Evolutionary stasis of the pseudoautosomal boundary in strepsirrhine primates

  1. Rylan Shearn
  2. Alison E Wright
  3. Sylvain Mousset
  4. Corinne Régis
  5. Simon Penel
  6. Jean-François Lemaitre
  7. Guillaume Douay
  8. Brigitte Crouau-Roy
  9. Emilie Lecompte
  10. Gabriel AB Marais  Is a corresponding author
  1. CNRS / Univ. Lyon 1, France
  2. University of Sheffield, United Kingdom
  3. University of Vienna, Austria
  4. Zoo de Lyon, France
  5. CNRS / Univ. Toulouse, France

Abstract

Sex chromosomes are typically comprised of a non-recombining region and a recombining pseudoautosomal region. Accurately quantifying the relative size of these regions is critical for sex-chromosome biology both from a functional and evolutionary perspective. The evolution of the pseudoautosomal boundary (PAB) is well documented in haplorrhines (apes and monkeys) but not in strepsirrhines (lemurs and lorises). Here we studied the PAB of seven species representing the main strepsirrhine lineages by sequencing a male and a female genome in each species and using sex differences in coverage to identify the PAB. We found that during primate evolution, the PAB has remained unchanged in strepsirrhines whereas several recombination suppression events moved the PAB and shortened the pseudoautosomal region in haplorrhines. Strepsirrhines are well known to have much lower sexual dimorphism than haplorrhines. We suggest that mutations with antagonistic effects between males and females have driven recombination suppression and PAB evolution in haplorrhines.

Data availability

All the data generated in this study is available at NCBI (project # PRJNA482296)

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Rylan Shearn

    LBBE, CNRS / Univ. Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Alison E Wright

    Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Sylvain Mousset

    Faculty of Mathematics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Corinne Régis

    LBBE, CNRS / Univ. Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Simon Penel

    LBBE, CNRS / Univ. Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jean-François Lemaitre

    LBBE, CNRS / Univ. Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Guillaume Douay

    Zoo de Lyon, Lyon, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Brigitte Crouau-Roy

    Laboratoire Evolution et Diversité Biologique, CNRS / Univ. Toulouse, Toulouse, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Emilie Lecompte

    Laboratoire Evolution et Diversité Biologique, CNRS / Univ. Toulouse, Toulouse, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5711-7395
  10. Gabriel AB Marais

    LBBE, CNRS / Univ. Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France
    For correspondence
    gabriel.marais@univ-lyon1.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2134-5967

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-­‐12-­‐ BSV7-­‐0002-­‐04)

  • Gabriel AB Marais

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

Copyright

© 2020, Shearn 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

  • 1,505
    views
  • 146
    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. Rylan Shearn
  2. Alison E Wright
  3. Sylvain Mousset
  4. Corinne Régis
  5. Simon Penel
  6. Jean-François Lemaitre
  7. Guillaume Douay
  8. Brigitte Crouau-Roy
  9. Emilie Lecompte
  10. Gabriel AB Marais
(2020)
Evolutionary stasis of the pseudoautosomal boundary in strepsirrhine primates
eLife 9:e63650.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63650

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63650

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Pierre Barrat-Charlaix, Richard A Neher
    Research Article

    As pathogens spread in a population of hosts, immunity is built up, and the pool of susceptible individuals are depleted. This generates selective pressure, to which many human RNA viruses, such as influenza virus or SARS-CoV-2, respond with rapid antigenic evolution and frequent emergence of immune evasive variants. However, the host’s immune systems adapt, and older immune responses wane, such that escape variants only enjoy a growth advantage for a limited time. If variant growth dynamics and reshaping of host-immunity operate on comparable time scales, viral adaptation is determined by eco-evolutionary interactions that are not captured by models of rapid evolution in a fixed environment. Here, we use a Susceptible/Infected model to describe the interaction between an evolving viral population in a dynamic but immunologically diverse host population. We show that depending on strain cross-immunity, heterogeneity of the host population, and durability of immune responses, escape variants initially grow exponentially, but lose their growth advantage before reaching high frequencies. Their subsequent dynamics follows an anomalous random walk determined by future escape variants and results in variant trajectories that are unpredictable. This model can explain the apparent contradiction between the clearly adaptive nature of antigenic evolution and the quasi-neutral dynamics of high-frequency variants observed for influenza viruses.

    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.