| Literature DB >> 35154285 |
Zhong-Liang Peng1,2, Wei Wu1,2, Chen-Yang Tang1, Jin-Long Ren1,2, Dechun Jiang1, Jia-Tang Li1,2,3.
Abstract
Animal olfactory systems evolved with changes in habitat to detect odor cues from the environment. The aquatic environment, as a unique habitat, poses a formidable challenge for olfactory perception in animals, since the higher density and viscosity of water. The olfactory system in snakes is highly specialized, thus providing the opportunity to explore the adaptive evolution of such systems to unique habitats. To date, however, few studies have explored the changes in gene expression features in the olfactory systems of aquatic snakes. In this study, we carried out RNA sequencing of 26 olfactory tissue samples (vomeronasal organ and olfactory bulb) from two aquatic and two non-aquatic snake species to explore gene expression changes under the aquatic environment. Weighted gene co-expression network analysis showed significant differences in gene expression profiles between aquatic and non-aquatic habitats. The main olfactory systems of the aquatic and non-aquatic snakes were regulated by different genes. Among these genes, RELN may contribute to exploring gene expression changes under the aquatic environment by regulating the formation of inhibitory neurons in the granular cell layer and increasing the separation of neuronal patterns to correctly identify complex chemical information. The high expression of TRPC2 and V2R family genes in the accessory olfactory systems of aquatic snakes should enhance their ability to bind water-soluble odor molecules, and thus obtain more information in hydrophytic habitats. This work provides an important foundation for exploring the olfactory adaptation of snakes in special habitats.Entities:
Keywords: aquatic adaptation; gene expression pattern; olfactory adaptation; snakes; transcriptome
Year: 2022 PMID: 35154285 PMCID: PMC8829814 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.825974
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Genet ISSN: 1664-8021 Impact factor: 4.599
FIGURE 1Four species of snakes in the study. (A) Hypsiscopus plumbea (aquatic). (B) Opisthotropis zhaoermii (aquatic). (C) Ahaetulla prasina (non-aquatic). (D) Pareas menglaensis (non-aquatic). Photos by Jin-Long Ren and Jun-Jie Huang.
FIGURE 2Overview of annotative summary of de novo transcriptome assembly. (A–D) Venn diagram showing the number of specific and overlapping annotated unigenes between annotated results from four public databases. (A) Functional annotation of transcripts in of A. prasina. (B) Functional annotation of transcripts of H. plumbea. (C) Functional annotation of transcripts of O. zhaoermii. (D) Functional annotation of transcripts of P. menglaensis. (E) Comparison of Gene Ontology (GO) classifications based on de novo transcriptome assembly of four species of snakes.
FIGURE 3Plot of the principal component analysis (PCA) of four species of snakes. (A) PCA plot of main olfactory system (MOS) samples. (B) PCA plot of accessory olfactory system (AOS) samples.
FIGURE 4Construction of the weighted gene co-expression network (WGCNA). (A) Analysis of soft-thresholding powers based on scale independence (left) and mean connectivity (right). (B) The cluster dendrogram of orthologous genes. Each row corresponds to a module eigengene. (C) Network heatmap plot of orthologous genes. (D) Module-traits relationships identified by WGCNA. The color and the number (above) of each cell indicate the correlation and the numbers in parentheses represent p-value.
FIGURE 5Analysis of the aquatic MOS (yellow) module and the non-aquatic MOS (blue) module. (A, B) The x-axis is module membership and the y-axis stand for gene significance. Gene significance (GS) was calculated to measure the correlation between habitat and expression profiles and module membership (MM) was calculated to measure the correlation between ME and expression profiles. (A) Scatterplots of gene significance (GS) for habitat traits versus module membership (MM) in the aquatic MOS module. (B) Scatterplots of gene significance (GS) for habitat traits versus module membership (MM) in the non-aquatic MOS module. (C, D) Each term was assigned x and y coordinates and more semantically similar GO terms were closer in the plot. The size of the circles indicates the number of child GO terms. (C) GO enrichment analysis of genes in the aquatic MOS module was visualized using REVIGO. (D) GO enrichment analysis of genes in the non-aquatic MOS module was visualized using REVIGO. (E) The expression of olfactory-related genes in the two modules.
FIGURE 6Analysis of the aquatic AOS (midnight-blue) module and the non-aquatic AOS (turquoise) module. (A) Scatterplots of gene significance (GS) for habitat traits versus module membership (MM) in the aquatic AOS module. (B) Scatterplots of gene significance (GS) for habitat traits versus module membership (MM) in the non-aquatic AOS module. (C) GO enrichment analysis of genes in the aquatic AOS module was visualized using REVIGO. (D) GO enrichment analysis of genes in the non-aquatic AOS module was visualized using REVIGO. (E) The expression of olfactory-related genes in the two modules.