Molecular Evolution Forum
Time 2021-10-18 20:06:16Web Name: Molecular Evolution Forum
WebSite: http://molecularevolutionforum.blogspot.com
ID:206961
Keywords:
Molecular,Evolution,Forum,Description:
keywords: description:Introduction of notable papers and books
The purpose of this forum is to introduce notable papers and books published by you and other persons. The work can be new or old, but it should be of wide interest and high quality. A brief comment on the significance of the work should be attached. The current categories of the subjects are (1) adaptation, (2) behavioral evolution, (3) dosage compensation, (4) evo-devo, (5) gene evolution, (6) genomic evolution, (7) molecular phylogeny, (8) natural selection, (9) phenotypic evolution, (10) sensory receptors, (11) sex chromosomes, (12) sex determination, (13) speciation, (14) symbiosis and evolution, and (15) horizontal gene transfer. However, new categories can be added if necessary. Emphasis will be given on the biological work rather than on the mathematical. Any person may post a paper by sending it to one of the editors listed below. We also welcome your comments on posted work, but we moderate all the comments to control spam. This forum is primarily for scientific discussion and to construct a database for good molecular evolution papers.
Friday, March 14, 2014 Horizontal Gene Transfer Takes a Turn: Expansins from Plants to their Bacterial and Eukaryotic ParasitesLabels:Horizontal gene transferContributed by: Dimitra Chalkia
Genetic material is inherited from parentsto offspring and this process is known as vertical transmission. Howevergenetic material can be transferred form one organism to another in a non-genealogicalfashion. Such type of transmission is defined as horizontal transmission or genetransfer (HGT) (1). Although mechanisms for the transfer of genetic materialbetween organisms were known from the early years of molecular biology andgenetics research, and the theoretical potential of cross-species gene transferin evolution was proposed in the 1980s, the concept of HGT emerged in the 1990s(2). It was invoked as an alternative explanation for rarely observed incongruentphylogenetic relationships between species (2). However, the recentavailability of genome sequence information and the thorough study of multiple pro-and eukaryotic genomes has revealed that HGT is pervasive and powerful amongmicrobes (1,2,3). Additionally, more recent studies have shown that HGT is alsoevident between animals and bacteria, with the bacteria being the donor species(4,5). In plants, HGT has been relatively well documented, and in most casesinvolves the transfer of genetic material from a parasite to its host plant. Yet,HGTs with the plant species being the donor have rarely been documented.
Recently Nikolaidis et al (6) reported arare case of HGT from plants to multiple plant parasites or free living microorganisms.Specifically, they found that members of the plant expansin gene family, whichcode for plant cell-wall loosening proteins and are comprised of two distinctprotein domains D1 and D2, were transferred from plants to bacteria, fungi, andunicellular eukaryotes (amoebozoa).
Having previously established that thebacterial protein EXLX1 from Bacillus subtilisis structurally and functionally very similar to plant expansins (7,8,9),Nikolaidis et al investigated the evolution of the expansin family in-depth. Todo so they used the bacterial EXLX1 sequence as their primary-sequence databaseinterrogator. Like expansins, EXLX1protein contains two domains, D1 and D2, which are tightly packed structurallywith a conserved open surface spanning both of them (Figure 1a,b). To ensurethat the resulted raw sequence alignments of their exhaustive similaritysearches are not random hits, the authors employed a set of established strict searchcriteria. Remarkably, they identified numeroussequences from bacteria, fungi, and amoebozoa that align to both EXLX1 domainsand therefore may share ancestry with it. If so, the identified sequences are EXLX1homologs. By employing proven phylogenetic tools and methods, as well asprotein domain and fold recognition programs, the authors confirmed that allidentified proteins contain both expansin domains, and showed that thepredicted protein structures are very similar to both B. subtilis EXLX1 and plant expansins, further supporting the homologyinference (Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1. The EXLX1 homologsare predicted to contain two domains, fold similarly to the Zea mays EXPB1 (a) and the B. subtilis EXLX1 (b), and contain aconserved long hydrophobic surface. (c, d) structural alignments of thethree-dimensional models of the EXLX1 homologs from Ralstonia and Erwiniawith the EXLX1structure. Surface (e) and ribbon (f) representations of theEXLX1 structure are colored according to conservation in 70 EXP domainsequences from bacteria and fungi (blue to red with increasingconservation). From Nikolaidis et al. (2014) (6).
Figure 2. TheBacillus subtilis EXLX1protein has manyhomologs in bacteria, fungi, and amoebozoa. (a) Phylogeneticrelationships of representativeB. subtilisEXLX1 homologs. Twodifferent phylogenetic methods (NJ and ML) were used with gamma-distributeddistances from the WAG substitution model withα= 1.72.Alignment gaps were excluded and the total number of sites used to constructthe trees was 176. The numbers at the nodes are bootstrap values (NJ/ML). Thebiology of each species is shown with different symbols next to the speciesname. Species names abbreviations are given insupplementary table S1, SupplementaryMaterialonline. Only sequences producing BLAST hits with E-values lowerthan 104and query coverage higher than 80% were used for theconstruction of these trees (b). Many EXLX1homologs contain additionaldomains. The domain organization of the EXLX1 homologs was identified using theConserved Domains Database (CDD) database from NCBI coupled to fold recognitionanalysis. We define as expansin the domain that contains both D1 and D2 domainsaccording to the EXLX1structure (Kerff et al. 2008;Georgelis et al. 2013).From Nikolaidis et al. (2014) (6).
However, sequence similarity is not sufficient forshowing the genetic-material-transmission typevertical or horizontal. Five significantobservations led the authors to support the HGT type: a) the sporadicdistribution of organisms harboring expansin homologs, b) the biologicalfeatures of these organisms plant pathogens, soil inhabitants, or celluloseproducers, c) the incongruence between the phylogenetic tree derived from EXLX1and its homologs and the established bacterial or fungal species tree, d) thefusion of additional and shared protein domains (cellulase GH5 orcarbohydrate-binding modules) in several EXLX1 homologs, and e) the functionalsimilarities between microbial and plant expansins, especially the lack ofcatalytic activity. The latter observation argues against convergence (independentfusion of D1 and D2 domains) because such a scenario would require the biochemicallyand evolutionarily improbable independent loss and gain of the same amino acidresidues in multiple distant phyla.
Relaxing the criteria of their sequence similaritysearches, the authors also examined whether sequences similar to each one ofthe two expansin domains exist. Their results were positive for both domains. Applyingtheir phylogenetic/protein fold recognition methodology to the sequencessimilar only to the second expansin domain (D2), the authors showed that thefungal swollenin protein family is homologous to expansins. Swollenin proteinsare composed of two domains, too. Interestingly, although their N-terminal D1domain contains many conserved insertions and therefore bears very low similaritywith the expansin D1 domain, the folding patterns are very similar.
Regarding the timing of the expansin HGT, the lack ofany differences in parametric measures such as GC-content, amino acid ornucleotide usage, etc., in the EXLX1 homologs allowed the authors to concludeit was not recent. Two additional observations augmented this conclusion.First, the phylogenetic patterns revealed that the HGT of expansins wasfollowed by vertical transfers during certain fungal or amoebozoan speciesevolution. Second, several bacterial and fungal distant species containexpansin genes fused with cellulose GH5 and carbohydrate-binding domains,respectively. According to the authors phylogenetic analysis these extradomains were most likely acquired independently by convergence. Therefore theHGT of expansins from plants to other organisms preceded the long-lasting andslow events of convergence and speciation. Hence it must be ancient.
Regarding the origin of the expansin gene family, theauthors, following a reductio ad absurdumargumentation, favor the scenario of a single origin in the common ancestor ofplants and subsequent horizontal transmission to non-plant species. The patchy distributionof EXLX1 homologs in a small percentage of the tested bacterial (128/4,281 or3%) and fungal (28 /543 or 5.2%) genomes argues against a single origin inbacteria and subsequent vertical transmission, since such a scenario demandsthe absurd assumption of multiple independent gene losses. Additionally, the authors previouslyreported functional similarities between plant and microbial expansins (8,9) arguesagainst convergence, and therefore augments the single origin scenario.
Nikolaidis et al., offer a long list of logical andtightly woven arguments for the HGT scenario of non-plant expansins. However they do admitthe difficulty of proving it beyondreasonable doubt. Another taskyet harder in the case of expansinsis to determineprecisely the donor and recipient species, as well as its mechanism and timing.As more genomes are being sequenced we will probably be able to define at leasta plant lineage that contributed its expansins to its intimately associated parasites.If so, then investigation for the potential mechanisms of HGT will be somehoweased. A current plausible suchmechanism includes a plasmid-mediated transfer (10).
Besides the mechanism and timing of expansins HGT,their adaptive significance for the recipient species is of essence. Experimentalstudies on the physiological role of non-plant expansins have started to shedlight on this topic. The authors report several such studies and propose that theHGT of expansin proteins in plant-interacting microbes contributed new oralternative tools for colonization or infection. The latter hypothesis impliesan adaptive advantage for the plant-infecting organisms and together with theresults of other reports on the role of HGT to the emergence of new diseasessuggests that the observed rarity of HGT is not indicative of its importance inorganismal evolution.