| Literature DB >> 30425415 |
T Emri1, K Antal2, R Riley3, Z Karányi4, M Miskei1,5, E Orosz1, S E Baker6, A Wiebenga7,8, R P de Vries7,8, I Pócsi1.
Abstract
The contribution of stress protein duplication and deletion events to the evolution of the Aspergilli was studied. We performed a large-scale homology analysis of stress proteins and generated and analysed three stress defence system models based on Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Schizosaccharomyces pombe and Aspergillus nidulans. Although both yeast-based and A. nidulans-based models were suitable to trace evolutionary changes, the A. nidulans-based model performed better in mapping stress protein radiations. The strong Mantel correlation found between the positions of species in the phylogenetic tree on the one hand and either in the A. nidulans-based or S. cerevisiae-based models on the other hand demonstrated that stress protein expansions and reductions contributed significantly to the evolution of the Aspergilli. Interestingly, stress tolerance attributes correlated well with the number of orthologs only for a few stress proteins. Notable examples are Ftr1 iron permease and Fet3 ferro-O2-oxidoreductase, elements of the reductive iron assimilation pathway, in the S. cerevisiae-based model, as well as MpkC, a HogA-like mitogen activated protein kinase in the A. nidulans-based model. In the case of the iron assimilation proteins, the number of orthologs showed a positive correlation with H2O2-induced stress tolerance while the number of MpkC orthologs correlated positively with Congo Red induced cell wall stress, sorbitol induced osmotic stress and H2O2 induced oxidative stress tolerances. For most stress proteins, changes in the number of orthologs did not correlate well with any stress tolerance attributes. As a consequence, stress tolerance patterns of the studied Aspergilli did not correlate with either the sets of stress response proteins in general or with the phylogeny of the species studied. These observations suggest that stress protein duplication and deletion events significantly contributed to the evolution of stress tolerance attributes of Aspergilli. In contrast, there are other processes, which may counterbalance the effects of stress gene duplications or deletions including (i) alterations in the structures of stress proteins leading to changes in their biological activities, (ii) varying biosynthesis of stress proteins, (iii) rewiring stress response regulatory networks or even (iv) acquiring new stress response genes by horizontal gene transfer. All these multilevel changes are indispensable for the successful adaptation of filamentous fungi to altering environmental conditions, especially when these organisms are entering new ecological niches.Entities:
Keywords: Aspergillus phylogeny; Environmental stress; Evolution of the Aspergilli; Fungal stress defence system; Gene deletion; Gene duplication; Stress protein radiation
Year: 2018 PMID: 30425415 PMCID: PMC6231086 DOI: 10.1016/j.simyco.2018.10.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stud Mycol ISSN: 0166-0616 Impact factor: 16.097
Specificities of the S. cerevisiae-based, S. pombe-based and A. nidulans-based stress response system models.
| Compared models | Number of proteins in the compared two models | Number and per cent ratio of unique stress proteins in the | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| former model | latter model | former model | latter model | |
| 301 | 248 | 89 (30 %) | 39 (16 %) | |
| 301 | 133 | 238 (79 %) | 70 (53 %) | |
| 248 | 133 | 195 (79 %) | 79 (59 %) | |
– Note that direct relationships between the models cannot be calculated because one protein present in a given stress defence system model may have more than one ortholog in the other models. Therefore, only the number of unique proteins present merely in one of the two compared stress defence models can be counted. By definition, a unique protein has no ortholog in the other analysed stress defence system model.
Number and ratio of “conserved”, “deleted” and “duplicated” proteins in the studied stress defence system models.
| Model | Number of proteins in the model | Number (percentage) of | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| “conserved” proteins | “deleted” proteins | “duplicated” proteins | ||
| 301 | 197 (65 %)1 | 78 (26 %)1 | 29 (10 %)1 | |
| 248 | 184 (74 %)2 | 54 (22 %)1 | 11 (4 %)2 | |
| 133 | 88 (66 %)1,2 | 27 (20 %)1 | 24 (18 %)3 | |
1-3 – Ratios marked with the same superscript within a column are not significantly different, as indicated by the Fisher’s exact test (p < 0.05).
Enriched GO terms in the sets of “conserved”, “deleted” and “duplicated” proteins.
| Model | Significantly ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| “conserved” proteins | “deleted” proteins | “duplicated” proteins | |
| – | “transcription regulatory region DNA binding” | “ion transmembrane transporter activity”, “carbohydrate metabolic process” | |
| – | “phagophore assembly site membrane” | – | |
| “intracellular organelle” | – | – | |
- The full data set is available in Supplementary Table S6.
Duplications and deletions of important stress proteins locating at the nodes of the stress defence system networks.
| Model | Number of proteins with at least 5 known interacting partners | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| “conserved” proteins | “deleted” proteins | “duplicated” proteins | whole stress defence systems | |
| 105 | 33 | 11 | 149 | |
| 54 | 8 | 4 | 66 | |
| 16 | 5 | 4 | 25 | |
The number of interacting partners was identified using the String database (https://string-db.org/). Only interacting partners identified experimentally and scored with at least 0.8 confidence values were counted.
Significant enrichment within the protein set (Fisher’s exact test, p < 0.05).
Significant depletion within the protein set (Fisher’s exact test, p < 0.05).
Enrichment within the protein set (Fisher’s exact test, 0.05 < p < 0.10).
Depletion within the protein set (Fisher’s exact test, 0.05 < p < 0.10).
Fig. 1Hierarchical cluster analysis of the Aspergillus species using complete linkage and Manhattan distances calculated from the features (numbers of ortholog genes) of the three stress defence system models. Part A: S. cerevisiae-based model, Part B: S. pombe-based model and Part C: A. nidulans-based model.
Fig. 2Multidimensional scaling of Manhattan distances between Aspergillus species, calculated from the features (numbers of ortholog genes) of the three models. Part A: S. cerevisiae-based model, Part B: S. pombe-based model and Part C: A. nidulans-based model.
Fig. 3Comparison of the phylogenetic positions and the stress tolerances of the Aspergilli. Part A: Maximum likelihood phylogeny of the Aspergillus spp. as published in the study of de Vries . The phylogenetic tree was deduced from 149 conserved protein sequences. Newly sequenced species are shown in bold. Note, A. niger ATCC 1015 is identical to CBS 113.46. Part B: Cluster analysis dendrogram constructed on the stress tolerance data reposited in the Fungal Stress Database (Orosz ; URL: http://www.fung-stress.org/). Part C: Multidimensional scale plot presentation of the stress tolerance variability of the Aspergillus species tested (de Vries et al., 2017, Orosz et al., 2018).
Fig. 4Mantel correlations between the distance matrices of the studied Aspergillus species calculated on the S. cerevisiae-based, S. pombe-based and A. nidulans-based stress defence system models (Fig. 1, Fig. 2), distance matrix based on stress tolerance data (“Stress”; Fig. 3B) and cophenetic distance matrix of the phylogenetic tree (“Phylogeny”; Fig. 3A). Non-significant correlations (p ≥ 0.05) are indicated by crosses (X).