Dataset Information

Variation and constraint in Hox gene evolution.

ABSTRACT: Despite enormous body plan variation, genes regulating embryonic development are highly conserved. Here, we probe the mechanisms that predispose ancient regulatory genes to reutilization and diversification rather than evolutionary loss. The Hox gene fushi tarazu (ftz) arose as a homeotic gene but functions as a pair-rule segmentation gene in Drosophila. ftz shows extensive variation in expression and protein coding regions but has managed to elude loss from arthropod genomes. We asked what properties prevent this loss by testing the importance of different protein motifs and partners in the developing CNS, where ftz expression is conserved. Drosophila Ftz proteins with mutated protein motifs were expressed under the control of a neurogenic-specific ftz cis-regulatory element (CRE) in a ftz mutant background rescued for segmentation defects. Ftz CNS function did not require the variable motifs that mediate differential cofactor interactions involved in homeosis or segmentation, which vary in arthropods. Rather, CNS function did require the shared DNA-binding homeodomain, which plays less of a role in Ftz segmentation activity. The Antennapedia homeodomain substituted for Ftz homeodomain function in the Drosophila CNS, but full-length Antennapedia did not rescue CNS defects. These results suggest that a core CNS function retains ftz in arthropod genomes. Acquisition of a neurogenic CRE led to ftz expression in unique CNS cells, differentiating its role from neighboring Hox genes, rendering it nonredundant. The inherent flexibility of modular CREs and protein domains allows for stepwise acquisition of new functions, explaining broad retention of regulatory genes during animal evolution.

SUBMITTER: Heffer A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3568319 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Variation and constraint in Hox gene evolution.

Heffer Alison A Xiang Jie J Pick Leslie L

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20130122 6

Despite enormous body plan variation, genes regulating embryonic development are highly conserved. Here, we probe the mechanisms that predispose ancient regulatory genes to reutilization and diversification rather than evolutionary loss. The Hox gene fushi tarazu (ftz) arose as a homeotic gene but functions as a pair-rule segmentation gene in Drosophila. ftz shows extensive variation in expression and protein coding regions but has managed to elude loss from arthropod genomes. We asked what prop ...[more]

PMID: 23341600

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Onychophora is a relatively small phylum within Ecdysozoa, and is considered to be the sister group to Arthropoda. Compared to the arthropods, that have radiated into countless divergent forms, the onychophoran body plan is overall comparably simple and does not display much in-phylum variation. An important component of arthropod morphological diversity consists of variation of tagmosis, i.e. the grouping of segments into functional units (tagmata), and this in turn is correlated with differences in expression patterns of the Hox genes. How these genes are expressed in the simpler onychophorans, the subject of this paper, would therefore be of interest in understanding their subsequent evolution in the arthropods, especially if an argument can be made for the onychophoran system broadly reflecting the ancestral state in the arthropods. RESULTS:The sequences and embryonic expression patterns of the complete set of ten Hox genes of an onychophoran (Euperipatoides kanangrensis) are described for the first time. We find that they are all expressed in characteristic patterns that suggest a function as classical Hox genes. The onychophoran Hox genes obey spatial colinearity, and with the exception of Ultrabithorax (Ubx), they all have different and distinct anterior expression borders. Notably, Ubx transcripts form a posterior to anterior gradient in the onychophoran trunk. Expression of all onychophoran Hox genes extends continuously from their anterior border to the rear end of the embryo. CONCLUSIONS:The spatial expression pattern of the onychophoran Hox genes may contribute to a combinatorial Hox code that is involved in giving each segment its identity. This patterning of segments in the uniform trunk, however, apparently predates the evolution of distinct segmental differences in external morphology seen in arthropods. The gradient-like expression of Ubx may give posterior segments their specific identity, even though they otherwise express the same set of Hox genes. We suggest that the confined domains of Hox gene expression seen in arthropods evolved from an ancestral onychophoran-like Hox gene pattern. Reconstruction of the ancestral arthropod Hox pattern and comparison with the patterns in the different arthropod classes reveals phylogenetic support for Mandibulata and Tetraconata, but not Myriochelata and Atelocerata.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Hox genes are known to play a key role in shaping the body plan of metazoans. Evolutionary dynamics of these genes is therefore essential in explaining patterns of evolutionary diversity. Among extant sarcopterygians comprising both lobe-finned fishes and tetrapods, our knowledge of the Hox genes and clusters has largely been restricted in several model organisms such as frogs, birds and mammals. Some evolutionary gaps still exist, especially for those groups with derived body morphology or occupying key positions on the tree of life, hindering our understanding of how Hox gene inventory varied along the sarcopterygian lineage. RESULTS: We determined the Hox gene inventory for six sarcopterygian groups: lungfishes, caecilians, salamanders, snakes, turtles and crocodiles by comprehensive PCR survey and genome walking. Variable Hox genes in each of the six sarcopterygian group representatives, compared to the human Hox gene inventory, were further validated for their presence/absence by PCR survey in a number of related species representing a broad evolutionary coverage of the group. Turtles, crocodiles, birds and placental mammals possess the same 39 Hox genes. HoxD12 is absent in snakes, amphibians and probably lungfishes. HoxB13 is lost in frogs and caecilians. Lobe-finned fishes, amphibians and squamate reptiles possess HoxC3. HoxC1 is only present in caecilians and lobe-finned fishes. Similar to coelacanths, lungfishes also possess HoxA14, which is only found in lobe-finned fishes to date. Our Hox gene variation data favor the lungfish-tetrapod, turtle-archosaur and frog-salamander relationships and imply that the loss of HoxD12 is not directly related to digit reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Our newly determined Hox inventory data provide a more complete scenario for evolutionary dynamics of Hox genes along the sarcopterygian lineage. Limbless, worm-like caecilians and snakes possess similar Hox gene inventories to animals with less derived body morphology, suggesting changes to their body morphology are likely due to other modifications rather than changes to Hox gene numbers. Furthermore, our results provide basis for future sequencing of the entire Hox clusters of these animals.

Dataset Information

Variation and constraint in Hox gene evolution.

Publications

Variation and constraint in Hox gene evolution.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure