Tempo and mode of gene expression evolution in the brain across primates

  1. Katherine Rickelton  Is a corresponding author
  2. Trisha M Zintel
  3. Jason Pizzollo
  4. Emily Miller
  5. John J Ely
  6. Mary Ann Raghanti
  7. William D Hopkins
  8. Patrick R Hof
  9. Chet C Sherwood
  10. Amy L Bauernfeind
  11. Courtney C Babbitt  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Massachusetts Amherst, United States
  2. MAEBIOS, United States
  3. Kent State University, United States
  4. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States
  5. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States
  6. George Washington University, United States
  7. Washington University in St. Louis, United States

Abstract

Primate evolution has led to a remarkable diversity of behavioral specializations and pronounced brain size variation among species (Barton, 2012; DeCasien & Higham, 2019; Powell, Isler, & Barton, 2017). Gene expression provides a promising opportunity for studying the molecular basis of brain evolution, but it has been explored in very few primate species to date (e.g. Khaitovich et al., 2005; Khrameeva et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2022; Somel et al., 2009). To understand the landscape of gene expression evolution across the primate lineage, we generated and analyzed RNA-Seq data from four brain regions in an unprecedented eighteen species. Here we show a remarkable level of variation in gene expression among hominid species, including humans and chimpanzees, despite their relatively recent divergence time from other primates. We found that individual genes display a wide range of expression dynamics across evolutionary time reflective of the diverse selection pressures acting on genes within primate brain tissue. Using our samples that represents a 190-fold difference in primate brain size, we identified genes with variation in expression most correlated with brain size. Our study extensively broadens the phylogenetic context of what is known about the molecular evolution of the brain across primates and identifies novel candidate genes for study of genetic regulation of brain evolution.

Data availability

Sequencing data have been deposited in the Short Read Archive: BioProject PRJNA639850

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

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Katherine Rickelton

    Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, United States
    For correspondence
    krickelton@umass.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Trisha M Zintel

    Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jason Pizzollo

    Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Emily Miller

    Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. John J Ely

    Epidemiology Unit, MAEBIOS, Alamogordo, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Mary Ann Raghanti

    Department of Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. William D Hopkins

    Department of Comparative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Bastrop, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Patrick R Hof

    Nash Family Department of Neuroscience, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Chet C Sherwood

    Department of Anthropology, George Washington University, Washington DC, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Amy L Bauernfeind

    Department of Neuroscience, Washington University in St. Louis, St Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8518-3819
  11. Courtney C Babbitt

    Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, United States
    For correspondence
    cbabbitt@bio.umass.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8793-4364

Funding

National Science Foundation (BCS-1750377)

  • Courtney C Babbitt

National Institutes of Health (T32 GM135096)

  • Katherine Rickelton

James S. McDonnell Foundation (220020293)

  • Chet C Sherwood

National Institutes of Health (NS-092988)

  • Chet C Sherwood

National Science Foundation (SMA-1542848)

  • Chet C Sherwood

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

Copyright

© 2024, Rickelton 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

  • 1,584
    views
  • 262
    downloads
  • 2
    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. Katherine Rickelton
  2. Trisha M Zintel
  3. Jason Pizzollo
  4. Emily Miller
  5. John J Ely
  6. Mary Ann Raghanti
  7. William D Hopkins
  8. Patrick R Hof
  9. Chet C Sherwood
  10. Amy L Bauernfeind
  11. Courtney C Babbitt
(2024)
Tempo and mode of gene expression evolution in the brain across primates
eLife 13:e70276.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70276

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70276

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Hasiba Asma, Ellen Tieke ... Marc S Halfon
    Tools and Resources

    Annotation of newly sequenced genomes frequently includes genes, but rarely covers important non-coding genomic features such as the cis-regulatory modules—e.g., enhancers and silencers—that regulate gene expression. Here, we begin to remedy this situation by developing a workflow for rapid initial annotation of insect regulatory sequences, and provide a searchable database resource with enhancer predictions for 33 genomes. Using our previously developed SCRMshaw computational enhancer prediction method, we predict over 2.8 million regulatory sequences along with the tissues where they are expected to be active, in a set of insect species ranging over 360 million years of evolution. Extensive analysis and validation of the data provides several lines of evidence suggesting that we achieve a high true-positive rate for enhancer prediction. One, we show that our predictions target specific loci, rather than random genomic locations. Two, we predict enhancers in orthologous loci across a diverged set of species to a significantly higher degree than random expectation would allow. Three, we demonstrate that our predictions are highly enriched for regions of accessible chromatin. Four, we achieve a validation rate in excess of 70% using in vivo reporter gene assays. As we continue to annotate both new tissues and new species, our regulatory annotation resource will provide a rich source of data for the research community and will have utility for both small-scale (single gene, single species) and large-scale (many genes, many species) studies of gene regulation. In particular, the ability to search for functionally related regulatory elements in orthologous loci should greatly facilitate studies of enhancer evolution even among distantly related species.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Chileleko Siachisumo, Sara Luzzi ... David J Elliott
    Research Advance

    Previously, we showed that the germ cell-specific nuclear protein RBMXL2 represses cryptic splicing patterns during meiosis and is required for male fertility (Ehrmann et al., 2019). Here, we show that in somatic cells the similar yet ubiquitously expressed RBMX protein has similar functions. RBMX regulates a distinct class of exons that exceed the median human exon size. RBMX protein-RNA interactions are enriched within ultra-long exons, particularly within genes involved in genome stability, and repress the selection of cryptic splice sites that would compromise gene function. The RBMX gene is silenced during male meiosis due to sex chromosome inactivation. To test whether RBMXL2 might replace the function of RBMX during meiosis we induced expression of RBMXL2 and the more distantly related RBMY protein in somatic cells, finding each could rescue aberrant patterns of RNA processing caused by RBMX depletion. The C-terminal disordered domain of RBMXL2 is sufficient to rescue proper splicing control after RBMX depletion. Our data indicate that RBMX and RBMXL2 have parallel roles in somatic tissues and the germline that must have been conserved for at least 200 million years of mammalian evolution. We propose RBMX family proteins are particularly important for the splicing inclusion of some ultra-long exons with increased intrinsic susceptibility to cryptic splice site selection.