| Literature DB >> 24587291 |
Juan Li1, Ke-Qin Zhang1.
Abstract
To get a comprehensive view of fungal M35 family (deuterolysin) and M36 family (fungalysin) genes, we conducted genome-wide investigations and phylogenetic analyses of genes in these two families from 50 sequenced Ascomycota fungi with different life styles. Large variations in the number of M35 family and M36 family genes were found among different fungal genomes, indicating that these two gene families have been highly dynamic through fungal evolution. Moreover, we found obvious expansions of Meps in two families of Onygenales: Onygenaceae and Arthodermataceae, whereas species in family Ajellomycetace did not show expansion of these genes. The strikingly different gene duplication and loss patterns in Onygenales may be associated with the different pathogenicity of these species. Interestingly, likelihood ratio tests (LRT) of both M35 family and M36 family genes suggested that several branches leading to the duplicated genes in dermatophytic and Coccidioides fungi had signatures of positive selection, indicating that the duplicated Mep genes have likely diverged functionally to play important roles during the evolution of pathogenicity of dermatophytic and Coccidioides fungi. The potentially positively selected residues discovered by our analysis may have contributed to the development of new physiological functions of the duplicated Mep genes in dermatophytic fungi and Coccidioides species. Our study adds to the current knowledge of the evolution of Meps in fungi and also establishes a theoretical foundation for future experimental investigations.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24587291 PMCID: PMC3938660 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090225
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Number of both M35 family and M36 family genes in different fungal species.
| Species | Host | Taxonomy | M35 family | M36 family | Total |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Eurotiomycetes:Onygenales:Onygenaceae | 7 | 2 | 9 |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Eurotiomycetes:Onygenales:Onygenaceae | 7 | 2 | 9 |
|
| saprophyte | Eurotiomycetes:Onygenales:Onygenaceae | 4 | 2 | 6 |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Eurotiomycetes:Onygenales:Arthodermataceae | 5 | 5 | 10 |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Eurotiomycetes:Onygenales:Arthodermataceae | 5 | 5 | 10 |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Eurotiomycetes:Onygenales:Arthodermataceae | 5 | 4 | 9 |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Eurotiomycetes:Onygenales:Arthodermataceae | 5 | 4 | 9 |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Eurotiomycetes:Onygenales:Arthodermataceae | 5 | 5 | 10 |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Eurotiomycetes:Onygenales:Ajellomycetaceae | 1 | - | 1 |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Eurotiomycetes:Onygenales:Ajellomycetaceae | 1 | - | 1 |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Eurotiomycetes:Onygenales:Ajellomycetaceae | 2 | - | 2 |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Eurotiomycetes:Eurotiales:Trichocomaceae | 6 | 2 | 8 |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Eurotiomycetes:Eurotiales:Trichocomaceae | 3 | 1 | 4 |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Eurotiomycetes:Eurotiales:Trichocomaceae | 2 | 1 | 3 |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Eurotiomycetes:Eurotiales:Trichocomaceae | 2 | 1 | 3 |
|
| saprophyte | Eurotiomycetes:Eurotiales:Trichocomaceae | 1 | 1 | 2 |
|
| saprophyte | Eurotiomycetes:Eurotiales:Trichocomaceae | - | 1 | 1 |
|
| saprophyte | Eurotiomycetes:Eurotiales:Trichocomaceae | 4 | - | 4 |
|
| saprophyte | Eurotiomycetes:Eurotiales:Trichocomaceae | 5 | 2 | 7 |
|
| saprophyte | Eurotiomycetes:Eurotiales:Trichocomaceae | 1 | - | 1 |
|
| endophyte | Sordariomycetes | - | - | - |
|
| endophyte | Sordariomycetes | - | - | - |
|
| phytopathogen | Sordariomycetes | 1 | 1 | 2 |
|
| phytopathogen | Sordariomycetes | 2 | 1 | 3 |
|
| phytopathogen | Sordariomycetes | 2 | 1 | 3 |
|
| phytopathogen | Sordariomycetes | 2 | 1 | 3 |
|
| phytopathogen | Sordariomycetes | 3 | 2 | 5 |
|
| entomopathogen | Sordariomycetes | 1 | - | 1 |
|
| saprophyte | Sordariomycetes | 2 | - | 2 |
|
| saprophyte | Sordariomycetes | - | - | - |
|
| phytopathogen | Sordariomycetes | 4 | 2 | 6 |
|
| phytopathogen | Sordariomycetes | 3 | 2 | 5 |
|
| saprophyte | Sordariomycetes | 1 | 1 | 2 |
|
| saprophyte | Sordariomycetes | 1 | 1 | 2 |
|
| saprophyte | Sordariomycetes | 1 | 1 | 2 |
|
| phytopathogen | Dothideomycetes | 2 | 2 | 4 |
|
| phytopathogen | Dothideomycetes | 1 | 1 | 2 |
|
| phytopathogen | Leotiomycetes | 2 | - | 2 |
|
| phytopathogen | Leotiomycetes | 2 | - | 2 |
|
| phytopathogen | Leotiomycetes | 2 | - | 2 |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Saccharomycotina | - | - | - |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Saccharomycotina | - | - | - |
|
| vertebrate pathogen | Saccharomycotina | - | - | - |
|
| saprophyte | Saccharomycotina | - | - | - |
|
| saprophyte | Saccharomycotina | - | - | - |
|
| saprophyte | Saccharomycotina | - | - | - |
|
| saprophyte | Saccharomycotina | - | - | - |
|
| saprophyte | Taphrinomycotina | - | - | - |
|
| saprophyte | Taphrinomycotina | - | - | - |
|
| saprophyte | Basidiomycota: Agaricomycotina | 2 | 4 | 6 |
Figure 1ML tree based on amino acid sequences of 105 M35 family genes.
The tree was performed using PHYML 3.0[17]. The best-fitting model WAG+I+G and their parameters (I = 0.03, G = 1.912) which were estimated by program ProtTest [50] were used in the ML analysis. The reliability of the tree topology was evaluated using bootstrap support [20] with 100.
Figure 2ML tree based on amino acid sequences of 58 M36 family genes.
The tree was performed using PHYML 3.0[17]. The best-fitting model WAG+I+G and their parameters (I = 0.038, G = 1.149) which were estimated by program ProtTest [50] were used in the ML analysis. The reliability of the tree topology was evaluated using bootstrap support [20] with 100.
Figure 3Duplication and loss events of M35 family genes and M36 family genes in Onygenales fungi.
The reconciliation between species tree and gene tree of Onygenales fungi along with the confirmation of the gene loss/duplication scenario were determined by using Notung 2.6 [21]. The species tree of Onygenales fungi is shown as Fig. S7. Putative duplication events are indicated with solid cycles, while loss events are indicated with thick branches. a, duplication and loss events of M35 family genes. b, duplication and loss events of M36 family genes.
Figure 4Duplication and loss events of M35 family genes in Eurotiales fungi.
The reconciliation between species tree and gene tree of Eurotiales fungi along with the confirmation of the gene loss/duplication scenario were determined by using Notung 2.6 [21]. The species tree of Eurotiale fungi is shown as Fig. S8. Putative duplication events are indicated with solid cycles, while loss events are indicated with thick branches. 1, the lineage includes species of A. fumigatus, N. fischeri and A. clavatus. 2, the lineage includes species of A. nidulans, A. terreus, A. oryza and A. flavus.
CODEML analyses of selective pattern for M35 family genes.
| Models | In | Parameter Estimates | 2Δ | Positively Selected Sites | ||
| Branch-specific models | M0 | −16572.48016 | ω = 0.25237 | 455.838*** | ||
| M1a | −16344.56115 | |||||
| Site-specific models | M1a | −16214.65883 | ω0 = 0.17007,ω1 = 1,p0 = 0.67270,p1 = 0.32730 | Not allowed | ||
| M2a | −16214.65883 | ω0 = 0.17007,ω1 = 1,ω2 = 1,p0 = 0.67270,p1 = 0.23742,p2 = 0.08988 | None | |||
| M7 | −15986.8697 | p = 0.63889,q = 1.50238 | 425.426*** | Not allowed | ||
| M8 | −16199.58278 | p = 0.25117,q = 1.45893,p0 = 1.00000,p1 = 0.00000,ω = 2.85555 | 55(0.999), 76(0.983) | |||
| Branch-site models | Branch | Null | −29907.40643 | ω0 = 0.19365,ω1 = 1,ω2 = 1,p0 = 0.60899,p2a = 0.03351,p2b = 0.01865 | 12.5344*** | 150 (0.993), 166(0.991),203(0.995) |
| Alterative | −29901.13922 | ω0 = 0.19364,ω1 = 1, | ||||
| Branch | Null | −29906.27165 | ω0 = 0.19306,ω1 = 1,ω2 = 1,p0 = 0.59293,p2a = 0.04993,p2b = 0.02774 | 30.5388*** | 177(0.998),255(0.997) | |
| Alterative | −29891.00224 | ω0 = 0.19391,ω1 = 1, | ||||
| Branch | Null | −29901.87988 | ω0 = 0.19307,ω1 = 1,ω2 = 1,p0 = 0.47997,p2a = 0.17002,p2b = 0.09155 | 37.969704*** | 57(0.995),79(0.997),85(0.997),99(0.991) | |
| Alterative | −29882.89503 | ω0 = 0.19340,ω1 = 1, | ||||
| Branch | Null | −29907.74419 | ω0 = 0.19363,ω1 = 1,ω2 = 1,p0 = 0.55036,p2a = 0.09431,p2b = 0.05198 | 9.352552*** | 63(0.983), 84(0.980) | |
| Alterative | −29903.06791 | ω0 = 0.19389,ω1 = 1, | ||||
InL is the log-likelihood scores.
LRT to detect adaptive evolution. *** P<0.001
Posterior probabilities value of each codon site were showed in parentheses.
CODEML analyses of selective pattern for M36 family genes.
| Models | In | Parameter Estimates | 2Δ | Positively Selected Sites | ||
| Branch-specific models | M0 | −20322.45718 | ω = 0.14200 | 348.64117*** | ||
| M1a | −20148.1366 | |||||
| Site-specific models | M1a | −19897.27048 | ω0 = 0.09291,ω1 = 1,p0 = 0.80509,p1 = 0.19491 | Not allowed | ||
| M2a | −19897.27048 | ω0 = 0.09291,ω1 = 1,ω2 = 1,p0 = 0.80509,p1 = 0.13245,p2 = 0.06245 | None | |||
| M7 | −19953.94322 | p = 0.38777,q = 1.85670 | 472.167858*** | Not allowed | ||
| M8 | −20190.02715 | p = 1.04901,q = 1.52775,p0 = 1.00000,p1 = 0.00000,ω = 2.59980 | 158 (0.999), 172(0.999), 198(0.992), 208 (0.992), 251(0.998), 380 (0.996), 391(0.993) | |||
| Branch-site models | Branch | Null | −19892.13564 | ω0 = 0.09167,ω1 = 1,ω2 = 1,p0 = 0.72573,p2a = 0.08330,p2b = 0.01966 | 9.52853*** | 183 (0.996), 267(0.996),401(0.993) |
| Alterative | −19887.37138 | ω0 = 0.09239,ω1 = 1, | ||||
| Branch | Null | −19890.9925 | ω0 = 0.09154,ω1 = 1,ω2 = 1,p0 = 0.73420,p2a = 0.07504,p2b = 0.01769 | 13.15426*** | 40(0.996) | |
| Alterative | −19884.41539 | ω0 = 0.09212,ω1 = 1, | ||||
| Branch | Null | −19884.48335 | ω0 = 0.09220,ω1 = 1,ω2 = 1,p0 = 0.68433,p2a = 0.13556,p2b = 0.02978 | 21.171318*** | 139(0.994), 221(0.995),232(0.996),300(0.990)510(0.998) | |
| Alterative | −19873.89769 | ω0 = 0.09356,ω1 = 1, | ||||
InL is the log-likelihood scores.
LRT to detect adaptive evolution. *** P<0.001
Posterior probabilities value of each codon site were showed in parentheses.
Figure 5Phylogenetic tree of 62 M35 family genes used for codon-based maximum likelihood analysis in PAML.
Phylogenetic trees were collapsed with inconsistent nodes from different tree-building methods and poor statistical supports into polytomy. Branches a-s indicated putative duplication events in Onygenales fungi. The branches with significant evidence of positive selection are indicated as a thick branch. The putative positively selected residues along these branches were shaded in grey.
Figure 6Phylogenetic tree of 38 M36 family genes used for codon-based maximum likelihood analysis in PAML.
Phylogenetic trees were collapsed with inconsistent nodes from different tree-building methods and poor statistical supports into polytomy. Branches a-j indicated putative duplication events in Onygenales fungi. The branches with significant evidence of positive selection are indicated as a thick branch. The putative positively selected residues along these branches were shaded in grey.