| Literature DB >> 31519169 |
Hyung-Bae Jeon1,2, Hari Won1, Ho Young Suk3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rhodeus sinensis is a bitterling species occurring throughout the numerous freshwater systems on the East Asia. Here, we analyzed the diversity of the MHC class IIB (DAB) genes from this species, which may offer meaningful insights into evolutionary processes in this species as well as other bitterlings.Entities:
Keywords: Balancing selection; Bitterlings; Intronless; Major histocompatibility complex; Rhodeus sinensis; Trans-species polymorphism
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31519169 PMCID: PMC6743125 DOI: 10.1186/s12863-019-0775-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genet ISSN: 1471-2156 Impact factor: 2.797
PCR primers used for the amplification of DAB sequences in Rhodeus sinensis. Data comprise primer name, direction (D), sequence, priming position (Position) and reference (Ref)
| Name | D | Sequence (5′ - 3′) | Position | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FishIIBEx2-1F | F | CTGATGCTGTCTGCTTTCACTGGA | SP | 1 |
| FIBE-F1 | F | CTGATGCTGTCTGCTTTCAC | SP | P |
| ROSI-R1 | R | CGGGATCCCAGTCTACGATG | TM | P |
| ROSI-R2 | R | GATCCCAGTCTACGATGATG | TM | P |
| ROSI-R3 | R | GAGTGTATTCTAGGTGAGAGTGG | exon3 3′ end | P |
| ROSI-R4 | R | CAGGTGCGAGTGAATCTGGT | exon3 middle | P |
| ROSI-R5 | R | CTGAGCTTGACCTTTGGTGC | exon3 5′ end | P |
| Rooc-Fw | F | CCCATAGTTGACATGATGTCATCTG | intron1 | 2 |
| Rooc-Rev | R | CATGTGTGACAGGAGGATCAG | intron2 | 2 |
| DAB1-Rev374 | R | CAAGAGTTTCCCGTGTGACAG | intron2 | 2 |
| DAB1-Fw18 | F | AGTTGACATGATGCCATCTGA | intron1 | 2 |
| DAB-Ex1-Fw | F | CATCCATACTGATGCTGTCTGC | SP | 2 |
| Rhod-GSP2 | R | CCAGTCTCCGTTAGGCATCTCC | exon3 | 2 |
| SP-F1 | F | CTGATGCTGTCKRCWTTYACYGGA | SP | P |
| TM-R1 | R | TGGTACCAGGATCCTCCC | TM | P |
| TM-R2 | R | TGGKACCAGGATYCTCCC | TM | P |
| MHC2-TMr | R | TCAGTTTGGTACCAGGATCCTCC | TM | P |
| Exon-3R | R | TGAGCTTGACCTCTGGTGCCAC | exon3 5′ end | P |
| THMHCI-3R | R | GCCAGCGTGATCCACCATAC | TM | P |
(Ref) 1: Ottová et al., 2007 [41]; 2: Agbali et al., 2010 [33]; P: present study
Five putative recombinants detected using seven different testing algorithms (R: RDP, C: CHIMAERA, G: GENECONV, S: SISCAN, B: BOOTSCAN, T: 3SEQ, M: MAXCHI) implemented in RDP4. Significance was indicated by ‘+’. ‘Unknown’ means that a definite parent allele was not estimated, but alleles with the highest probability were indicated in parentheses
| Recombinant | Breakpoints | Parent alleles | Algorithm | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Begin | End | R | G | B | M | C | S | T | |||
| DAB3*07:01 | 1 | 144 | DAB1*09:01 | DAB3*01:07 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| DAB1*04:01 | 232 | 276 | DAB1*01:13 | Unknown (DAB1*03:06) | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| DAB1*03:07 | 225 | 274 | DAB1*03:06 | Unknown (DAB1*05:04) | + | + | – | + | + | – | + |
| DAB1*03:17 | 165 | 213 | DAB1*03:02 | DAB1*03:13 | + | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| DAB1*10:02 | 82 | 172 | DAB1*09:01 | DAB1*03:05 | + | – | – | + | + | – | + |
Fig. 1Phylogenetic relationship among the β1 domain sequences of Rhsi-DAB1 and -DAB3 reconstructed using Neighbour-Net analysis based on Jukes-Cantor distance model
Fig. 2The comparison of nonsynonymous substitution rate (dN) among major exonal domains (a), between non-PBR and PBR in Rhsi-DAB1 (b) and between non-PBR and PBR in Rhsi-DAB3 (c)
The signature of positive selection in β1 domain regions of two Rhsi-DABs. Data comprise the number of residues (Codon), ratio of nonsynonymous vs synonymous substitution (dN/dS) and the significance of Z test (P)
| Region | DAB1 β1 | DAB3 β1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codon |
| Codon |
| |||
| PBR | 19 | 2.929 |
| 19 | 1.940 | 0.123 |
| Non-PBR | 72 | 1.091 | 0.395 | 72 | 0.798 | 1.000 |
| Total | 91 | 1.533 |
| 91 | 1.034 |
|
Statistical significance (< 0.05) was highlighted with bold
Identification of the codons showing the signature of positive select based on six different models implemented RDP and CODEML. The codons predicted to be PBR were highlighted by red
| 5 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 12 | 17 | 22 | 25 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 41 | 44 | 50 | 52 | 53 | ||
| Rhsi-DAB1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SLAC | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| FEL | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||
| MEME | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
| FUBAR | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||
| M2a | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||
| M8 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||
| Rhsi-DAB3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SLAC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FEL | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MEME | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||
| FUBAR | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||
| M2a | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| M8 | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 54 | 57 | 58 | 60 | 61 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 67 | 68 | 71 | 72 | 74 | 75 | 77 | 78 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 88 | 90 | 91 | |
| Rhsi-DAB1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SLAC | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| FEL | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||
| MEME | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||
| FUBAR | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||
| M2a | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||
| M8 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||
| Rhsi-DAB3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SLAC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FEL | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MEME | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FUBAR | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||
| M2a | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||
| M8 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||
Fig. 3Phylogenetic placement of Rhsi-DAB β1 domain sequences among the MHC class IIB alleles of major telosts and vertebrates. A total of 44 vertebrate species were used as outgroup. Bayesian inference tree was reconstructed under GTR + I + G model