| Literature DB >> 29360978 |
Marc Tollis1,2, Elizabeth D Hutchins1,3, Jessica Stapley4, Shawn M Rupp1, Walter L Eckalbar1, Inbar Maayan1, Eris Lasku1, Carlos R Infante5,6, Stuart R Dennis4, Joel A Robertson1, Catherine M May1, Michael R Crusoe1, Eldredge Bermingham4,7, Dale F DeNardo1, Shi-Tong Tonia Hsieh8, Rob J Kulathinal8, William Owen McMillan4, Douglas B Menke5, Stephen C Pratt1, Jeffery Alan Rawls1, Oris Sanjur4, Jeanne Wilson-Rawls1, Melissa A Wilson Sayres1,9, Rebecca E Fisher1,10, Kenro Kusumi1,3,10.
Abstract
Squamates include all lizards and snakes, and display some of the most diverse and extreme morphological adaptations among vertebrates. However, compared with birds and mammals, relatively few resources exist for comparative genomic analyses of squamates, hampering efforts to understand the molecular bases of phenotypic diversification in such a speciose clade. In particular, the ∼400 species of anole lizard represent an extensive squamate radiation. Here, we sequence and assemble the draft genomes of three anole species-Anolis frenatus, Anolis auratus, and Anolis apletophallus-for comparison with the available reference genome of Anolis carolinensis. Comparative analyses reveal a rapid background rate of molecular evolution consistent with a model of punctuated equilibrium, and strong purifying selection on functional genomic elements in anoles. We find evidence for accelerated evolution in genes involved in behavior, sensory perception, and reproduction, as well as in genes regulating limb bud development and hindlimb specification. Morphometric analyses of anole fore and hindlimbs corroborated these findings. We detect signatures of positive selection across several genes related to the development and regulation of the forebrain, hormones, and the iguanian lizard dewlap, suggesting molecular changes underlying behavioral adaptations known to reinforce species boundaries were a key component in the diversification of anole lizards.Entities:
Keywords: Anolis; adaptation; genomes; molecular evolution; phenotypic evolution; substitution rates
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29360978 PMCID: PMC5798147 DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evy013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genome Biol Evol ISSN: 1759-6653 Impact factor: 3.416
Whole Genome Sequencing Data Obtained from Three Anole Lizard Species
| Libraries | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Data (Mb) | Coverage | Total Data (Mb) | Coverage | Total Data (Mb) | Coverage | |
| 200-bp paired-end | 1,400 | 70× | 1,058 | 43× | 359 | 17× |
| 300-bp paired-end | 502 | 22× | 1,454 | 63× | 328 | 11× |
| 500-bp paired-end | – | – | – | – | 154 | 7× |
| 1-kb paired-end | 94 | 9× | 515 | 23× | 244 | 11× |
| 3-kb mate pair | 628 | 11× | 452 | 8× | 404 | 7× |
| 5-kb mate pair | 90 | 4× | 81 | 4× | 85 | 4× |
| Total | 2,714 | 116× | 3,560 | 141× | 1,574 | 56× |
Descriptive Statistics for Four Anole Lizard Genome Assemblies Included in This Study
| Contigs | Scaffolds | Contigs | Scaffolds | Contigs | Scaffolds | Contigs | Scaffolds | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N50 (bp) | 79,867 | 150,641,573 | 23,240 | 36,910 | 19,858 | 48,995 | 2,534 | 9,520 |
| L50 (Number) | 6,217 | 5 | 21,942 | 14,499 | 26,569 | 11,107 | 206,073 | 53,667 |
| Longest (bp) | 582,046 | 263,920,458 | 448,330 | 649,467 | 304,182 | 563,800 | 110,998 | 217,008 |
| Total length (Gb) | 1.70 | 1.79 | 1.92 | 2.03 | 1.94 | 2.02 | 1.89 | 2.18 |
| Number ≥1 kb | 41,987 | 6,457 | 176,895 | 649,467 | 230,878 | 141,345 | 659,833 | 454,194 |
| Number ≥100 kb | 4,247 | 852 | 809 | 2,134 | 392 | 3,038 | 1 | 103 |
| Percent gaps | 5% | 6% | 4% | 14% | ||||
| BUSCOs | C: 73%[D: 1.4%], F: 15%, M: 12% | C: 50%[D: 0.7%], F: 20%, M: 29% | C: 68%,[D: 1.1%], F: 16%, M: 15% | C: 28%[D: 2.1%], F: 19%, M: 53% | ||||
| Number of annotated genes | 22,962 | 19,923 | 19,838 | 12,816 | ||||
| Percent repeats | 33% | 37% | 39% | 29% | ||||
Note.—BUSCO, Benchmarking Single Copy Orthologs; C, Complete; D, Duplicated; F, Fragmented; M, Missing.
. 1.—(A) Proportion of conserved orthologs in either complete or fragmented form detected in four anole lizard genomes. Proportions are reported out of 3,023 BUSCO (Benchmarking Universal Single Copy Orthologs) and 248 CEGMA (Conserved Eukaryotic Gene Mapping Approach) orthologs. (B) Distribution of GC content in the genomes of four anole lizards and chicken, calculated in 5-kb windows.
. 2.—Phylogeny of 31 vertebrates from 763,131 4-fold degenerate sites reconstructed using maximum likelihood in RAxML v8.2.3 (Stamatakis 2014). All branches received full support from 500 bootstrap replicates. Representative images of species are not drawn to scale.
. 3.—(A) Comparison of the estimated DNA substitution rates (in terms of substitutions per site per million years) on terminal and internal branches of the amniote phylogeny. (B) Scatterplot showing the positive relationship (R2 = 0.17, P = 0.02) between the total phylogenetic path length (i.e., the sum of substitutions per site from the root to the terminal taxon) and the number of speciation events (i.e., the number of nodes leading to the terminal taxon). Values for the four anole lizards studied here and two outlier taxa (house mouse, Mus musculus and western painted turtle, Chrysemys picta bellii) are shown for comparison. Color legend is as follows: mammals = orange, squamates = green, turtles = blue, crocodilians = violet, birds = gray.
. 4.—Distributions of conservation-acceleration (CONACC) scores for three analyses using phyloP (Pollard et al. 2010): all branches analysis including 31 vertebrates, anoles subtree analysis, and snakes subtree analysis. CDS, protein coding sequence; UTR5, 5′-untranslated region; UTR3, 3′-untranslated region;, AR, ancestral repeats.
. 5.—Distribution of dN/dS calculated in pairwise comparisons between the newly sequenced anole genomes and A. carolinensis for genes in adaptive radiation-relevant GO categories.
. 6.—(A) Barplot shows the differential in the estimated dN/dS (the parameter ω) for Anolis when compared with birds and eutherian mammals, respectively, from a codon model incorporating dN/dS values for the major clades of amniotes (M2b). Asterisks indicate genes for which M2b is favored over both M0 (the null hypothesis of a single ω for the entire phylogeny) and M2a (two ω model with Anolis branches as foreground); cross indicates M2a is favored over M0 and M2b using the likelihood ratio test (LRT). (B) Representations of expression pattern of limb development genes in chick embryonic limb bud, based on the Gallus Expression In Situ Hybridization Analysis (GEISHA) database (geisha.arizona.edu/geisha). (C) Replicates of Anolis auratus, A. apletophallus, A. carolinensis, and A. frenatus. Limb elements from the proximal stylopod (humerus or femur), middle zeugopod (radius + ulna or tibia + fibula), and distal autopod (carpus + metacarpal IV + digit IV phalanges or tarsus + metatarsal IV + digit IV phalanges) were measured in forelimb and hindlimb osteological preparations, respectively. Osteological preparations are shown to scale (2-mm bar). Additional details are in Supplementary Material online.