Advertisement

Comparative analysis of selection mode reveals different evolutionary rate and expression pattern in Arachis duranensis and Arachis ipaënsis duplicated genes

  • Hui Song
  • Juan Sun
  • Guofeng Yang
Article

Abstract

Key message

Our results reveal that Ks is a determining factor affecting selective pressure and different evolution and expression patterns are detected between PSGs and NSGs in wild Arachis duplicates.

Abstract

Selective pressure, including purifying (negative) and positive selection, can be detected in organisms. However, studies on comparative evolutionary rates, gene expression patterns and gene features between negatively selected genes (NSGs) and positively selected genes (PSGs) are lagging in paralogs of plants. Arachis duranensis and Arachis ipaënsis are ancestors of the cultivated peanut, an important oil and protein crop. Here, we carried out a series of systematic analyses, comparing NSG and PSG in paralogs, using genome sequences and transcriptome datasets in A. duranensis and A. ipaënsis. We found that synonymous substitution rate (Ks) is a determining factor affecting selective pressure in A. duranensis and A. ipaënsis duplicated genes. Lower expression level, lower gene expression breadth, higher codon bias and shorter polypeptide length were found in PSGs and not in NSGs. The correlation analyses showed that gene expression breadth was positively correlated with polypeptide length and GC content at the first codon site (GC1) in PSGs and NSGs, respectively. There was a negative correlation between expression level and polypeptide length in PSGs. In NSGs, the Ks was positively correlated with expression level, gene expression breadth, GC1, and GC content at the third codon site (GC3), but selective pressure was negatively correlated with expression level, gene expression breadth, polypeptide length, GC1, and GC3 content. The function of most duplicated gene pairs was divergent under drought and nematode stress. Taken together, our results show that different evolution and expression patterns occur between PSGs and NSGs in paralogs of two wild Arachis species.

Keywords

Arachis duranensis Arachis ipaënsis Duplicated gene Gene expression pattern Selective pressure 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Steven B. Cannon for valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. This study was supported by the Forage Industrial Innovation Team, Shandong Modern Agricultural Industrial and Technical System (SDAIT-23-01) and China Agriculture Research System (CARS-34).

Author contributions

HS and GY conceived and designed this research. HS analyzed data and wrote the manuscript. JS participated in the discussion of the results. GY contributed to the evaluation and discussion of the results and manuscript revision.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11103_2018_784_MOESM1_ESM.tif (761 kb)
Supplementary material 1—Supplementary Fig. S1 Comparisons of evolutionary rate of asymmetric and symmetric duplicated genes after drought stress and nematode infection in A. duranensis. (A) Comparisons of Ks values between asymmetric and symmetric duplicated genes after drought stress in A. duranensis; (B) Comparisons of Ka values between asymmetric and symmetric duplicated genes after drought stress in A. duranensis; (C) Comparisons of Ka/Ks values between asymmetric and symmetric duplicated genes after drought stress in A. duranensis; (D) Comparisons of Ks values between asymmetric and symmetric duplicated genes after nematode infection in A. duranensis; (E) Comparisons of Ka values between asymmetric and symmetric duplicated genes after nematode infection in A. duranensis; (F) Comparisons of Ka/Ks values between asymmetric and symmetric duplicated genes after nematode infection in A. duranensis. (TIF 761 KB)

References

  1. Altschul S, Madden T, Schäffer A, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman D (1997) Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 25:3389–3402.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.17.3389 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Anders S, Huber W (2010) Differential expression analysis for sequence count data. Genome Biol 11:106–110.  https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2010-11-10-r106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertioli DJ et al (2016) The genome sequences of Arachis duranensis and Arachis ipaensis, the diploid ancestors of cultivated peanut. Nat Genet 48:438–446.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3517 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brasileiro ACM et al (2015) Transcriptome profiling of wild Arachis from water-limited environments uncovers drought tolerance candidate genes. Plant Mol Biol Rep 33:1876–1892.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11105-015-0882-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Cannon SB et al (2015) Multiple polyploidy events in the early radiation of nodulating and nonnodulating legumes. Mol Bio Evol 32:193–210.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msu296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen K, Durand D, Farach-Colton M (2000) NOTUNG: a program for dating gene duplications and optimizing gene family trees. J Comput Biol 7:429–447.  https://doi.org/10.1089/106652700750050871 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen F, Mackey AJ, Vermunt JK, Roos DS (2007) Assessing performance of orthology detection strategies applied to eukaryotic genomes. PLoS ONE 2:e383.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000383 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Cherry JL (2010) Expression level, evolutionary rate, and the cost of expression. Genome Biol Evol 2:757–769.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evq059 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Clevenger J, Chu Y, Scheffler B, Ozias-Akins P (2016) A developmental transcriptome map for allotetraploid Arachis hypogaea. Front Plant Sci 7:1446.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01446 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Conant GC, Wolfe KH (2008) Turning a hobby into a job: how duplicated genes find new functions. Nat Rev Genet 9:938–950.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2482 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dash S, Cannon EKS, Kalberer SR, Farmer AD, Cannon SB (2016) PeanutBase and other bioinformatic resources for peanut. In: Stalker HT, Wilson RF (eds) Peanuts genetics, processing, and utilization. AOCS Press, Urbana, pp 241–252.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-63067-038-2.00008-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Smet R, Adams KL, Vandepoele K, Van Montagu MCE, Maere S, Van de Peer Y (2013) Convergent gene loss following gene and genome duplications creates single-copy families in flowering plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:2898–2903.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1300127110 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. De Smet R, Sabaghian E, Li Z, Saeys Y, Van de Peer Y (2017) Coordinated functional divergence of genes after genome duplication in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell 29:2786–2800.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.17.00531 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. De La Torre AR, Lin YC, Van de Peer Y, Ingvarsson PK (2015) Genome-wide analysis reveals diverged pattern of codon bias, gene expression, and rates of sequence evolution in Picea gene families. Genome Biol Evol 7:1002–1015.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evv044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drummond DA, Bloom JD, Adami C, Wilke CO, Arnold FH (2005) Why highly expressed proteins evolve slowly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:14338–14343.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0504070102 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Duret L (2000) tRNA gene number and codon usage in the C. elegans genome are co-adapted for optimal translation of highly expressed genes. Trends Genet 16:287–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duret L, Mouchiroud D (1999) Expression pattern and, surprisingly, gene length shape codon usage in Caenorhabditis, Drosophila, and Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:4482–4487.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.8.4482 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Flagel LE, Wendel JF (2009) Gene duplication and evolutionary novelty in plants. New Phytol 183:557–564.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02923.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gao C, Sun J, Wang C, Dong Y, Xiao S, Wang X, Jiao Z (2017) Genome-wide analysis of basic/helix-loop-helix gene family in peanut and assessment of its roles in pod development. PLoS ONE 12:e0181843.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181843 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Geiler-Samerotte KA, Dion MF, Budnik BA, Wang SM, Hartl DL, Drummond DA (2011) Misfolded proteins impose a dosage-dependent fitness cost and trigger a cytosolic unfolded protein response in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:680–685.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1017570108 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gout JF, Kahn D, Duret L (2010) The relationship among gene expression, the evolution of gene dosage, and the rate of protein evolution. PLoS Genet 6:e1000944.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000944 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Guimaraes LA et al (2017) Genome-wide analysis of expansin superfamily in wild Arachis discloses a stress-responsive expansin-like B gene. Plant Mol Biol 94:79–96.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-017-0594-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Guimarães PM et al (2015) Root transcriptome analysis of wild peanut reveals candidate genes for nematode resistance. PLoS ONE 10:e0140937.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140937 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Guo Y, Liu J, Zhang J, Liu S, Du J (2017) Selective modes determine evolutionary rates, gene compactness and expression patterns in. Brassica. Plant J 91:34–44.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.13541 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanada K, Zou C, Lehti-Shiu MD, Shinozaki K, Shiu SH (2008) Importance of lineage-specific expansion of plant tandem duplicates in the adaptive response to environmental stimuli. Plant Physiol 148:993–1003.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.108.122457 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. He X, Zhang J (2005) Rapid subfunctionalization accompanied by prolonged and substantial neofunctionalization in duplicate gene evolution. Genetics 169:1157–1164.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.104.037051 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Hershberg R, Petrov DA (2008) Selection on codon bias. Annu Rev Genet 42:287–299.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genet.42.110807.091442 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hodgins KA, Yeaman S, Nurkowski KA, Rieseberg LH, Aitken SN (2016) Expression divergence is correlated with sequence evolution but not positive selection in conifers. Mol Bio Evol 33:1502–1516.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ingvarsson PK (2007) Gene expression and protein length influence codon usage and rates of sequence evolution in Populus tremula. Mol Bio Evol 24:836–844.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msl212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Katoh K, Standley DM (2013) MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Bio Evol 30:772–780.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kondrashov FA (2012) Gene duplication as a mechanism of genomic adaptation to a changing environment. Proc R Soc B 279:5048–5057.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.1108 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Li B, Dewey CN (2011) RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. BMC Bioinform 12:323.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Li H, Durbin R (2009) Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25:1754–1760.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Lohaus R, Van de Peer Y (2016) Of dups and dinos: evolution at the K/Pg boundary. Curr Opin Plant Biol 30:62–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2016.01.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Nei M, Gu X, Sitnikova T (1997) Evolution by the birth-and-death process in multigene families of the vertebrate immune system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:7799–7806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Novoa EM, de Pouplana LR (2012) Speeding with control: codon usage, tRNAs, and ribosomes. Trends Genet 28:574–581.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2012.07.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Ohno S (1970) Evolution by gene duplication. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ota T, Nei M (1994) Divergent evolution and evolution by the birth-and-death process in the immunoglobulin VH gene family. Mol Bio Evol 11:469–482.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Panchy N, Lehti-Shiu M, Shiu SH (2016) Evolution of gene duplication in plants. Plant Physiol 171:2294–2316.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.16.00523 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Petersen SV, Dutton A, Lohmann KC (2016) End-cretaceous extinction in Antarctica linked to both Deccan volcanism and meteorite impact via climate change. Nat Commun 7:12079.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12079 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Qian W, Zhang J (2014) Genomic evidence for adaptation by gene duplication. Genome Res 24:1356–1362.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.172098.114 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Rastogi S, Liberles DA (2005) Subfunctionalization of duplicated genes as a transition state to neofunctionalization. BMC Evol Biol 5:28.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-5-28 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Remm M, Storm CE, Sonnhammer EL (2001) Automatic clustering of orthologs and in-paralogs from pairwise species comparisons. J Mol Biol 314:1041–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.2000.5197 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Renne PR, Sprain CJ, Richards MA, Self S, Vanderkluysen L, Pande K (2015) State shift in Deccan volcanism at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary, possibly induced by impact. Science 350:76–78.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac7549 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Roulin A et al (2013) The fate of duplicated genes in a polyploid plant genome. Plant J 73:143–153.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.12026 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Sharp PM, Li WH (1987) The codon adaption index-a measure of directional synonymous codon usage bias, and its potential applications. Nucleic Acids Res 15:1281–1295.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/15.3.1281 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Song H, Wang P, Li C, Han S, Lopez-Baltazar J, Zhang X, Wang X (2016a) Identification of lipoxygenase (LOX) genes from legumes and their responses in wild type and cultivated peanut upon Aspergillus flavus infection. Sci Rep 6:35245.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35245 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Song H, Wang P, Lin JY, Zhao C, Bi Y, Wang X (2016b) Genome-wide identification and characterization of WRKY gene family in peanut. Front Plant Sci 7:534.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00534 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Song H, Gao H, Liu J, Tian P, Nan Z (2017a) Comprehensive analysis of correlations among codon usage bias, gene expression, and substitution rate in Arachis duranensis and Arachis ipaënsis orthologs. Sci Rep 7:14853.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13981-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Song H et al (2017b) Comparative analysis of NBS-LRR genes and their response to Aspergillus flavus in Arachis. PLoS ONE 12:e0171181.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171181 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Song H, Zhang Q, Tian P, Nan Z (2017c) Differential evolutionary patterns and expression levels between sex-specific and somatic tissue-specific genes in peanut. Sci Rep 7:9016.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09905-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Suyama M, Torrents D, Bork P (2006) PAL2NAL: robust conversion of protein sequence alignments into the corresponding codon alignments. Nucleic Acids Res 34:609–612.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkl315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Trachana K, Larsson TA, Powell S, Chen WH, Doerks T, Muller J, Bork P (2011) Orthology prediction methods: a quality assessment using curated protein families. Bioessays 33:769–780.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201100062 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Van de Peer Y, Mizrachi E, Marchal K (2017) The evolutionary significance of polyploidy. Nat Rev Genet 18:411–424.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2017.26 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Vanneste K, Baele G, Maere S (2014) Analysis of 41 plant genomes supports a wave of successful genome duplications in association with the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. Genome Res 24:1334–1347.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.168997.113 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Wang P et al (2017) Genome-wide dissection of the heat shock transcription factor family genes in Arachis. Front Plant Sci 8:106.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00106 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Whittle CA, Extavour CG (2015) Codon and amino acid usage are shaped by selection across divergent model organisms of the Pancrustacea. G3 5:2307–2321.  https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.115.021402 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Williford A, Demuth JP (2012) Gene expression levels are correlated with synonymous codon usage, amino acid composition, and gene architecture in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum. Mol Bio Evol 29:3755–3766.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wright SI, Yan CB, Looseley M, Meyers BC (2004) Effects of gene expression on molecular evolution in Arabidopsis thaliana and Arabidopsis lyrata. Mol Bio Evol 21:1719–1726.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msh191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yang Z (2007) PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol Bio Evol 24:1586–1591.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msm088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yang H (2009) In plants, expression breadth and expression level distinctly and non-linearly correlate with gene structure. Biol Direct 4:45.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-4-45 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Yang L, Gaut BS (2011) Factors that contribute to variation in evolutionary rate among Arabidopsis genes. Mol Bio Evol 28:2359–2369.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msr058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zerbino DR, McEwen GK, Margulies EH, Birney E (2009) Pebble and rock band: heuristic resolution of repeats and scaffolding in the velvet short-read de novo assembler. PLoS ONE 4:e8407.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008407 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhang JZ (2003) Evolution by gene duplication: an update. Trends Ecol Evol 18:292–298.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(03)00033-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zou C, Lehti-Shiu MD, Thomashow M, Shiu SH (2009) Evolution of stress-regulated gene expression in duplicate genes of Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Genet 5:e1000581.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000581 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Grassland Agri-husbandry Research CenterQingdao Agricultural UniversityQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations