The Primate Major Histocompatibility Complex: An Illustrative Example of Gene Family Evolution

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) region is a collection of numerous genes involved in both innate and adaptive immunity. MHC genes are famed for their role in rapid evolution and extensive polymorphism in a variety of vertebrates. This paper presents a summary of gene-level gain and loss of orthologs and paralogs within MHC across the diversity of primates, using publicly available data.

Strengths:

This paper provides a strong case that MHC genes are rapidly gained (by paralog duplication) and lost over millions of years of macroevolution. The authors are able to identify MHC loci by homology across species, and from this infer gene duplications and losses using phylogenetic analyses. There is a remarkable amount of genic turnover, summarized in Figure 6 and Figure 7, either of which might be a future textbook figure of immune gene family evolution. The authors draw on state-of-the-art phylogenetic methods, and their inferences are robust insofar as the data might be complete enough to draw such conclusions.

Weaknesses:

One concern about the present work is that it relies on public databases to draw inferences about gene loss, which is potentially risky if the publicly available sequence data are incomplete. To say, for example, that a particular MHC gene copy is absent in a taxon (e.g., Class I locus F absent in Guenons according to Figure 1), we need to trust that its absence from the available databases is an accurate reflection of its absence in the genome of the actual organisms. This may be a safe assumption, but it rests on the completeness of genome assembly (and gene annotations?) or people uploading relevant data. This reviewer would have been far more comfortable had the authors engaged in some active spot-checking, doing the lab work to try to confirm absences at least for some loci and some species. Without this, a reader is left to wonder whether gene loss is simply reflecting imperfect databases, which then undercuts confidence in estimates of rates of gene loss.

Some context is useful for comparing rates of gene turnover in MHC, to other loci. Changing gene copy numbers, duplications, and loss of duplicates, are common it seems across many loci and many organisms; is MHC exceptional in this regard, or merely behaving like any moderately large gene family? I would very much have liked to see comparable analyses done for other gene families (immune, like TLRs, or non-immune), and quantitative comparisons of evolutionary rates between MHC versus other genes. Does MHC gene composition evolve any faster than a random gene family? At present readers may be tempted to infer this, but evidence is not provided.

While on the topic of making comparisons, the authors make a few statements about relative rates. For instance, lines 447-8 compare gene topology of classical versus non-classical genes; and line 450 states that classical genes experience more turnover. But there are no quantitative values given to these rates to provide numerical comparisons, nor confidence intervals provided (these are needed, given that they are estimates), nor formal statistical comparisons to confirm our confidence that rates differ between types of genes.

More broadly, the paper uses sophisticated phylogenetic methods, but without taking advantage of macroevolutionary comparative methods that allow model-based estimation of macroevolutionary rates. I found the lack of quantitative measurements of rates of gene gain/loss to be a weakness of the present version of the paper, and something that should be readily remedied. When claiming that MHC Class I genes "turn over rapidly" (line 476) - what does rapidly mean? How rapidly? How does that compare to rates of genetic turnover at other families? Quantitative statements should be supported by quantitative estimates (and their confidence intervals).

The authors refer to 'shared function of the MHC across species' (e.g. line 22); while this is likely true, they are not here presenting any functional data to confirm this, nor can they rule out neofunctionalization or subfunctionalization of gene duplicates. There is evidence in other vertebrates (e.g., cod) of MHC evolving appreciably altered functions, so one may not safely assume the function of a locus is static over long macroevolutionary periods, although that would be a plausible assumption at first glance.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the evolutionary history of the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) gene family across primate species. Specifically, they sought to:

(1) Analyze the evolutionary patterns of MHC genes and pseudogenes across the entire primate order, spanning 60 million years of evolution.

(2) Build gene and allele trees to compare the evolutionary rates of MHC Class I and Class II genes, with a focus on identifying which genes have evolved rapidly and which have remained stable.

(3) Investigate the role of often-overlooked pseudogenes in reconstructing evolutionary events, especially within the Class I region.

(4) Highlight how different primate species use varied MHC genes, haplotypes, and genetic variation to mount successful immune responses, despite the shared function of the MHC across species.

(5) Fill gaps in the current understanding of MHC evolution by taking a broader, multi-species perspective using (a) phylogenomic analytical computing methods such as Beast2, Geneconv, BLAST, and the much larger computing capacities that have been developed and made available to researchers over the past few decades, (b) literature review for gene content and arrangement, and genomic rearrangements via haplotype comparisons.

(6) The authors overall conclusions based on their analyses and results are that 'different species employ different genes, haplotypes, and patterns of variation to achieve a successful immune response'.

Strengths:

Essentially, much of the information presented in this paper is already well-known in the MHC field of genomic and genetic research, with few new conclusions and with insufficient respect to past studies. Nevertheless, while MHC evolution is a well-studied area, this paper potentially adds some originality through its comprehensive, cross-species evolutionary analysis of primates, focus on pseudogenes and the modern, large-scale methods employed. Its originality lies in its broad evolutionary scope of the primate order among mammals with solid methodological and phylogenetic analyses.

The main strengths of this study are the use of large publicly available databases for primate MHC sequences, the intensive computing involved, the phylogenetic tool Beast2 to create multigene Bayesian phylogenetic trees using sequences from all genes and species, separated into Class I and Class II groups to provide a backbone of broad relationships to investigate subtrees, and the presentation of various subtrees as species and gene trees in an attempt to elucidate the unique gene duplications within the different species. The study provides some additional insights with summaries of MHC reference genomes and haplotypes in the context of a literature review to identify the gene content and haplotypes known to be present in different primate species. The phylogenetic overlays or ideograms (Figures 6 and 7) in part show the complexity of the evolution and organisation of the primate MHC genes via the orthologous and paralogous gene and species pathways progressively from the poorly-studied NWM, across a few moderately studied ape species, to the better-studied human MHC genes and haplotypes.

Weaknesses:

The title 'The Primate Major Histocompatibility Complex: An Illustrative Example of Gene Family Evolution' suggests that the paper will explore how the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) in primates serves as a model for understanding gene family evolution. The term 'Illustrative Example' in the title would be appropriate if the paper aimed to use the primate Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) as a clear and representative case to demonstrate broader principles of gene family evolution. That is, the MHC gene family is not just one instance of gene family evolution but serves as a well-studied, insightful example that can highlight key mechanisms and concepts applicable to other gene families. However, this is not the case, this paper only covers specific details of primate MHC evolution without drawing broader lessons to any other gene families. So, the term 'Illustrative Example' is too broad or generalizing. In this case, a term like 'Case Study' or simply 'Example' would be more suitable. Perhaps, 'An Example of Gene Family Diversity' would be more precise. Also, an explanation or 'reminder' is suggested that this study is not about the origins of the MHC genes from the earliest jawed vertebrates per se (~600 mya), but it is an extension within a subspecies set that has emerged relatively late (~60 mya) in the evolutionary divergent pathways of the MHC genes, systems, and various vertebrate species.

Phylogenomics. Particular weaknesses in this study are the limitations and problems associated with providing phylogenetic gene and species trees to try and solve the complex issue of the molecular mechanisms involved with imperfect gene duplications, losses, and rearrangements in a complex genomic region such as the MHC that is involved in various effects on the response and regulation of the immune system. A particular deficiency is drawing conclusions based on a single exon of the genes. Different exons present different trees. Which are the more reliable? Why were introns not included in the analyses? The authors attempt to overcome these limitations by including genomic haplotype analysis, duplication models, and the supporting or contradictory information available in previous publications. They succeed in part with this multidiscipline approach, but much is missed because of biased literature selection. The authors should include a paragraph about the benefits and limitations of the software that they have chosen for their analysis, and perhaps suggest some alternative tools that they might have tried comparatively. How were problems with Bayesian phylogeny such as computational intensity, choosing probabilities, choosing particular exons for analysis, assumptions of evolutionary models, rates of evolution, systemic bias, and absence of structural and functional information addressed and controlled for in this study?

Gene families as haplotypes. In the Introduction, the MHC is referred to as a 'gene family', and in paragraph 2, it is described as being united by the 'MHC fold', despite exhibiting 'very diverse functions'. However, the MHC region is more accurately described as a multigene region containing diverse, haplotype-specific Conserved Polymorphic Sequences, many of which are likely to be regulatory rather than protein-coding. These regulatory elements are essential for controlling the expression of multiple MHC-related products, such as TNF and complement proteins, a relationship demonstrated over 30 years ago. Non-MHC fold loci such as TNF, complement, POU5F1, lncRNA, TRIM genes, LTA, LTB, NFkBIL1, etc, are present across all MHC haplotypes and play significant roles in regulation. Evolutionary selection must act on genotypes, considering both paternal and maternal haplotypes, rather than on individual genes alone. While it is valuable to compile databases for public use, their utility is diminished if they perpetuate outdated theories like the 'birth-and-death model'. The inclusion of prior information or assumptions used in a statistical or computational model, typically in Bayesian analysis, is commendable, but they should be based on genotypic data rather than older models. A more robust approach would consider the imperfect duplication of segments, the history of their conservation, and the functional differences in inheritance patterns. Additionally, the MHC should be examined as a genomic region, with ancestral haplotypes and sequence changes or rearrangements serving as key indicators of human evolution after the 'Out of Africa' migration, and with disease susceptibility providing a measurable outcome. There are more than 7000 different HLA-B and -C alleles at each locus, which suggests that there are many thousands of human HLA haplotypes to study. In this regard, the studies by Dawkins et al (1999 Immunol Rev 167,275), Shiina et al. (2006 Genetics 173,1555) on human MHC gene diversity and disease hitchhiking (haplotypes), and Sznarkowska et al. (2020 Cancers 12,1155) on the complex regulatory networks governing MHC expression, both in terms of immune transcription factor binding sites and regulatory non-coding RNAs, should be examined in greater detail, particularly in the context of MHC gene allelic diversity and locus organization in humans and other primates.

Diversifying and/or concerted evolution. Both this and past studies highlight diversifying selection or balancing selection model is the dominant force in MHC evolution. This is primarily because the extreme polymorphism observed in MHC genes is advantageous for populations in terms of pathogen defence. Diversification increases the range of peptides that can be presented to T cells, enhancing the immune response. The peptide-binding regions of MHC genes are highly variable, and this variability is maintained through selection for immune function, especially in the face of rapidly evolving pathogens. In contrast, concerted evolution, which typically involves the homogenization of gene duplicates through processes like gene conversion or unequal crossing-over, seems to play a minimal role in MHC evolution. Although gene duplication events have occurred in the MHC region leading to the expansion of gene families, the resulting paralogs often undergo divergent evolution rather than being kept similar or homozygous by concerted evolution. Therefore, unlike gene families such as ribosomal RNA genes or histone genes, where concerted evolution leads to highly similar copies, MHC genes display much higher levels of allelic and functional diversification. Each MHC gene copy tends to evolve independently after duplication, acquiring unique polymorphisms that enhance the repertoire of antigen presentation, rather than undergoing homogenization through gene conversion. Also, in some populations with high polymorphism or genetic drift, allele frequencies may become similar over time without the influence of gene conversion. This similarity can be mistaken for gene conversion when it is simply due to neutral evolution or drift, particularly in small populations or bottlenecked species. Moreover, gene conversion might contribute to greater diversity by creating hybrids or mosaics between different MHC genes. In this regard, can the authors indicate what percentage of the gene numbers in their study have been homogenised by gene conversion compared to those that have been diversified by gene conversion?

Duplication models. The phylogenetic overlays or ideograms (Figures 6 and 7) show considerable imperfect multigene duplications, losses, and rearrangements, but the paper's Discussion provides no in-depth consideration of the various multigenic models or mechanisms that can be used to explain the occurrence of such events. How do their duplication models compare to those proposed by others? For example, their text simply says on line 292, 'the proposed series of events is not always consistent with phylogenetic data'. How, why, when? Duplication models for the generation and extension of the human MHC class I genes as duplicons (extended gene or segmental genomic structures) by parsimonious imperfect tandem duplications with deletions and rearrangements in the alpha, beta, and kappa blocks were already formulated in the late 1990s and extended to the rhesus macaque in 2004 based on genomic haplotypic sequences. These studies were based on genomic sequences (genes, pseudogenes, retroelements), dot plot matrix comparisons, and phylogenetic analyses of gene and retroelement sequences using computer programs. It already was noted or proposed in these earlier 1999 studies that (1) the ancestor of HLA-P(90)/-T(16)/W(80) represented an old lineage separate from the other HLA class I genes in the alpha block, (2) HLA-U(21) is a duplicated fragment of HLA-A, (3) HLA-F and HLA-V(75) are among the earliest (progenitor) genes or outgroups within the alpha block, (4) distinct Alu and L1 retroelement sequences adjoining HLA-L(30), and HLA-N genomic segments (duplicons) in the kappa block are closely related to those in the HLA-B and HLA-C in the beta block; suggesting an inverted duplication and transposition of the HLA genes and retroelements between the beta and kappa regions. None of these prior human studies were referenced by Fortier and Pritchard in their paper. How does their human MHC class I gene duplication model (Fig. 6) such as gene duplication numbers and turnovers differ from those previously proposed and described by Kulski et al (1997 JME 45,599), (1999 JME 49,84), (2000 JME 50,510), Dawkins et al (1999 Immunol Rev 167,275), and Gaudieri et al (1999 GR 9,541)? Is this a case of reinventing the wheel?

Results. The results are presented as new findings, whereas most if not all of the results' significance and importance already have been discussed in various other publications. Therefore, the authors might do better to combine the results and discussion into a single section with appropriate citations to previously published findings presented among their results for comparison. Do the trees and subsets differ from previous publications, albeit that they might have fewer comparative examples and samples than the present preprint? Alternatively, the results and discussion could be combined and presented as a review of the field, which would make more sense and be more honest than the current format of essentially rehashing old data.

Minor corrections:

(1) Abstract, line 19: 'modern methods'. Too general. What modern methods?

(2) Abstract, line 25: 'look into [primate] MHC evolution.' The analysis is on the primate MHC genes, not on the entire vertebrate MHC evolution with a gene collection from sharks to humans. The non-primate MHC genes are often differently organised and structurally evolved in comparison to primate MHC.

(3) Introduction, line 113. 'In a companion paper (Fortier and Pritchard, 2024)' This paper appears to be unpublished. If it's unpublished, it should not be referenced.

(4) Figures 1 and 2. Use the term 'gene symbols' (circle, square, triangle, inverted triangle, diamond) or 'gene markers' instead of 'points'. 'Asterisks "within symbols" indicate new information.

(5) Figures. A variety of colours have been applied for visualisation. However, some coloured texts are so light in colour that they are difficult to read against a white background. Could darker colours or black be used for all or most texts?

(6) Results, line 135. '(Fortier and Pritchard, 2024)' This paper appears to be unpublished. If it's unpublished, it should not be referenced.

(7) Results, lines 152 to 153, 164, 165, etc. 'Points with an asterisk'. Use the term 'gene symbols' (circle, square, triangle, inverted triangle, diamond) or 'gene markers' instead of 'points'. A point is a small dot such as those used in data points for plotting graphs .... The figures are so small that the asterisks in the circles, squares, triangles, etc, look like points (dots) and the points/asterisks terminology that is used is very confusing visually.

(8) Line 178 (BEA, 2024) is not listed alphabetically in the References.

(9) Lines 188-190. 'NWM MHC-G does not group with ape/OWM MHC-G, instead falling outside of the clade containing ape/OWM MHC-A, -G, -J and -K.' This is not surprising given that MHC-A, -G, -J, and -K are paralogs of each other and that some of them, especially in NWM have diverged over time from the paralogs and/or orthologs and might be closer to one paralog than another and not be an actual ortholog of OWM, apes or humans.

(10) Line 249. Gene conversion: This is recombination between two different genes where a portion of the genes are exchanged with one another so that different portions of the gene can group within one or other of the two gene clades. Alternatively, the gene has been annotated incorrectly if the gene does not group within either of the two alternative clades. Another possibility is that one or two nucleotide mutations have occurred without a recombination resulting in a mistaken interpretation or conclusion of a recombination event. What measures are taken to avoid false-positive conclusions? How many MHC gene conversion (recombination) events have occurred according to the authors' estimates? What measures are taken to avoid false-positive conclusions?

(11) Lines 284-286. 'The Class I MHC region is further divided into three polymorphic blocks-alpha, beta, and kappa blocks-that each contains MHC genes but are separated by well-conserved non-MHC genes.' The MHC class I region was first designated into conserved polymorphic duplication blocks, alpha and beta by Dawkins et al (1999 Immunol Rev 167,275), and kappa by Kulski et al (2002 Immunol Rev 190,95), and should be acknowledged (cited) accordingly.

(12) Lines 285-286. 'The majority of the Class I genes are located in the alpha-block, which in humans includes 12 MHC genes and pseudogenes.' This is not strictly correct for many other species, because the majority of class I genes might be in the beta block of new and old-world monkeys, and the authors haven't provided respective counts of duplication numbers to show otherwise. The alpha block in some non-primate mammalian species such as pigs, rats, and mice has no MHC class I genes or only a few. Most MHC class I genes in non-primate mammalian species are found in other regions. For example, see Ando et al (2005 Immunogenetics 57,864) for the pig alpha, beta, and kappa regions in the MHC class I region. There are no pig MHC genes in the alpha block.

(13) Line 297 to 299. 'The alpha-block also contains a large number of repetitive elements and gene fragments belonging to other gene families, and their specific repeating pattern in humans led to the conclusion that the region was formed by successive block duplications (Shiina et al., 1999).' There are different models for successive block duplications in the alpha block and some are more parsimonious based on imperfect multigenic segmental duplications (Kulski et al 1999, 2000) than others (Shiina et al., 1999). In this regard, Kulski et al (1999, 2000) also used duplicated repetitive elements neighbouring MHC genes to support their phylogenetic analyses and multigenic segmental duplication models. For comparison, can the authors indicate how many duplications and deletions they have in their models for each species?

(14) Lines 315-315. 'Ours is the first work to show that MHC-U is actually an MHC-A-related gene fragment.' This sentence should be deleted. Other researchers had already inferred that MHC-U is actually an MHC-A-related gene fragment more than 25 years ago (Kulski et al 1999, 2000) when the MHC-U was originally named MHC-21.

(15) Lines 361-362. 'Notably, our work has revealed that MHC-V is an old fragment.' This is not a new finding or hypothesis. Previous phylogenetic analysis and gene duplication modelling had already inferred HLA-V (formerly HLA-75) to be an old fragment (Kulski et al 1999, 2000).

(16) Line 431-433. 'the Class II genes have been largely stable across the mammals, although we do see some lineage-specific expansions and contractions (Figure 2 and Figure 2-gure Supplement 2).' Please provide one or two references to support this statement. Is 'gure' a typo?

(17) Line 437. 'We discovered far more "specific" events in Class I, while "broad-scale" events were predominant in Class II.' Please define the difference between 'specific' and 'broad-scale'.
450-451. 'This shows that classical genes experience more turnover and are more often affected by long-term balancing selection or convergent evolution.' Is balancing selection a form of divergent evolution that is different from convergent evolution? Please explain in more detail how and why balancing selection or convergent evolution affects classical and nonclassical genes differently.

References. Some references in the supplementary materials such as Alvarez (1997), Daza-Vamenta (2004), Rojo (2005), Aarnink (2014), Kulski (2022), and others are missing from the Reference list. Please check that all the references in the text and the supplementary materials are listed correctly and alphabetically.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The article provides the most comprehensive overview of primate MHC class I and class II genes to date, combining published data with an exploration of the available genome assemblies in a coherent phylogenetic framework and formulating new hypotheses about the evolution of the primate MHC genomic region.

Strengths:

I think this is a solid piece of work that will be the reference for years to come, at least until population-scale haplotype-resolved whole-genome resequencing of any mammalian species becomes standard. The work is timely because there is an obvious need to move beyond short amplicon-based polymorphism surveys and classical comparative genomic studies. The paper is data-rich and the approach taken by the authors, i.e. an integrative phylogeny of all MHC genes within a given class across species and the inclusion of often ignored pseudogenes, makes a lot of sense. The focus on primates is a good idea because of the wealth of genomic and, in some cases, functional data, and the relatively densely populated phylogenetic tree facilitates the reconstruction of rapid evolutionary events, providing insights into the mechanisms of MHC evolution. Appendices 1-2 may seem unusual at first glance, but I found them helpful in distilling the information that the authors consider essential, thus reducing the need for the reader to wade through a vast amount of literature. Appendix 3 is an extremely valuable companion in navigating the maze of primate MHC genes and associated terminology.

Weaknesses:

I have not identified major weaknesses and my comments are mostly requests for clarification and justification of some methodological choices.

Author response:

We thank the three anonymous reviewers who took the time to read and evaluate our work. We look forward to submitting a revised version of the manuscript that addresses their comments.

We agree with the reviewers that missing genes and incomplete genome assemblies can be challenges when trying to make interspecies comparisons in a complex and repetitive region like the MHC. Our revised manuscript will include more discussion of this topic, and we look forward to future work on this region that considers the next generation of complete telomere-to-telomere genomes with long-read sequencing.

Repeating this analysis with other gene families—immune and non-immune—is a great idea. While outside of the scope of this work, this will provide many opportunities for comparison and help tease apart the features that make this family unique.

We also point readers to our companion paper, Ancient Trans-Species Polymorphism at the Major Histocompatibility Complex in Primates, which tackles different (but related) questions about long-term balancing selection in the primate MHC and also summarizes relevant past work in the area. This second paper addresses some questions raised by reviewers here.