20. Magnus Nordborg
(2018)
The Aquilegia genome provides insight into adaptive radiation and reveals an extraordinarily polymorphic chromosome with a unique history
eLife 7:e36426.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36426

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36426

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Bethany M Bartlett, Yatendra Kumar ... Wendy A Bickmore
    Research Article Updated

    During oncogene-induced senescence there are striking changes in the organisation of heterochromatin in the nucleus. This is accompanied by activation of a pro-inflammatory gene expression programme – the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) – driven by transcription factors such as NF-κB. The relationship between heterochromatin re-organisation and the SASP has been unclear. Here, we show that TPR, a protein of the nuclear pore complex basket required for heterochromatin re-organisation during senescence, is also required for the very early activation of NF-κB signalling during the stress-response phase of oncogene-induced senescence. This is prior to activation of the SASP and occurs without affecting NF-κB nuclear import. We show that TPR is required for the activation of innate immune signalling at these early stages of senescence and we link this to the formation of heterochromatin-enriched cytoplasmic chromatin fragments thought to bleb off from the nuclear periphery. We show that HMGA1 is also required for cytoplasmic chromatin fragment formation. Together these data suggest that re-organisation of heterochromatin is involved in altered structural integrity of the nuclear periphery during senescence, and that this can lead to activation of cytoplasmic nucleic acid sensing, NF-κB signalling, and activation of the SASP.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Timothy Fuqua, Yiqiao Sun, Andreas Wagner
    Research Article

    Gene regulation is essential for life and controlled by regulatory DNA. Mutations can modify the activity of regulatory DNA, and also create new regulatory DNA, a process called regulatory emergence. Non-regulatory and regulatory DNA contain motifs to which transcription factors may bind. In prokaryotes, gene expression requires a stretch of DNA called a promoter, which contains two motifs called –10 and –35 boxes. However, these motifs may occur in both promoters and non-promoter DNA in multiple copies. They have been implicated in some studies to improve promoter activity, and in others to repress it. Here, we ask whether the presence of such motifs in different genetic sequences influences promoter evolution and emergence. To understand whether and how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution, we start from 50 ‘promoter islands’, DNA sequences enriched with –10 and –35 boxes. We mutagenize these starting ‘parent’ sequences, and measure gene expression driven by 240,000 of the resulting mutants. We find that the probability that mutations create an active promoter varies more than 200-fold, and is not correlated with the number of promoter motifs. For parent sequences without promoter activity, mutations created over 1500 new –10 and –35 boxes at unique positions in the library, but only ~0.3% of these resulted in de-novo promoter activity. Only ~13% of all –10 and –35 boxes contribute to de-novo promoter activity. For parent sequences with promoter activity, mutations created new –10 and –35 boxes in 11 specific positions that partially overlap with preexisting ones to modulate expression. We also find that –10 and –35 boxes do not repress promoter activity. Overall, our work demonstrates how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution. It has implications for predicting and understanding regulatory evolution, de novo genes, and phenotypic evolution.