Exploring metazoan evolution through dynamic and holistic changes in protein families and domains

BMC Evolutionary Biology

Makedonka Mitreva¹  Sahar Abubucker³  John Martin³  Dante Zarlenga²  Zhengyuan Wang³ 

[1] Department of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA;U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service/ANRI, Animal Parasitic Diseases Lab, Beltsville, MD, 20705, USA;The Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, 4444 Forest Park Blvd, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA

关键词: Nematodes;    Arthropods;    Vertebrates;    Metazoa;    Evolution;    Domains;    Proteins;   

Others  :  1140581
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2148-12-138

 received in 2012-03-01, accepted in 2012-07-19,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Proteins convey the majority of biochemical and cellular activities in organisms. Over the course of evolution, proteins undergo normal sequence mutations as well as large scale mutations involving domain duplication and/or domain shuffling. These events result in the generation of new proteins and protein families. Processes that affect proteome evolution drive species diversity and adaptation. Herein, change over the course of metazoan evolution, as defined by birth/death and duplication/deletion events within protein families and domains, was examined using the proteomes of 9 metazoan and two outgroup species.

Results

In studying members of the three major metazoan groups, the vertebrates, arthropods, and nematodes, we found that the number of protein families increased at the majority of lineages over the course of metazoan evolution where the magnitude of these increases was greatest at the lineages leading to mammals. In contrast, the number of protein domains decreased at most lineages and at all terminal lineages. This resulted in a weak correlation between protein family birth and domain birth; however, the correlation between domain birth and domain member duplication was quite strong. These data suggest that domain birth and protein family birth occur via different mechanisms, and that domain shuffling plays a role in the formation of protein families. The ratio of protein family birth to protein domain birth (domain shuffling index) suggests that shuffling had a more demonstrable effect on protein families in nematodes and arthropods than in vertebrates. Through the contrast of high and low domain shuffling indices at the lineages of Trichinella spiralis and Gallus gallus, we propose a link between protein redundancy and evolutionary changes controlled by domain shuffling; however, the speed of adaptation among the different lineages was relatively invariant. Evaluating the functions of protein families that appeared or disappeared at the last common ancestors (LCAs) of the three metazoan clades supports a correlation with organism adaptation. Furthermore, bursts of new protein families and domains in the LCAs of metazoans and vertebrates are consistent with whole genome duplications.

Conclusion

Metazoan speciation and adaptation were explored by birth/death and duplication/deletion events among protein families and domains. Our results provide insights into protein evolution and its bearing on metazoan evolution.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Wang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bork P: Shuffled domains in extracellular proteins. FEBS Lett 1991, 286:47-54.
• [2]Richardson JS: The anatomy and taxonomy of protein structure. Advances in Protein Chemistry 1981, 34:167-339.
• [3]Wu CH, Huang H, Yeh L-SL, Barker WC: Protein family classification and functional annotation. Comput Biol Chem 2003, 27:37-47.
• [4]Dayhoff MO: Computer analysis of protein sequences. Fed Proc 1974, 33:2314-2316.
• [5]Gilbert W: Why genes in pieces? Nature 1978, 271:501-501.
• [6]Li W: Molecular evolution. Sinauer Associates Incorporated, Sunderland, Massachusetts; 1997.
• [7]Wang Z, Martin J, Abubucker S, Yin Y, Gasser R, Mitreva M: Systematic analysis of insertions and deletions specific to nematode proteins and their proposed functional and evolutionary relevance. BMC Evol Biol 2009, 9:23.
• [8]Jiang H, Blouin C: Insertions and the emergence of novel protein structure: a structure-based phylogenetic study of insertions. BMC Bioinforma 2007, 8:444.
• [9]Cao LH, Ding XM, Yu WB, Yang XM, Shen SQ, Yu L: Phylogenetic and evolutionary analysis of the septin protein family in metazoan. FEBS Lett 2007, 581:5526-5532.
• [10]Enmark E, Gustafsson JA: Nematode genome sequence dramatically extends the nuclear receptor superfamily. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2000, 21:85-87.
• [11]Hoogewijs D, De Henau S, Dewilde S, Moens L, Couvreur M, Borgonie G, Vinogradov SN, Roy SW, Vanfleteren JR: The Caenorhabditis globin gene family reveals extensive nematode-specific radiation and diversification. BMC Evol Biol 2008, 8:13.
• [12]Chothia C, Gough J, Vogel C, Teichmann SA: Evolution of the protein repertoire. Science 2003, 300:1701-1703.
• [13]Babushok DV, Ostertag EM, Kazazian HH: Current topics in genome evolution: Molecular mechanisms of new gene formation. Cell Mol Life Sci 2007, 64:542-554.
• [14]Punta M, Coggill PC, Eberhardt RY, Mistry J, Tate J, Boursnell C, Pang N, Forslund K, Ceric G, Clements J, et al.: The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res 2012, 40:D290-D301.
• [15]Kawashima T, Kawashima S, Tanaka C, Murai M, Yoneda M, Putnam NH, Rokhsar DS, Kanehisa M, Satoh N, Wada H: Domain shuffling and the evolution of vertebrates. Genome Res 2009, 19:1393-1403.
• [16]Buljan M, Bateman A: The evolution of protein domain families. Biochem Soc Trans 2009, 37:751-755.
• [17]Enright AJ, Van Dongen S, Ouzounis CA: An efficient algorithm for large-scale detection of protein families. Nucleic Acids Res 2002, 30:1575-1584.
• [18]Mitreva M, Smant G, Helder J: Role of Horizontal Gene Transfer in the Evolution of Plant Parasitism Among Nematodes. In Volume 2009, 532:517-535.
• [19]Ekman D, Björklund ÅK, Elofsson A: Quantification of the Elevated Rate of Domain Rearrangements in Metazoa. J Mol Biol 2007, 372:1337-1348.
• [20]Lynch M, Conery JS: The Evolutionary Fate and Consequences of Duplicate Genes. Science 2000, 290:1151-1155.
• [21]Hughes AL, Friedman R: Genome Size Reduction in the Chicken Has Involved Massive Loss of Ancestral Protein-Coding Genes. Mol Biol Evol 2008, 25:2681-2688.
• [22]Cohen-Gihon I, Fong JH, Sharan R, Nussinov R, Przytycka TM, Panchenko AR: Evolution of domain promiscuity in eukaryotic genomes–a perspective from the inferred ancestral domain architectures. Mol Biosyst 2011, 7:784-792.
• [23]Opperman CH, Bird DM, Williamson VM, Rokhsar DS, Burke M, Cohn J, Cromer J, Diener S, Gajan J, Graham S, et al.: Sequence and genetic map of Meloidogyne hapla: A compact nematode genome for plant parasitism. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2008, 105:14802-14807.
• [24]Robinson-Rechavi M, Garcia HE, Laudet V: The nuclear receptor superfamily. J Cell Sci 2003, 116:585-586.
• [25]Lander ES, Linton LM, Birren B, Nusbaum C, Zody MC, Baldwin J, Devon K, Dewar K, Doyle M, FitzHugh W, et al.: Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 2001, 409:860-921.
• [26]Peisajovich SG, Rockah L, Tawfik DS: Evolution of new protein topologies through multistep gene rearrangements. Nat Genet 2006, 38:168-174.
• [27]Fong JH, Geer LY, Panchenko AR, Bryant SH: Modeling the Evolution of Protein Domain Architectures Using Maximum Parsimony. J Mol Biol 2007, 366:307-315.
• [28]Kummerfeld SK, Teichmann SA: Relative rates of gene fusion and fission in multi-domain proteins. Trends in Genetics 2005, 21:25-30.
• [29]Ohno S: Evolution by gene duplication. Springer, New York; 1970.
• [30]Lundin LG: Evolution of the Vertebrate Genome as Reflected in Paralogous Chromosomal Regions in Man and the House Mouse. Genomics 1993, 16:1-19.
• [31]Hawks J, Wang ET, Cochran GM, Harpending HC, Moyzis RK: Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007, 104:20753-20758.
• [32]Lespinet O, Wolf YI, Koonin EV, Aravind L: The role of lineage-specific gene family expansion in the evolution of eukaryotes. Genome Res 2002, 12:1048-1059.
• [33]Taylor JS, Raes J: Duplication and divergence: The evolution of new genes and old ideas. Annu Rev Genet 2004, 38:615-643.
• [34]Hillier LW, Miller W, Birney E, Warren W, Hardison RC, Ponting CP, Bork P, Burt DW, Groenen MAM, Delany ME, et al.: Sequence and comparative analysis of the chicken genome provide unique perspectives on vertebrate evolution. Nature 2004, 432:695-716.
• [35]Larroux C, Luke GN, Koopman P, Rokhsar DS, Shimeld SM, Degnan BM: Genesis and expansion of metazoan transcription factor gene classes. Mol Biol Evol 2008, 25:980-996.
• [36]King N: The unicellular ancestry of animal development. Dev Cell 2004, 7:313-325.
• [37]King N, Hittinger CT, Carroll SB: Evolution of key cell signaling and adhesion protein families predates animal origins. Science 2003, 301:361-363.
• [38]Richards GS, Degnan BM: The dawn of developmental signaling in the Metazoa. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 2009, 74:81-90.
• [39]Caveney S, Cladman W, Verellen L, Donly C: Ancestry of neuronal monoamine transporters in the Metazoa. J Exp Biol 2006, 209:4858-4868.
• [40]Bargmann CI: Neurobiology of the Caenorhabditis elegans genome. Science 1998, 282:2028-2033.
• [41]Zhang XM, Firestein S: The olfactory receptor gene superfamily of the mouse. Nat Neurosci 2002, 5:124-133.
• [42]Niimura Y: On the Origin and Evolution of Vertebrate Olfactory Receptor Genes: Comparative Genome Analysis Among 23 Chordate Species. Genome Biol Evol 2009, 1:34-44.
• [43]Swigonova Z, Mohsen AW, Vockley J: Acyl-CoA Dehydrogenases: Dynamic History of Protein Family Evolution. J Mol Evol 2009, 69:176-193.
• [44]Kosiol C, Vinar T, da Fonseca RR, Hubisz MJ, Bustamante CD, Nielsen R, Siepel A: Patterns of Positive Selection in Six Mammalian Genomes. PLoS Genetics 2008, 4(8):e1000144.
• [45]Strom AR, Kaasen I: TREHALOSE METABOLISM IN ESCHERICHIA-COLI - STRESS PROTECTION AND STRESS REGULATION OF GENE-EXPRESSION. Mol Microbiol 1993, 8:205-210.
• [46]Horlacher R, Boos W: Characterization of TreR, the major regulator of the Escherichia coli trehalose system. J Biol Chem 1997, 272:13026-13032.
• [47]Arguelles JC: Physiological roles of trehalose in bacteria and yeasts: a comparative analysis. Arch Microbiol 2000, 174:217-224.
• [48]Keith PC, Kevin S: Molecular and genetic characterization of osmosensing and signal transduction in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. FEBS J 2007, 274:5782-5789.
• [49]Rao AU, Carta LK, Lesuisse E, Hamza I: Lack of herne synthesis in a free-living eukaryote. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2005, 102:4270-4275.
• [50]Boureux A, Vignal E, Faure S, Fort P: Evolution of the Rho family of Ras-like GTPases in eukaryotes. Mol Biol Evol 2007, 24:203-216.
• [51]Blaxter ML, Baker MR: Littlewood: Nematoda: Genes, genomes and the evolution of parasitism. In Adv Parasitol. Academic Press 2003, 54:101-195.
• [52]Miller F, Tobler H: Chromatin diminution in the parasitic nematodes Ascaris suum and Parascaris univalens. Int J Parasitol 2000, 30:391-399.
• [53]Denver DR, Morris K, Lynch M, Thomas WK: High mutation rate and predominance of insertions in the Caenorhabditis elegans nuclear genome. Nature 2004, 430:679-682.
• [54]Vogel C, Chothia C: Protein Family Expansions and Biological Complexity. PLoS Comput Biol 2006, 2:e48.
• [55]Kellis M, Birren BW, Lander ES: Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 2004, 428:617-624.
• [56]Wang YF, Gu X: Evolutionary patterns of gene families generated in the early stage of vertebrates. J Mol Evol 2001, 52:309-309.
• [57]Lundin L-G: Gene duplications in early metazoan evolution. Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology 1999, 10:523-530.
• [58]Quiquand M, Yanze N, Schmich J, Schmid V, Galliot B, Piraino S: More constraint on ParaHox than Hox gene families in early metazoan evolution. Dev Biol 2009, 328(2):173-187.
• [59]Stern A, Privman E, Rasis M, Lavi S, Pupko T: Evolution of the metazoan protein phosphatase 2 C superfamily. J Mol Evol 2007, 64:61-70.
• [60]Duan J, Li R, Cheng D, Fan W, Zha X, Cheng T, Wu Y, Wang J, Mita K, Xiang Z, Xia Q: SilkDB v2.0: a platform for silkworm (Bombyx mori) genome biology. Nucleic Acids Res 2010, 38:D453-D456.
• [61]Yook K, Harris TW, Bieri T, Cabunoc A, Chan J, Chen WJ, Davis P, de la Cruz N, Duong A, Fang R, et al.: WormBase 2012: more genomes, more data, new website. Nucleic Acids Res 2012, 40:D735-D741.
• [62]Mitreva M, Jasmer DP, Zarlenga DS, Wang Z, Abubucker S, Martin J, Taylor CM, Yin Y, Fulton L, Minx P, et al.: The draft genome of the parasitic nematode Trichinella spiralis. Nat Genet 2011, 43:228-235.
• [63]Glazko GV, Koonin EV, Rogozin IB: Molecular dating: ape bones agree with chicken entrails. Trends in Genetics 2005, 21:89-92.
• [64]Nei M, Xu P, Glazko G: Estimation of divergence times from multiprotein sequences for a few mammalian species and several distantly related organisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2001, 98:2497-2502.
• [65]Stein LD, Bao Z, Blasiar D, Blumenthal T, Brent MR, Chen N, Chinwalla A, Clarke L, Clee C, Coghlan A, et al.: The Genome Sequence of Caenorhabditis briggsae: A Platform for Comparative Genomics. PLoS Biol 2003, 1:e45.
• [66]Gaunt MW, Miles MA: An Insect Molecular Clock Dates the Origin of the Insects and Accords with Palaeontological and Biogeographic Landmarks. Mol Biol Evol 2002, 19:748-761.
• [67]O'Brien KP, Remm M, Sonnhammer ELL: Inparanoid: a comprehensive database of eukaryotic orthologs. Nucl Acids Res 2005, 33:D476-D480.
• [68]Finn RD, Mistry J, Schuster-Bockler B, Griffiths-Jones S, Hollich V, Lassmann T, Moxon S, Marshall M, Khanna A, Durbin R, et al.: Pfam: clans, web tools and services. Nucleic Acids Res 2006, 34:D247-D251.
• [69]Eddy SR: Profile hidden Markov models. Bioinformatics 1998, 14:755-763.
• [70]Gorecki P, Tiuryn J: URec: a system for unrooted reconciliation. Bioinformatics 2007, 23:511-512.
• [71]Edgar RC: MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 2004, 32:1792-1797.
• [72]Felsenstein J: PHYLIP-Phylogeny inference package (Version 3.2). Cladistics 1989, 5:164-166.
• [73]Grishin NV, Wolf YI, Koonin EV: From Complete Genomes to Measures of Substitution Rate Variability Within and Between Proteins. Genome Res 2000, 10:991-1000.
• [74]Hughes AL, Friedman R: Differential loss of ancestral gene families as a source of genomic divergence in animals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 2004, 271:S107-S109.
• [75]Le Quesne WJ: The uniquely evolved character concept and its cladistic application. Systematic Zoology 1974, 23:513-517.
• [76]Csuros M, Rogozin IB, Koonin EV: A detailed history of intron-rich eukaryotic ancestors inferred from a global survey of 100 complete genomes. PLoS Comput Biol 2011, 7:e1002150.
• [77]Knowles DG, McLysaght A: High rate of recent intron gain and loss in simultaneously duplicated Arabidopsis genes. Mol Biol Evol 2006, 23:1548-1557.
• [78]Huson DH, Steel M: Phylogenetic trees based on gene content. Bioinformatics 2004, 20:2044-2049.
• [79]Zdobnov EM, Apweiler R: InterProScan - an integration platform for the signature-recognition methods in InterPro. Bioinformatics 2001, 17:847-848.
• [80]Prufer K, Muetzel B, Do HH, Weiss G, Khaitovich P, Rahm E, Paabo S, Lachmann M, Enard W: FUNC: a package for detecting significant associations between gene sets and ontological annotations. BMC Bioinformatics 2007, 8:41.