| Literature DB >> 27774041 |
Shin-Ichi Yokobori1, Yoshiki Nakajima1, Satoshi Akanuma2, Akihiko Yamagishi1.
Abstract
Bacteria and Eukarya have cell membranes with sn-glycerol-3-phosphate (G3P), whereas archaeal membranes contain sn-glycerol-1-phosphate (G1P). Determining the time at which cells with either G3P-lipid membranes or G1P-lipid membranes appeared is important for understanding the early evolution of terrestrial life. To clarify this issue, we reconstructed molecular phylogenetic trees of G1PDH (G1P dehydrogenase; EgsA/AraM) which is responsible for G1P synthesis and G3PDHs (G3P dehydrogenase; GpsA and GlpA/GlpD) and glycerol kinase (GlpK) which is responsible for G3P synthesis. Together with the distribution of these protein-encoding genes among archaeal and bacterial groups, our phylogenetic analyses suggested that GlpA/GlpD in the Commonote (the last universal common ancestor of all extant life with a cellular form, Commonote commonote) acquired EgsA (G1PDH) from the archaeal common ancestor (Commonote archaea) and acquired GpsA and GlpK from a bacterial common ancestor (Commonote bacteria). In our scenario based on this study, the Commonote probably possessed a G3P-lipid membrane synthesized enzymatically, after which the archaeal lineage acquired G1PDH followed by the replacement of a G3P-lipid membrane with a G1P-lipid membrane.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27774041 PMCID: PMC5059525 DOI: 10.1155/2016/1802675
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Archaea ISSN: 1472-3646 Impact factor: 3.273
Figure 1Overview of the stereospecific biosynthetic pathways of G1P and G3P.
Figure 2Five hypotheses regarding the early evolution of cell membrane glycerolipid backbone. LUCA: last universal common ancestor. C. commonote was defined as the cellular last universal common ancestor [5]. (a) The C. commonote had a heterochiral polar lipid membrane. Both G1P and G3P were used, but they might have been synthesized via a nonenzymatic pathway (absence of G1PDH and G3PDH in C. commonote cell) or via an enzymatic pathway (certain enzymes did not have specificity to either G1P or G3P; both G1P and G3P were created by a single enzyme). Then, C. bacteria acquired G3PDH and acquired a G3P-homochiral polar lipid membrane. On the other hand, the archaeal common ancestor acquired G1PDH with a G1P-homochiral polar lipid membrane. (b) The C. commonote had G3PDH. Therefore, C. commonote had a G3P-homochiral polar lipid membrane. C. archaea acquired G1PDH, and then the G3P-homochiral polar lipid membrane was replaced by a G1P-homochiral polar lipid membrane. (c) C. commonote had G1PDH. Therefore, C. commonote had a G1P-homochiral polar lipid membrane. C. bacteria acquired G3PDH, and then the G1P-homochiral polar lipid membrane was replaced by a G3P-homochiral polar lipid membrane. (d) C. commonote had both G1PDH and G3PDH. Therefore, C. commonote had a heterochiral polar lipid membrane (G1PDH created G1P and G3PDH created G3P). In the bacterial line, G1PDH was lost. Then, Bacteria acquired a G3P-homochiral polar lipid membrane. G3PDH was then lost in the archaeal line. Archaea then acquired a G1P-homochiral polar lipid membrane. (e) The LUCA did not have membrane structure. (The C. commonote is cellular LUCA. Therefore, we do not use the term “C. commonote” for this hypothesis.) The bacterial line then acquired G3PDH and acquired a G3P-homochiral polar lipid membrane. The archaeal line also acquired G1PDH and acquired a G1P-homochiral polar lipid membrane.
Figure 3Outline of the G1PDH (EgsA/AraM) tree (ML method). The tree was constructed using RAxML version 7.4.2 [29] with the PROTGAMMALG model. The alignment with 182 OTUs and with 252 sites without any indels was used. The bootstrap analysis was carried out with 100 resamplings (slow option). The log likelihood of this tree is −44885.4. The bootstrap probability (BP) larger than 50% is shown at each node of the tree. The monophyletic group consisting of the same taxonomic group is shown in a simplified presentation. For the details of this tree, see Supplementary Figure S9.
Figure 4Outline of the G3PDH (GpsA) tree (ML method). The tree was constructed using RAxML version 7.4.2 [29] with the PROTGAMMALG model. The alignment with 305 OTUs and with 84 sites without any indels was used. The bootstrap analysis was carried out with 100 resamplings (slow option). The log likelihood of this tree is −29616.6. The bootstrap probability (BP) larger than 50% is shown at each node of the tree. The monophyletic group consisting of the same taxonomic group is shown in a simplified presentation. For the details of this tree, see Supplementary Figure S11.
Figure 5Outline of the G3PDH (GlpA/GlpD) tree (ML method). The tree was constructed using RAxML version 7.4.2 [29] with the PROTGAMMALG model. The alignment with 282 OTUs and with 239 sites without any indels was used. The bootstrap analysis was done with 100 resamplings (slow option). The log likelihood of this tree is −70287.6. The bootstrap probability (BP) larger than 50% is shown at each node of the tree. The monophyletic group consisting of the same taxonomic group is shown in a simplified presentation. For the details of this tree, see Supplementary Figure S13.
Figure 6Outline of the GK (GlpK) tree (ML method). The tree was constructed using RAxML version 7.4.2 [29] with the PROTGAMMALG model. The alignment with 374 OTUs and with 194 sites without any indels was used. The bootstrap analysis was done with 100 resamplings (slow option). The log likelihood of this tree is −79246.3. The bootstrap probability (BP) larger than 50% is shown at each node of the tree. The monophyletic group consisting of the same taxonomic group is shown in a simplified presentation. For the details of this tree, see Supplementary Figure S15.
Distribution of genes of G1PDH, G3PDH, and GK among archaea and bacteria.
| Domain | Superphylum | Phylum | Class (order for Crenarchaeota) | G1PDH | G3PDH | GK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EgsA/AraM | GpsA | GlpA/GlpD | GlpK | ||||
| Archaea | DPANN | Diapherotrites | |||||
| Parvarchaeota |
| ||||||
| Micrarchaeota | |||||||
| Woesearchaeota |
| ||||||
| Pacearchaeota | |||||||
| Aenigmarchaeota | |||||||
| Nanoarchaeota | |||||||
| Nanohaloarchaeota | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| Archaea | Euryarchaeota | Archaeoglobi |
|
|
|
| |
| Halobacteria |
|
|
| ||||
| Methanobacteria |
|
| |||||
| Methanococci |
| ||||||
| Methanomicrobia |
|
|
| ||||
| Methanopyri |
| ||||||
| Thermococci |
|
|
| ||||
| Thermoplasmata |
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||||||
| Archaea | TACK | Crenarchaeota | Acidilobales |
|
| ||
| Desulfurococcales |
|
|
| ||||
| Fervidicoccales |
| ||||||
| Sulfolobales |
|
|
| ||||
| Thermoproteales |
|
|
| ||||
| Korarchaeota |
|
|
| ||||
| Thaumarchaeota |
| ||||||
| Aigarchaeota |
|
| |||||
| Lokiarchaeota |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||||
| Bacteria | Acetothermia |
|
| ||||
| Acidobacteria |
|
|
| ||||
| Actinobacteria |
|
|
|
| |||
| Aerophobetes |
|
| |||||
| Aminicenantes |
| ||||||
| Aquificae |
|
| |||||
| Armatimonadetes |
|
| |||||
| Atribacteria |
|
|
| ||||
| Bacteroidetes |
|
|
|
| |||
| “ |
|
| |||||
| Caldiserica |
|
| |||||
| Calescamantes |
|
| |||||
| Candidate division BRC1 |
|
| |||||
| Candidate division NC10 |
| ||||||
| Chlamydiae |
|
|
| ||||
| Chlorobi |
|
| |||||
| Chloroflexi |
|
|
|
| |||
| Chrysiogenetes |
|
| |||||
| Cloacimonetes |
| ||||||
| Cyanobacteria |
|
|
| ||||
| Deferribacteres |
|
|
| ||||
| Deinococcus-Thermus |
|
|
| ||||
| Dictyoglomi |
|
|
| ||||
| Elusimicrobia |
|
| |||||
| Fibrobacteres |
|
| |||||
| Firmicutes |
|
|
|
| |||
| Fusobacteria |
|
|
| ||||
| Gemmatimonadetes |
|
|
| ||||
| Haloplasmatales |
|
|
| ||||
| Ignavibacteriae |
|
| |||||
| Latescibacteria |
| ||||||
| Lentisphaerae |
|
|
| ||||
| Nitrospinae |
| ||||||
| Parcubacteria |
|
|
| ||||
| Planctomycetes |
|
|
|
| |||
| Poribacteria |
|
| |||||
| Proteobacteria | Alphaproteobacteria |
|
|
|
| ||
| Betaproteobacteria |
|
|
|
| |||
| Deltaproteobacteria |
|
|
|
| |||
| Epsilonproteobacteria |
|
|
| ||||
| Gammaproteobacteria |
|
|
|
| |||
| Zetaproteobacteria |
| ||||||
| Spirochaetes |
|
|
|
| |||
| Synergistetes |
|
|
| ||||
| Tenericutes |
|
|
| ||||
| “ |
|
|
| ||||
| Thermodesulfobacteria |
| ||||||
| Thermotogae |
|
|
|
| |||
| Verrucomicrobia |
|
|
|
| |||
y: at least one protein sequence of interest was found by our BLAST search. y: at least one protein sequence of interest is listed in the taxonomy in genes of KEGG (release 76.0) Orthology (K00096 for EgsA/AraM, K00057 for GpsA, K00111 for GlpA/D, and K00864 for GlpK) [37]. Y: at least one protein sequence of interest is found by our BLAST search and listed in the taxonomy in genes of KEGG Orthology. When no culturable species are known, but some genome sequences are available, from the phylum, the phylum was marked with an asterisk (∗).
Taxonomy in this table is based on NCBI Taxonomy. Exceptions are as follows: Micrarchaeota is shown as a separate phylum of Parvarchaeota. Woesearchaeota and Pacearchaeota [38] are shown. For BLAST search targeting Woesearchaeota and Pacearchaeota, the sequences (archaeon GW20011_AR3, 4, 9, 11, 15–18, and 20) and the sequences (archaeon GW20011_AR1, 6, 13, and 19) were used as Woesearchaeota and Pacearchaota sequences. Aigarchaeota is shown as a separate phylum of Thaumarchaeota.
Figure 7Proposed hypothesis based on the study presented in this paper. HGT: horizontal gene transfer.