Literature DB >> 33292440

A reappraisal of the phylogenetic placement of the Aquilegia whole-genome duplication.

Tao Shi1,2, Jinming Chen3,4.   

Abstract

The accurate placement of an ancient whole-genome duplication (WGD) in relation to the lineage divergence is important. Here, we re-investigated the Aquilegia coerulea WGD and found it is more likely lineage-specific rather than shared by all eudicots.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33292440      PMCID: PMC7722308          DOI: 10.1186/s13059-020-02212-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genome Biol        ISSN: 1474-7596            Impact factor:   13.583


Whole-genome duplications (WGDs) are frequent and common in plants, contributing to the evolutionary novelty and adaptation to extreme environments [1, 2]. Aköz and Nordborg reported a common WGD in the ancestral eudicot: while this ancestral tetraploid is preserved in Aquilegia (a basal eudicot), the hexaploid in the ancestral core eudicot was formed by hybridization of this tetraploid and another diploid with a subsequent WGD [3]. Nevertheless, this is contradictory to the studies of Nelumbo nucifera [4, 5]. Nelumbo, another basal eudicot, having a much closer relationship with core eudicots [6], shows a slower synteny loss and substitution rate than Aquilegia and core eudicots when aligned to outgroup species including Nymphaea colorata [7], rice, and Brachypodium distachyon (Figs. 1b and 2e) [4], and thus, Nelumbo should preserve more of its traces. However, the Ks peak corresponding to the “shared WGD” is absent in Nelumbo, and only a lineage-specific WGD after the Nelumbo-Macadamia split was found [4] (Fig. 2a), which raises doubt about their hypothesis of the common tetraploid origin.
Fig. 1

Genome structural analyses of Aquilegia and related species. a Scenario of rapid intraspecific synteny loss (diploidization) causing homoplasy of interspecific syntenies. b, c Distribution of interspecific and intraspecific syntenic blocks according to syntenic block size. d Scenario of a chromosomal fusion in the common ancestor of Aquilegia and Vitis. e Scenario of two independent chromosomal fusions in Aquilegia and Vitis, respectively. f, g Number of syntenic anchors between the orange-green fused chromosomes (Vitis chr7 and Aquilegia chr5) and their corresponding homologous regions

Fig. 2

Phylogenomic analyses of syntenic duplicates from Aquilegia. a–d Histograms and violin plots of rate-corrected Ks of gene pairs from intraspecific and interspecific synteny in Aquilegia and Nelumbo (a, b) and in Aquilegia and Vitis (c, d). Median Ks values are marked by the black line in violin plots. **p value < 0.0001. e A species tree based on a concatenated alignment of 697 strict single-copy genes. f Example gene tree supports the hypothesis of Aquilegia WGD only shared by Aquilegia and Papaver. g Example gene tree supports the hypothesis of Aquilegia WGD being Aquilegia-specific. h Example gene tree supports the hypothesis of Aquilegia WGD occurring in the ancestral eudicot. Node values: bootstraps. Branch length: the number of amino acid substitutions per site. Colored dots: WGD or triplication. Arrow: the difference in placement of the Aquilegia WGD

Genome structural analyses of Aquilegia and related species. a Scenario of rapid intraspecific synteny loss (diploidization) causing homoplasy of interspecific syntenies. b, c Distribution of interspecific and intraspecific syntenic blocks according to syntenic block size. d Scenario of a chromosomal fusion in the common ancestor of Aquilegia and Vitis. e Scenario of two independent chromosomal fusions in Aquilegia and Vitis, respectively. f, g Number of syntenic anchors between the orange-green fused chromosomes (Vitis chr7 and Aquilegia chr5) and their corresponding homologous regions Phylogenomic analyses of syntenic duplicates from Aquilegia. a–d Histograms and violin plots of rate-corrected Ks of gene pairs from intraspecific and interspecific synteny in Aquilegia and Nelumbo (a, b) and in Aquilegia and Vitis (c, d). Median Ks values are marked by the black line in violin plots. **p value < 0.0001. e A species tree based on a concatenated alignment of 697 strict single-copy genes. f Example gene tree supports the hypothesis of Aquilegia WGD only shared by Aquilegia and Papaver. g Example gene tree supports the hypothesis of Aquilegia WGD being Aquilegia-specific. h Example gene tree supports the hypothesis of Aquilegia WGD occurring in the ancestral eudicot. Node values: bootstraps. Branch length: the number of amino acid substitutions per site. Colored dots: WGD or triplication. Arrow: the difference in placement of the Aquilegia WGD The authors’ assertion that the Aquilegia WGD is shared by all eudicots is mainly based on clustering by gene order similarity or structural similarity within species genome and between species, which depends on synteny evolutionary rate. When the trait evolves with rate heterogeneity, the simple clustering by similarity can hardly reflect the true phylogeny. Therefore, the more rapid loss of intraspecific synteny in Aquilegia might cause homoplasy such that higher similarity in gene order of Aquilegia-Vitis than Aquilegia-Aquilegia can be observed (Fig. 1a). Indeed, Aquilegia-Aquilegia shows the most rapid decay of synteny with the smallest size and the fewest number of syntenic blocks, which is even smaller and fewer than older divergent pairs (Aquilegia-Ceratophyllum and Aquilegia-Nymphaea) (Fig. 1c) [7]. Rapid convergent loss of the alternative copies, particularly housekeeping genes, by selection against redundancy after WGDs was found in angiosperms [8], and this is also congruent with more rapid syntenic gene loss that occurred soon after a WGD in teleost fish [9]. Therefore, their placement of a WGD simply by gene order similarity is flawed because of homoplasy caused by the heterogeneous rates of synteny loss. Meanwhile, the authors claimed that a fusion of ancestral eudicot chromosomes “green” and “orange” was observed in both Aquilegia chr5 and Vitis chr7, which is derived from a fusion in their tetraploid ancestor (Fig. 1d). Yet, they did not exclude an alternative possibility of two independent green-orange fusions in Aquilegia and Vitis, respectively (Fig. 1e). If their assumption is true, the fused green-orange chromosomes are expected to share closer homology (more syntenic anchors) to each other than the other green or orange regions. On the contrary, we found that the green and orange regions in the fused Vitis chr7 and Aquilegia chr6 share more anchors with non-fused green or orange regions (Fig. 1f, g). Therefore, the scenario of two independent chromosomal fusions is more likely. Here, we showed that the Aquilegia WGD is more likely lineage-specific rather than common to all eudicots by two different phylogenomic approaches. (1) Ks values of syntenic paralogs and orthologs were measured to infer the sequential order of WGD and species divergence. Ks of each lineage were corrected using the relative rate (Aquilegia to Nelumbo to Vitis = 1:0.750:0.970) based on Ks branch length ratios of 1425 single-copy ortholog groups [10]. For comparison, Ks > 3 were removed to prevent substitutional saturation [11]. The Ks distances of syntenic orthologs for both Aquilegia-Nelumbo and Aquilegia-Vitis are significantly longer than intraspecific paralogs in Aquilegia (Mann-Whitney U test, both p value < 0.0001), suggesting this WGD exclusively occurred in Aquilegia (Fig. 2a–d). (2) To circumscribe Aquilegia syntenic duplicates in relation to the species divergence, 697 gene trees of ortholog groups from key taxa containing the Aquilegia syntenic paralogs were reconciled with the species tree using Notung2.9 (www.cs.cmu.edu/~durand/Notung) [12-14]. The species tree was constructed from 176 strict single-copy genes by OrthoFinder (www.stevekellylab.com/software/orthofinder) and IQ-TREE (www.iqtree.org) (Fig. 2e). When we applied bootstrap thresholds of 90, 70, and 50, we found the hypothesis that Aquilegia syntenic duplications occurred after the divergence of Aquilegia and the ancestor of Nelumbo and core eudicots is supported by 53, 117, and 194 subtrees, respectively (red and yellow dots in Fig 2e–g), whereas hypothesis that duplication occurred in the ancestral eudicot is supported by 34, 81, and 131 subtrees, respectively (gray dot in Fig. 2e, h). Due to the fact that Aquilegia WGD and Aquilegia-Papaver split are closely spaced in time, it is more difficult to resolve their sequential order. However, more subtrees support Aquilegia WGD being independent (red dot in Fig. 2e, g) than being shared by Aquilegia and Papaver (yellow dot in Fig. 2e, f), which is in line with a 2:2 syntenic relationship between Aquilegia and Papaver [15].
  15 in total

1.  The genome of Theobroma cacao.

Authors:  Xavier Argout; Jerome Salse; Jean-Marc Aury; Mark J Guiltinan; Gaetan Droc; Jerome Gouzy; Mathilde Allegre; Cristian Chaparro; Thierry Legavre; Siela N Maximova; Michael Abrouk; Florent Murat; Olivier Fouet; Julie Poulain; Manuel Ruiz; Yolande Roguet; Maguy Rodier-Goud; Jose Fernandes Barbosa-Neto; Francois Sabot; Dave Kudrna; Jetty Siva S Ammiraju; Stephan C Schuster; John E Carlson; Erika Sallet; Thomas Schiex; Anne Dievart; Melissa Kramer; Laura Gelley; Zi Shi; Aurélie Bérard; Christopher Viot; Michel Boccara; Ange Marie Risterucci; Valentin Guignon; Xavier Sabau; Michael J Axtell; Zhaorong Ma; Yufan Zhang; Spencer Brown; Mickael Bourge; Wolfgang Golser; Xiang Song; Didier Clement; Ronan Rivallan; Mathias Tahi; Joseph Moroh Akaza; Bertrand Pitollat; Karina Gramacho; Angélique D'Hont; Dominique Brunel; Diogenes Infante; Ismael Kebe; Pierre Costet; Rod Wing; W Richard McCombie; Emmanuel Guiderdoni; Francis Quetier; Olivier Panaud; Patrick Wincker; Stephanie Bocs; Claire Lanaud
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2010-12-26       Impact factor: 38.330

2.  The grapevine genome sequence suggests ancestral hexaploidization in major angiosperm phyla.

Authors:  Olivier Jaillon; Jean-Marc Aury; Benjamin Noel; Alberto Policriti; Christian Clepet; Alberto Casagrande; Nathalie Choisne; Sébastien Aubourg; Nicola Vitulo; Claire Jubin; Alessandro Vezzi; Fabrice Legeai; Philippe Hugueney; Corinne Dasilva; David Horner; Erica Mica; Delphine Jublot; Julie Poulain; Clémence Bruyère; Alain Billault; Béatrice Segurens; Michel Gouyvenoux; Edgardo Ugarte; Federica Cattonaro; Véronique Anthouard; Virginie Vico; Cristian Del Fabbro; Michaël Alaux; Gabriele Di Gaspero; Vincent Dumas; Nicoletta Felice; Sophie Paillard; Irena Juman; Marco Moroldo; Simone Scalabrin; Aurélie Canaguier; Isabelle Le Clainche; Giorgio Malacrida; Eléonore Durand; Graziano Pesole; Valérie Laucou; Philippe Chatelet; Didier Merdinoglu; Massimo Delledonne; Mario Pezzotti; Alain Lecharny; Claude Scarpelli; François Artiguenave; M Enrico Pè; Giorgio Valle; Michele Morgante; Michel Caboche; Anne-Françoise Adam-Blondon; Jean Weissenbach; Francis Quétier; Patrick Wincker
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2007-08-26       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 3.  The evolutionary significance of polyploidy.

Authors:  Yves Van de Peer; Eshchar Mizrachi; Kathleen Marchal
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 53.242

4.  Convergent gene loss following gene and genome duplications creates single-copy families in flowering plants.

Authors:  Riet De Smet; Keith L Adams; Klaas Vandepoele; Marc C E Van Montagu; Steven Maere; Yves Van de Peer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-02-04       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Rapid genome reshaping by multiple-gene loss after whole-genome duplication in teleost fish suggested by mathematical modeling.

Authors:  Jun Inoue; Yukuto Sato; Robert Sinclair; Katsumi Tsukamoto; Mutsumi Nishida
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Impact of whole-genome duplication events on diversification rates in angiosperms.

Authors:  Jacob B Landis; Douglas E Soltis; Zheng Li; Hannah E Marx; Michael S Barker; David C Tank; Pamela S Soltis
Journal:  Am J Bot       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 3.844

7.  Assessing the Performance of Ks Plots for Detecting Ancient Whole Genome Duplications.

Authors:  George P Tiley; Michael S Barker; J Gordon Burleigh
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 3.416

8.  One thousand plant transcriptomes and the phylogenomics of green plants.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Distinct Expression and Methylation Patterns for Genes with Different Fates following a Single Whole-Genome Duplication in Flowering Plants.

Authors:  Tao Shi; Razgar Seyed Rahmani; Paul F Gugger; Muhua Wang; Hui Li; Yue Zhang; Zhizhong Li; Qingfeng Wang; Yves Van de Peer; Kathleen Marchal; Jinming Chen
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 16.240

10.  Genome of the long-living sacred lotus (Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn.).

Authors:  Ray Ming; Robert VanBuren; Yanling Liu; Mei Yang; Yuepeng Han; Lei-Ting Li; Qiong Zhang; Min-Jeong Kim; Michael C Schatz; Michael Campbell; Jingping Li; John E Bowers; Haibao Tang; Eric Lyons; Ann A Ferguson; Giuseppe Narzisi; David R Nelson; Crysten E Blaby-Haas; Andrea R Gschwend; Yuannian Jiao; Joshua P Der; Fanchang Zeng; Jennifer Han; Xiang Jia Min; Karen A Hudson; Ratnesh Singh; Aleel K Grennan; Steven J Karpowicz; Jennifer R Watling; Kikukatsu Ito; Sharon A Robinson; Matthew E Hudson; Qingyi Yu; Todd C Mockler; Andrew Carroll; Yun Zheng; Ramanjulu Sunkar; Ruizong Jia; Nancy Chen; Jie Arro; Ching Man Wai; Eric Wafula; Ashley Spence; Yanni Han; Liming Xu; Jisen Zhang; Rhiannon Peery; Miranda J Haus; Wenwei Xiong; James A Walsh; Jun Wu; Ming-Li Wang; Yun J Zhu; Robert E Paull; Anne B Britt; Chunguang Du; Stephen R Downie; Mary A Schuler; Todd P Michael; Steve P Long; Donald R Ort; J William Schopf; David R Gang; Ning Jiang; Mark Yandell; Claude W dePamphilis; Sabeeha S Merchant; Andrew H Paterson; Bob B Buchanan; Shaohua Li; Jane Shen-Miller
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 13.583

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Comprehensive Analysis for GRF Transcription Factors in Sacred Lotus (Nelumbo nucifera).

Authors:  Gui-Zhen Chen; Jie Huang; Xiao-Qin Zhou; Yang Hao; Jin-Liao Chen; Yu-Zhen Zhou; Sagheer Ahmad; Siren Lan; Zhong-Jian Liu; Dong-Hui Peng
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 6.208

2.  Paleopolyploidies and Genomic Fractionation in Major Eudicot Clades.

Authors:  Jia Teng; Jianyu Wang; Lan Zhang; Chendan Wei; Shaoqi Shen; Qimeng Xiao; Yuanshuai Yue; Yanan Hao; Weina Ge; Jinpeng Wang
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 6.627

3.  The slow-evolving Acorus tatarinowii genome sheds light on ancestral monocot evolution.

Authors:  Tao Shi; Cécile Huneau; Yue Zhang; Yan Li; Jinming Chen; Jérôme Salse; Qingfeng Wang
Journal:  Nat Plants       Date:  2022-07-14       Impact factor: 17.352

Review 4.  Pervasive genome duplications across the plant tree of life and their links to major evolutionary innovations and transitions.

Authors:  Xin Qiao; Shaoling Zhang; Andrew H Paterson
Journal:  Comput Struct Biotechnol J       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 6.155

5.  A high-quality Buxus austro-yunnanensis (Buxales) genome provides new insights into karyotype evolution in early eudicots.

Authors:  Zhenyue Wang; Ying Li; Pengchuan Sun; Mingjia Zhu; Dandan Wang; Zhiqiang Lu; Hongyin Hu; Renping Xu; Jin Zhang; Jianxiang Ma; Jianquan Liu; Yongzhi Yang
Journal:  BMC Biol       Date:  2022-10-04       Impact factor: 7.364

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.