Adaptive substitutions underlying cardiac glycoside insensitivity in insects exhibit epistasis in vivo

  1. Andrew M Taverner
  2. Lu Yang
  3. Zachary J Barile
  4. Becky Lin
  5. Julie Peng  Is a corresponding author
  6. Ana P Pinharanda
  7. Arya S Rao
  8. Bartholomew P Roland
  9. Aaron D Talsma
  10. Daniel Wei
  11. Georg Petschenka
  12. MIchael J Palladino  Is a corresponding author
  13. Peter Andolfatto  Is a corresponding author
  1. Princeton University, United States
  2. University of Pittsburgh, United States
  3. Columbia University, United States
  4. Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Germany

Abstract

Predicting how species will respond to selection pressures requires understanding the factors that constrain their evolution. We use genome engineering of Drosophila to investigate constraints on the repeated evolution of unrelated herbivorous insects to toxic cardiac glycosides, which primarily occurs via a small subset of possible functionally-relevant substitutions to Na+,K+-ATPase. Surprisingly, we find that frequently observed adaptive substitutions at two sites, 111 and 122, are lethal when homozygous and adult heterozygotes exhibit dominant neural dysfunction. We identify a phylogenetically correlated substitution, A119S, that partially ameliorates the deleterious effects of substitutions at 111 and 122. Despite contributing little to cardiac glycoside-insensitivity in vitro, A119S, like substitutions at 111 and 122, substantially increases adult survivorship upon cardiac glycoside exposure. Our results demonstrate the importance of epistasis in constraining adaptive paths. Moreover, by revealing distinct effects of substitutions in vitro and in vivo, our results underscore the importance of evaluating the fitness of adaptive substitutions and their interactions in whole organisms.

Data availability

Sequence data as been deposited in Genbank and the details of all accession numbers of this and previously published data are tabulated in Supplementary Table S1.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Andrew M Taverner

    Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8265-6836
  2. Lu Yang

    Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Zachary J Barile

    Department of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Becky Lin

    Department of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Julie Peng

    Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    For correspondence
    jzpeng@Princeton.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ana P Pinharanda

    Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Arya S Rao

    Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3007-4812
  8. Bartholomew P Roland

    Department of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Aaron D Talsma

    Department of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Daniel Wei

    Department of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Georg Petschenka

    Institute for Insect Biotechnology, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Hesse, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. MIchael J Palladino

    Department of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsbugh, United States
    For correspondence
    mjp44@pitt.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Peter Andolfatto

    Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    pa2543@columbia.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3393-4574

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01 GM115523)

  • Peter Andolfatto

National Institutes of Health (T32 GM008424)

  • Bartholomew P Roland

National Institutes of Health (R01 GM108073)

  • MIchael J Palladino

National Institutes of Health (R01 AG027453)

  • MIchael J Palladino

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Lauren A O'Connell, Stanford University, United States

Version history

  1. Received: May 6, 2019
  2. Accepted: August 24, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 27, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: August 29, 2019 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: September 9, 2019 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record updated: September 30, 2019 (version 4)

Copyright

© 2019, Taverner 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

  • 3,875
    views
  • 401
    downloads
  • 23
    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. Andrew M Taverner
  2. Lu Yang
  3. Zachary J Barile
  4. Becky Lin
  5. Julie Peng
  6. Ana P Pinharanda
  7. Arya S Rao
  8. Bartholomew P Roland
  9. Aaron D Talsma
  10. Daniel Wei
  11. Georg Petschenka
  12. MIchael J Palladino
  13. Peter Andolfatto
(2019)
Adaptive substitutions underlying cardiac glycoside insensitivity in insects exhibit epistasis in vivo
eLife 8:e48224.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48224

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48224

Further reading

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Mark S Lee, Peter J Tuohy ... Michael S Kuhns
    Research Advance

    CD4+ T cell activation is driven by five-module receptor complexes. The T cell receptor (TCR) is the receptor module that binds composite surfaces of peptide antigens embedded within MHCII molecules (pMHCII). It associates with three signaling modules (CD3γε, CD3δε, and CD3ζζ) to form TCR-CD3 complexes. CD4 is the coreceptor module. It reciprocally associates with TCR-CD3-pMHCII assemblies on the outside of a CD4+ T cells and with the Src kinase, LCK, on the inside. Previously, we reported that the CD4 transmembrane GGXXG and cytoplasmic juxtamembrane (C/F)CV+C motifs found in eutherian (placental mammal) CD4 have constituent residues that evolved under purifying selection (Lee et al., 2022). Expressing mutants of these motifs together in T cell hybridomas increased CD4-LCK association but reduced CD3ζ, ZAP70, and PLCγ1 phosphorylation levels, as well as IL-2 production, in response to agonist pMHCII. Because these mutants preferentially localized CD4-LCK pairs to non-raft membrane fractions, one explanation for our results was that they impaired proximal signaling by sequestering LCK away from TCR-CD3. An alternative hypothesis is that the mutations directly impacted signaling because the motifs normally play an LCK-independent role in signaling. The goal of this study was to discriminate between these possibilities. Using T cell hybridomas, our results indicate that: intracellular CD4-LCK interactions are not necessary for pMHCII-specific signal initiation; the GGXXG and (C/F)CV+C motifs are key determinants of CD4-mediated pMHCII-specific signal amplification; the GGXXG and (C/F)CV+C motifs exert their functions independently of direct CD4-LCK association. These data provide a mechanistic explanation for why residues within these motifs are under purifying selection in jawed vertebrates. The results are also important to consider for biomimetic engineering of synthetic receptors.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    Robert Horvath, Nikolaos Minadakis ... Anne C Roulin
    Research Article

    Understanding how plants adapt to changing environments and the potential contribution of transposable elements (TEs) to this process is a key question in evolutionary genomics. While TEs have recently been put forward as active players in the context of adaptation, few studies have thoroughly investigated their precise role in plant evolution. Here, we used the wild Mediterranean grass Brachypodium distachyon as a model species to identify and quantify the forces acting on TEs during the adaptation of this species to various conditions, across its entire geographic range. Using sequencing data from more than 320 natural B. distachyon accessions and a suite of population genomics approaches, we reveal that putatively adaptive TE polymorphisms are rare in wild B. distachyon populations. After accounting for changes in past TE activity, we show that only a small proportion of TE polymorphisms evolved neutrally (<10%), while the vast majority of them are under moderate purifying selection regardless of their distance to genes. TE polymorphisms should not be ignored when conducting evolutionary studies, as they can be linked to adaptation. However, our study clearly shows that while they have a large potential to cause phenotypic variation in B. distachyon, they are not favored during evolution and adaptation over other types of mutations (such as point mutations) in this species.