| Literature DB >> 28446692 |
Monica Hongrø Solbakken1, Kjetil Lysne Voje2, Kjetill Sigurd Jakobsen2, Sissel Jentoft3,4.
Abstract
Host-intrinsic factors as well as environmental changes are known to be strong evolutionary drivers defining the genetic foundation of immunity. Using a novel set of teleost genomes and a time-calibrated phylogeny, we here investigate the family of Toll-like receptor (TLR) genes and address the underlying evolutionary processes shaping the diversity of the first-line defence. Our findings reveal remarkable flexibility within the evolutionary design of teleost innate immunity characterized by prominent TLR gene losses and expansions. In the order of Gadiformes, expansions correlate with the loss of major histocompatibility complex class II (MHCII) and diversifying selection analyses support that this has fostered new immunological innovations in TLRs within this lineage. In teleosts overall, TLRs expansions correlate with species latitudinal distributions and maximum depth. By contrast, lineage-specific gene losses overlap with well-described changes in palaeoclimate (global ocean anoxia) and past Atlantic Ocean geography. In conclusion, we suggest that the evolvability of the teleost immune system has most likely played a prominent role in the survival and successful radiation of this lineage.Entities:
Keywords: Toll-like receptors; adaptive evolution; gene expansion; gene loss; innate immunity; past climatic change
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28446692 PMCID: PMC5413918 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2016.2810
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Biol Sci ISSN: 0962-8452 Impact factor: 5.349
Figure 1.The TLR repertoires of 76 teleosts mapped onto a time-calibrated species phylogeny. All TLRs characterized in the new 66 teleost genomes as well as in 10 reference teleosts genomes (Ensembl and GenBank) mapped onto a species phylogeny generated by Malmstrom et al. The phylogeny demonstrates the loss of MHCII 110–64 Ma (branch range time, black star) reported by Malmstrom et al. Lineage-specific TLR losses are marked by black circles (Gadinae TLR1/2, Paracanthopterygii TLR5 and TLR21beta). The individual species' repertoires are depicted with boxes where the coloration represents the number of copies of each individual TLR. The six major TLR families: TLR1-family, TLR3-family, TLR4-family, TLR5-family, TLR7-family and TLR11-family are indicated with black bars underneath the TLR names. See the electronic supplementary material, table S1 for copy number details. For TLR1/2, a gradient-filled box indicates the presences of either TLR1 or TLR2. The Paracanthopterygiian lineage, Gadiformes order and Gadinae family display shaded grey backgrounds.
Figure 2.Overview of sites reported by the MEME analysis performed on TLR3, TLR9 and TLR25 in the selected species. A schematic drawing of the TLR3 (a), TLR9 (b) and TLR25 (c) protein domains with the ecto-domain (dimerization and ligand interaction), transmembrane (TM) domain and TIR domain (signalling domain). Only the ecto-domain was subjected to selection analysis as the TM and TIR domains are known to be under purifying selection. Grey boxes indicate which parts of the ecto-domain were included in the alignment and also show how many alignments were generated per gene. There is a 22 codon overlap between TLR25 section 2 and 3. Arrows indicate sites reported by the MEME analysis. For site details, see the electronic supplementary material. (Online version in colour.)
Phylogenetic comparative analyses of the evolution of TLR copy numbers in relation to species latitudinal distributions using SLOUCH. (For each model, we show the phylogenetically corrected r2, and the AICc score. AICc balances goodness of fit (log-likelihood) with the number of parameters in the model (model complexity). The model with the lowest AICc value is the best supported. r2 represents the amount of the total variation that is explained by the model. Detailed output from each model is given in the electronic supplementary material. The model called ‘phylogeny’ does not include any explanatory variables and is given as a reference point for comparison to models with predictor variables. The best AICc scores and corresponding r2 values for each of the investigated TLR expansion are italicized.)
| category | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AICc | AICc | AICc | AICc | AICc | ||||||
| phylogeny | 266.41 | 0.00 | 243.91 | 0.00 | 430.27 | 0.00 | 307.65 | 0.00 | 241.36 | 0.00 |
| group 75 latitude | 260.29 | 18.32 | 239.07 | 18.91 | 311.72 | 0.96 | ||||
| group 50 latitude | 240.67 | 15.49 | 427.26 | 13.70 | 310.88 | 2.30 | 232.46 | 21.96 | ||
| group 25 latitude | 259.98 | 18.72 | 240.34 | 17.24 | 429.86 | 8.86 | 233.31 | 20.89 | ||
| group 0 latitude | 259.90 | 20.13 | 427.05 | 13.99 | 311.27 | 1.69 | 232.56 | 21.84 | ||
| group −25 latitude | 260.06 | 18.63 | 239.78 | 16.69 | 429.34 | 9.62 | 309.78 | 4.00 | 233.38 | 20.80 |
| group −50 latitude | 260.31 | 16.35 | 240.16 | 16.18 | 429.62 | 9.21 | 311.54 | 1.24 | 233.45 | 20.71 |
Phylogenetic comparative analyses of the evolution of TLR copy numbers in relation to species latitudinal distributions and MHCII status using SLOUCH. (For each model, we show the phylogenetically corrected r2, and the AICc score. AICc balances goodness of fit (log-likelihood) with the number of parameters in the model (model complexity). The model with the lowest AICc value is the best supported. r2 represents the amount of the total variation that is explained by the model. Detailed output from each model is given in the electronic supplementary material. The model called ‘phylogeny’ in table 1 does not include any explanatory variables and is given as a reference point for comparison to models with predictor variables. The best AICc scores and corresponding r2 values for each of the investigated TLR expansion are italicized.)
| category | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AICc | AICc | AICc | AICc | AICc | ||||||
| group MHCII | 259.43 | 19.44 | 239.01 | 22.41 | 427.99 | 14.53 | 328.13 | 2.65 | 231.30 | 26.94 |
| group MHCII + group 75 lat. | 264.37 | 19.52 | 240.39 | 31.`32 | 315.34 | 3.21 | ||||
| group MHCII + group 50 lat. | 243.11 | 25.72 | 431.07 | 17.15 | 314.69 | 4.23 | 235.60 | 27.76 | ||
| group MHCII + group 25 lat. | 263.76 | 20.32 | 239.13 | 32.69 | 431.69 | 16.32 | 234.82 | 28.67 | ||
| group MHCII + group 0 lat. | 430.16 | 18.36 | 314.90 | 3.92 | 233.63 | 30.02 | ||||
| group MHCII + group −25 lat. | 263.37 | 20.82 | 230.06 | 52.33 | 432.07 | 15.80 | 313.49 | 6.01 | 234.84 | 28.64 |
| group MHCII + group −50 lat. | 264.39 | 19.50 | 240.15 | 29.17 | 432.19 | 15.63 | 314.92 | 3.81 | 235.60 | 27.76 |