| Literature DB >> 25389445 |
Guangjian Liu1, Lutz Walter2, Suni Tang3, Xinxin Tan4, Fanglei Shi1, Huijuan Pan5, Christian Roos2, Zhijin Liu6, Ming Li1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Umami and sweet tastes are two important basic taste perceptions that allow animals to recognize diets with nutritious carbohydrates and proteins, respectively. Until recently, analyses of umami and sweet taste were performed on various domestic and wild animals. While most of these studies focused on the pseudogenization of taste genes, which occur mostly in carnivores and species with absolute feeding specialization, omnivores and herbivores were more or less neglected. Catarrhine primates are a group of herbivorous animals (feeding mostly on plants) with significant divergence in dietary preference, especially the specialized folivorous Colobinae. Here, we conducted the most comprehensive investigation to date of selection pressure on sweet and umami taste genes (TAS1Rs) in catarrhine primates to test whether specific adaptive evolution occurred during their diversification, in association with particular plant diets.Entities:
Keywords: Adaptive evolution; Catarrhine primates; Episodic relaxation of selective constraints; Positive selection; Pseudogenization; TAS1Rs
Year: 2014 PMID: 25389445 PMCID: PMC4226867 DOI: 10.1186/s12983-014-0079-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Zool ISSN: 1742-9994 Impact factor: 3.172
Figure 1Schematic of umami receptor structure and ORF-disrupting mutations of . (A) Schematic of umami receptor structure. ORF-disrupting mutations are marked. (B) ORF-disrupting mutations. A1 and A2 denote the pair of TAS1R1 alleles of Pygathrix nemaeus. The first line of each aligned group is intact sequence. The codon that contains the ORF-disrupting mutation (marked with red and underlined) is indicated by a box.
CODEML analyses of selective pattern on the in catarrhine primates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| M0:one-ratio | −7258.8072 | ω = 0.1608 | |||
| M1:free-ratio | −7211.2267 | M0 vs. M1 | 95.1610 |
| |
| Foreground branch: ancestral Colobinae | |||||
| H1: ω0, ω1 | −7256.0276 | M0 vs. H1 | 5.5592 |
| ω0 = 0.1548, ω1 = 0.5583 |
| H0: ω0, ω1 = 1 | −7256.4033 | H0 vs. H1 | 0.7514 |
| ω0 = 0.1543, ω1 = 1.0000 |
| Foreground branch: ancestral | |||||
| H1: ω0, ω1 | −7256.8606 | M0 vs. H1 | 3.8932 |
| ω0 = 0.1570, ω1 = 0.5554 |
| H0: ω0, ω1 = 1 | −7257.1816 | H0 vs. H1 | 0.6420 |
| ω0 = 0.1570, ω1 = 1.0000 |
|
| |||||
| M1a | −7149.5623 | p0 = 0.8609, p1 = 0.1391,ω0 = 0.0451, ω1 = 1.0000 | |||
| M2a | −7145.1097 | M1a vs. M2a | 8.9052 |
| p0 = 0.8669, p1 = 0.1198, p2 = 0.0133, ω0 = 0.0499, ω1 = 1.0000, ω2 = 3.6223 |
| M8a | −7149.3577 | p0 = 0.8725( p1 = 0.1275), p = 0.4874, q = 7.5964, ω = 1.0000 | |||
| M8 | −7143.4448 | M8a vs. M8 | 11.8258 |
| p0 = 0.9744( p1 = 0.0257), p = 0.1750, q = 1.1154, ω = 2.8718 |
|
| |||||
| Lineages of Cercopithecidae | |||||
| Null | −7146.1093 | p0 = 0.8463, p1 = 0.0953, p2a = 0.0525 p2b = 0.0059,ω0 = 0.0407, ω1 = 1.0000 ω2 = 1.0000 | |||
| Alternative | −7144.2553 | 3.7080 |
| p0 = 0.8683, p1 = 0.0924, p2a = 0.0354 p2b = 0.0038,ω0 = 0.0481, ω1 = 1.000 ω2 = 2.0345 | |
| Lineages of Colobinae | |||||
| Null | −7145.5063 | p0 = 0.8299, p1 = 0.1176, p2a = 0.0460 p2b = 0.0065,ω0 = 0.0396, ω1 = 1.0000,ω2 = 1.0000 | |||
| Alternative | −7143.7154 | 3.5818 |
| p0 = 0.8542, p1 = 0.1162, p2a = 0.0261 p2b = 0.0036,ω0 = 0.0428, ω1 = 1.0000 ω2 = 2.4997, | |
| Lineages of Cercopithecinae | |||||
| Null | −7148.7133 | p0 = 0.8512, p1 = 0.1292, p2a = 0.0170 p2b = 0.0026,ω0 = 0.0440, ω1 = 1.0000,ω2 = 1.0000 | |||
| Alternative | −7143.4285 | 10.5696 |
| p0 = 0.8639, p1 = 0.1228, p2a = 0.0116 p2b = 0.0017,ω0 = 0.0466, ω1 = 1.0000 ω2 = 5.8766 | |
| Lineages of Hylobatidae | |||||
| Null | −7149.1766 | p0 = 0.8489, p1 = 0.1326, p2a = 0.0161 p2b = 0.0025,ω0 = 0.0442, ω1 = 1.000 ω2 = 1.0000 | |||
| Alternative | −7143.6646 | 11.0240 |
| p0 = 0.8612, p1 = 0.1297, p2a = 0.0079, p2b = 0.0012,ω0 = 0.0462, ω1 = 1.000 ω2 = 11.8832 | |
Figure 2Radical amino acid changes in selected sites across the catarrhine primates phylogeny of The input tree used for pressure analysis of TAS1R2 is shown on the left. Positively selected sites detected by site models and branch-site models are shown on the right. Radical changes are shown in bold and underlined, and changes detected by branch-site models are marked in red additionally. Callithrix jacchus was used as outgroup, but not included in the CODEML analysis. Lineages under positive selection are marked in red, while lineages experienced relaxation of selective constraints are marked in blue.
CODEML analyses of selective pattern on the in catarrhine primates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| M0:one-ratio | −6347.5127 | ω = 0.2486 | |||
| M1:free-ratio | −6316.3339 | M0 vs. M1 | 62.3576 |
| |
| Foreground branch: all lineages of Cercopithecidae except for the ancestral branch | |||||
| H1: ω0, ω1 | −6344.8700 | M0 vs. H1 | 5.2854 |
| ω0 = 0.3112, ω1 = 0.1981 |
| H0: ω0, ω1 = 1 | −6412.3663 | H0 vs. H1 | 134.9926 |
| ω0 = 0.3149, ω1 = 1.0000 |
| Foreground branch: ancestral of | |||||
| H1: ω0, ω1 | −6343.4866 | M0 vs. H1 | 8.0522 |
| ω0 = 0.2419, ω1 = +∞ |
| Foreground branch: ancestral of | |||||
| H1: ω0, ω1 | −6345.0477 | M0 vs. H1 | 4.9300 |
| ω0 = 0.2379, ω1 = 0.7772 |
| H0: ω0, ω1 = 1 | −6345.1667 | H0 vs. H1 | 0.2380 |
| ω0 = 0.2379, ω1 = 1.0000 |
|
| |||||
| M1a | −6316.1817 | p0 = 0.8312, p1 = 0.1688, ω0 = 0.0859, ω1 = 1.0000 | |||
| M2a | −6310.5399 | M1a vs. M2a | 11.2836 |
| p0 = 0.8708, p1 = 0.1159, p2 = 0.0133, ω0 = 0.1137, ω1 = 1.0000, ω2 = 4.7335 |
| M8a | −6316.2094 | p0 = 0.8318( p1 = 0.1682), p = 9.4660, q = 99.0000, ω = 1.0000 | |||
| M8 | −6310.7199 | M8a vs. M8 | 10.9790 |
| p0 = 0.9794( p1 = 0.0206), p = 0.4478, q = 1.7622, ω = 4.0147 |
|
| |||||
| Lineages of Cercopithecidae | |||||
| Null | −6316.1817 | p0 = 0.8312, p1 = 1688 p2a = 0.0000, p2b = 0.0000 ω0 = 0.0859, ω1 = 1.0000 ω2 = 1.0000 | |||
| Alternative | −6308.6453 | 15.0728 |
| p0 = 0.8384, p1 = 1583 p2a = 0.0027, p2b = 0.0005 ω0 = 0.0936, ω1 = 1.0000 ω2 = 13.4610 | |
+∞ means infinite, and in this case d =0 thus ω (d /d )= +∞.
Figure 3Radical amino acid changes in selected sites across the catarrhine primates phylogeny of . The input tree used for pressure analysis of TAS1R1 is shown on the left. Positively selected sites detected by site models and branch-site models are shown on the right. Radical changes are shown in bold and are underlined, and changes detected by branch-site models are marked in red additionally. Callithrix jacchus was used as outgroup, but not included in the CODEML analysis. Lineages under positive selection are marked in red, while lineages experienced relaxation of selective constraints are marked in blue.
CODEML analyses of selective pattern on the in catarrhine primates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| M0:one-ratio | −7676.8782 | ω = 0.1342 | |||
| M1:free-ratio | −7638.3982 | M0 vs. M1 | 76.9600 |
| |
|
| |||||
| M1a | −7623.3051 | p0 = 0.8913, p1 = 0.1087, ω0 = 0.0632, ω1 = 1.0000 | |||
| M2a | −7623.3051 | M1a vs. M2a | 0.0000 |
| p0 = 0.8913, p1 = 0.0609, p2 = 0.0478, ω0 = 0.0632, ω1 = 1.000, ω2 = 1.0000 |
| M8a | −7619.6648 | p0 = 0.9461( p1 = 0.0539), p = 0.2391, q = 1.8178, ω = 1.0000 | |||
| M8 | −7619.7175 | M8a vs. M8 | 0.1054 |
| p0 = 0.9678( p1 = 0.0322), p = 0.2634, q = 1.9053, ω = 1.1121 |
|
| |||||
| Lineages of | |||||
| Null | −7622.2362 | p0 = 0.8389, p1 = 0.1004 p2a = 0.0543, p2b = 0.0065 ω0 = 0.0619, ω1 = 1.000, ω2 = 1.0000 | |||
| Alternative | −7620.4248 | 3.6228 |
| p0 = 0.8877, p1 = 0.1058 p2a = 0.0059, p2b = 0.0007 ω0 = 0.0621, ω1 = 1.000, ω2 = 21.4208 | |
Figure 4Radical amino acid changes in selected sites across the catarrhine primates phylogeny of The input tree used for pressure analysis of TAS1R3 is shown on the left. Positively selected sites detected by site models and branch-site models are shown on the right. Radical changes are shown in bold and underlined, and changes detected by branch-site models are marked in red additionally. Callithrix jacchus was used as outgroup, but not included in the CODEML analysis. Lineages under positive selection are marked in red.
Figure 5Homology models of TAS1R1 and TAS1R2 VFTM domain. (A) The model of TAS1R1 VFTM domain, and positive selection sites locating at binding regions are marked. (B) The model of TAS1R2 VFTM domain, and positive selection sites locating at binding regions are marked.
Functional TAS1R binding sites for sweet and umami tastants from previous studies and the mutation in catarrhine primates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aspartame | hTAS1R21 | S40T | abolish aspartame sensitivity | S40T in Cercopithecidae | Liu et al. [ |
| Neotame | hTAS1R2 | I67S | reduce response to neotame sightly | I67M only in Colobinae | Liu et al. [ |
| Lactisole | hTAS1R3 | A733V | reduce sensitivity to lactisole | A733V in Cercopithecidae | Jiang et al. [ |
| Monosodium glutamate (MSG) | hTAS1R3 | R757C | reduce sensitivity to MSG | R757H in | Raliou et al. [ |
| Monopotassium glutamate (MPG) | hTAS1R3 | R757C | increase sensitivity to MPG | R757H in | Chen et al. [ |
1h denotes human.