| Literature DB >> 33339886 |
Andrea M Makkay1, Artemis S Louyakis1, Nikhil Ram-Mohan2, Uri Gophna3, J Peter Gogarten1,4, R Thane Papke5.
Abstract
Horizontal gene transfer is a means by which bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes are able to trade DNA within and between species. While there are a variety of mechanisms through which this genetic exchange can take place, one means prevalent in the archaeon Haloferax volcanii involves the transient formation of cytoplasmic bridges between cells and is referred to as mating. This process can result in the exchange of very large fragments of DNA between the participating cells. Genes governing the process of mating, including triggers to initiate mating, mechanisms of cell fusion, and DNA exchange, have yet to be characterized. We used a transcriptomic approach to gain a more detailed knowledge of how mating might transpire. By examining the differential expression of genes expressed in cells harvested from mating conditions on a filter over time and comparing them to those expressed in a shaking culture, we were able to identify genes and pathways potentially associated with mating. These analyses provide new insights into both the mechanisms and barriers of mating in Hfx. volcanii.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33339886 PMCID: PMC7749143 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-79296-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(A) Experimental overview (repeated for two biological replicates): auxotrophic cells were combined and filter plated for mating in casamino acids (CA) medium with uracil (ura), tryptophan (trp), and both thymidine and hypoxanthine (thy); two filters were used for sequencing and one for dilution plating on selective and non-selective media to calculate mean colony forming units (cfu) and mating efficiency; (B) Growth curve of Haloferax volcanii plotting mean cfu on log10 scale (standard error bars based on triplicate plates for two replicates; raw data are in Supplementary Table S1); (C) mating efficiency based on triplicate plates for two replicates excluding shaking and time 0, linear model regression fit calculated for time 2 to 24 h and comparison tested with ANOVA (n = 6 for each time point; raw data are in Supplementary Table S1); and (D) principle component analysis of mating transcriptome time-points identified by replicate pairs and ANOVA tested on PC1 for time.
Sample information including experimental parameters, sequencing and assembly information.
| Sample ID | Treatmenta | Raw pairsb | Trimmed pairsc | % Remaining (%) | Bowtie2 alignment rated (%) | No. D.E. genese |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shaking | Planktonic | 3,169,158 | 2,918,605 | 92.09 | 91.50 | n/a |
| t00 | 0 h | 3,256,394 | 2,805,158 | 86.14 | 91.61 | 3320 (109) |
| t02 | 2 h | 3,036,028 | 2,789,144 | 91.87 | 94.17 | 3434 (941) |
| t04 | 4 h | 3,155,477 | 2,900,100 | 91.91 | 93.50 | 3480 (1092) |
| t08 | 8 h | 3,054,785 | 2,756,910 | 90.25 | 94.08 | 3472 (757) |
| t24 | 24 h | 3,136,767 | 2,873,436 | 91.61 | 93.27 | 3462 (643) |
aShaking represents cells suspended and not mating; each hour following is time on filter before sampling (see methods for details).
bPaired end sequencing (2 × 75) using Illumina MiSeq summed for two replicates.
cTrimmed using Sickle v1.33 summed for two replicates.
dTrimmed reads were aligned back to the Haloferax volcanii DS2 genome (NCBI assembly: ASM2568v1); average across two replicates.
eTotal number of differentially expressed genes for each time point compared to shaking control and genes with p value < 0.01 in parenthesis.
Figure 2Bar plot depiction of differential expression compared to planktonic state for (A) glycosylation genes and (B) low-salt glycosylation genes; gene id on the x-axis and log2 fold change on the y-axis, *p value < 0.05 and **p value < 0.01. Genes directly involved in the N-glycosylation pathways are designated with their “agl” gene name and the remaining genes have a putative connection to glycosylation.
Figure 3Bar plot depiction of differential expression compared to planktonic state for genes involved in community development and biofilm formation; gene id on the y-axis and log2 fold change on the x-axis, *p value < 0.05 and **p value < 0.01.
Figure 4Bar plot depiction of differential expression compared to planktonic state for SNARE/dedA motif genes; gene id on the x-axis and log2 fold change on the y-axis, *p value < 0.05 and **p value < 0.01.
Figure 5Bar plot depiction of differential expression compared to planktonic state for FitZ and CetZ genes; gene id on the x-axis and log2 fold change on the y-axis, *p value < 0.05 and **p value < 0.01.
Figure 6(A) Manhattan plot with chromosome number on the x-axis and − log10 p value of differential expression for planktonic cells vs plated timepoints on the y-axis, all genes are plotted in grey and genes for insertion sequences are highlighted by color according to the key; (B) Violin plot showing log10 of average normalized expression values for each treatment on the y-axis; (C) Bar plot depiction of differential expression compared to planktonic state for restriction modification system genes; gene id on the x-axis and log2 fold change on the y-axis, *p value < 0.05 and **p value < 0.01.