Reduced purine biosynthesis in humans after their divergence from Neandertals

  1. Vita Stepanova  Is a corresponding author
  2. Kaja Ewa Moczulska
  3. Guido Vacano
  4. Ilia Kurochkin
  5. Xiangchun Ju
  6. Stephan Riesenberg
  7. Dominik Macak
  8. Tomislav Maricic
  9. Linda Dombrowski
  10. Maria Schörnig
  11. Konstantinos Anastassiadis
  12. Oliver Baker
  13. Ronald Naumann
  14. Ekaterina Khrameeva
  15. Anna Vanushkina
  16. Elena Stekolshchikova
  17. Alina Egorova
  18. Anna Tkachev
  19. Randall Mazzarino
  20. Nathan Duval
  21. Dmitri Zubkov
  22. Patrick Giavalisco
  23. Terry G Wilkinson II
  24. David Patterson
  25. Philipp Khaitovich
  26. Svante Pääbo  Is a corresponding author
  1. Skolkovo Institute for Science and Technology, Russian Federation
  2. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany
  3. University of Denver, United States
  4. Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Russian Federation
  5. Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
  6. TU Dresden, Germany
  7. Max Planck Institute for Cell Biology and Genetics, Germany
  8. Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Germany

Abstract

We analyze the metabolomes of humans, chimpanzees and macaques in muscle, kidney and three different regions of the brain. Whereas several compounds in amino acid metabolism occur at either higher or lower concentrations in humans than in the other primates, metabolites downstream of adenylosuccinate lyase, which catalyzes two reactions in purine synthesis, occur at lower concentrations in humans. This enzyme carries an amino acid substitution that is present in all humans today but absent in Neandertals. By introducing the modern human substitution into the genomes of mice, as well as the ancestral, Neandertal-like substitution into the genomes of human cells, we show that this amino acid substitution contributes to much or all of the reduction of de novo synthesis of purines in humans.

Data availability

All data generated are included in the paper as Supplementary files 1-10 and Source data files referred to in the figure legends.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Vita Stepanova

    Center for Neurobiology and Brain Restoration, Skolkovo Institute for Science and Technology, Skolkovo, Russian Federation
    For correspondence
    vita.stepanova@skolkovotech.ru
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Kaja Ewa Moczulska

    Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6051-1265
  3. Guido Vacano

    The Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and Knoebel Institute for Healthy Aging, University of Denver, Denver, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5979-9310
  4. Ilia Kurochkin

    Center for Neurobiology and Brain Restoration, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3100-0903
  5. Xiangchun Ju

    Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Stephan Riesenberg

    Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Dominik Macak

    Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Tomislav Maricic

    Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Linda Dombrowski

    Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Maria Schörnig

    Department of Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5334-5342
  11. Konstantinos Anastassiadis

    Stem Cell Engineering, Biotechnology Center, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9814-0559
  12. Oliver Baker

    Center for Molecular and Cellular Bioengineering, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Ronald Naumann

    Max Planck Institute for Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Ekaterina Khrameeva

    Center for Neurobiology and Brain Restoration, Skolkovo Institute for Science and Technology, Skolkovo, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Anna Vanushkina

    Center for Neurobiology and Brain Restoration, Skolkovo Institute for Science and Technology, Skolkovo, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Elena Stekolshchikova

    Center for Neurobiology and Brain Restoration, Skolkovo Institute for Science and Technology, Skolkovo, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Alina Egorova

    Center for Neurobiology and Brain Restoration, Skolkovo Institute for Science and Technology, Skolkovo, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Anna Tkachev

    Center for Neurobiology and Brain Restoration, Skolkovo Institute for Science and Technology, Skolkovo, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Randall Mazzarino

    The Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and Knoebel Institute for Healthy Aging, University of Denver, Denver, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Nathan Duval

    The Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and Knoebel Institute for Healthy Aging, University of Denver, Denver, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Dmitri Zubkov

    Center for Neurobiology and Brain Restoration, Skolkovo Institute for Science and Technology, Skolkovo, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Patrick Giavalisco

    Department I, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Golm, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4636-1827
  23. Terry G Wilkinson II

    The Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and Knoebel Institute for Healthy Aging, University of Denver, Denver, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. David Patterson

    The Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and Knoebel Institute for Healthy Aging, University of Denver, Denver, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Philipp Khaitovich

    Center for Neurobiology and Brain Restoration, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4305-0054
  26. Svante Pääbo

    Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
    For correspondence
    paabo@eva.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4670-6311

Funding

NOMIS Stiftung

  • Svante Pääbo

Max Plank Society

  • Svante Pääbo

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Genevieve Konopka, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Mouse breeding and experiments were done under the permission AZ: 24-9162.11/12/12 (T 10/14) from the Landesdirektion Sachsen.This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Ethics Committee at the Shanghai Institute for Biological Sciences, CAS. All non-human primates used in this study suffered sudden deaths for reasons other than their participation in this study and without any relation to the tissue used.

Human subjects: Human postmortem samples were obtained from the NICHD Brain and Tissue Bank for Developmental Disorders at the University of Maryland, USA, the Maryland Brain Collection Center, Maryland, USA, and the Harvard Brain Tissue Resource Center. Informed consent for the use of human tissues for research was obtained by these institutions in writing from all donors or their next of kin.

Version history

  1. Received: May 9, 2020
  2. Accepted: May 2, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 4, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 19, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Stepanova 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

  • 3,675
    views
  • 484
    downloads
  • 9
    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. Vita Stepanova
  2. Kaja Ewa Moczulska
  3. Guido Vacano
  4. Ilia Kurochkin
  5. Xiangchun Ju
  6. Stephan Riesenberg
  7. Dominik Macak
  8. Tomislav Maricic
  9. Linda Dombrowski
  10. Maria Schörnig
  11. Konstantinos Anastassiadis
  12. Oliver Baker
  13. Ronald Naumann
  14. Ekaterina Khrameeva
  15. Anna Vanushkina
  16. Elena Stekolshchikova
  17. Alina Egorova
  18. Anna Tkachev
  19. Randall Mazzarino
  20. Nathan Duval
  21. Dmitri Zubkov
  22. Patrick Giavalisco
  23. Terry G Wilkinson II
  24. David Patterson
  25. Philipp Khaitovich
  26. Svante Pääbo
(2021)
Reduced purine biosynthesis in humans after their divergence from Neandertals
eLife 10:e58741.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58741

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58741

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.