20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Clustered brachiopod Hox genes are not expressed collinearly and are associated with lophotrochozoan novelties

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Significance

          Hox genes pattern the anteroposterior axis of all animals that have left and right body sides. In many animals, Hox genes are clustered along the chromosomes and expressed in spatial and temporal order. This coordinated regulation is thought to have preserved the cluster through a developmental constraint. Our study of the genomic organization and the embryonic spatial and temporal expression of Hox genes in sessile marine animals called lampshells (brachiopods) shows that along with having a broken Hox cluster, they lack both temporal and spatial collinearity. Furthermore, we present molecular evidence that the hard tissues (chaetae and shells) of segmented worms, mollusks, and brachiopods share a common origin that dates back to the Early Cambrian.

          Abstract

          Temporal collinearity is often considered the main force preserving Hox gene clusters in animal genomes. Studies that combine genomic and gene expression data are scarce, however, particularly in invertebrates like the Lophotrochozoa. As a result, the temporal collinearity hypothesis is currently built on poorly supported foundations. Here we characterize the complement, cluster, and expression of Hox genes in two brachiopod species, Terebratalia transversa and Novocrania anomala. T. transversa has a split cluster with 10 genes ( lab, pb, Hox3, Dfd, Scr, Lox5, Antp, Lox4, Post2, and Post1), whereas N. anomala has 9 genes (apparently missing Post1). Our in situ hybridization, real-time quantitative PCR, and stage-specific transcriptomic analyses show that brachiopod Hox genes are neither strictly temporally nor spatially collinear; only pb (in T. transversa), Hox3 (in both brachiopods), and Dfd (in both brachiopods) show staggered mesodermal expression. Thus, our findings support the idea that temporal collinearity might contribute to keeping Hox genes clustered. Remarkably, expression of the Hox genes in both brachiopod species demonstrates cooption of Hox genes in the chaetae and shell fields, two major lophotrochozoan morphological novelties. The shared and specific expression of Hox genes, together with Arx, Zic, and Notch pathway components in chaetae and shell fields in brachiopods, mollusks, and annelids provide molecular evidence supporting the conservation of the molecular basis for these lophotrochozoan hallmarks.

          Related collections

          Most cited references77

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A gene complex controlling segmentation in Drosophila.

          E B Lewis (1978)
          The bithorax gene complex in Drosophila contains a minimum of eight genes that seem to code for substances controlling levels of thoracic and abdominal development. The state of repression of at least four of these genes is controlled by cis-regulatory elements and a separate locus (Polycomb) seems to code for a repressor of the complex. The wild-type and mutant segmentation patterns are consistent with an antero-posterior gradient in repressor concentration along the embryo and a proximo-distal gradient along the chromosome in the affinities for repressor of each gene's cis-regulatory element.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Homeobox genes and axial patterning.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The rise and fall of Hox gene clusters.

              Although all bilaterian animals have a related set of Hox genes, the genomic organization of this gene complement comes in different flavors. In some unrelated species, Hox genes are clustered; in others, they are not. This indicates that the bilaterian ancestor had a clustered Hox gene family and that, subsequently, this genomic organization was either maintained or lost. Remarkably, the tightest organization is found in vertebrates, raising the embarrassingly finalistic possibility that vertebrates have maintained best this ancestral configuration. Alternatively, could they have co-evolved with an increased ;organization' of the Hox clusters, possibly linked to their genomic amplification, which would be at odds with our current perception of evolutionary mechanisms? When discussing the why's and how's of Hox gene clustering, we need to account for three points: the mechanisms of cluster evolution; the underlying biological constraints; and the developmental modes of the animals under consideration. By integrating these parameters, general conclusions emerge that can help solve the aforementioned dilemma.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A
                pnas
                pnas
                PNAS
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
                National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                7 March 2017
                22 February 2017
                22 February 2017
                : 114
                : 10
                : E1913-E1922
                Affiliations
                [1] aSars International Centre for Marine Molecular Biology, University of Bergen , Bergen 5006, Norway
                [2] bKewalo Marine Laboratory, Pacific Biosciences Research Center, University of Hawaii , Honolulu, HI 96822
                Author notes
                2To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: andreas.hejnol@ 123456uib.no .

                Edited by Sean B. Carroll, Howard Hughes Medical Institute and University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, and approved January 19, 2017 (received for review August 30, 2016)

                Author contributions: J.M.M.-D. and A.H. designed research; S.M.S., J.M.M.-D., A.B., B.C.V., Y.J.P., and A.H. performed research; Y.J.P. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; S.M.S., J.M.M.-D., A.B., B.C.V., Y.J.P., and A.H. analyzed data; and J.M.M.-D. and A.H. wrote the paper.

                1S.M.S. and J.M.M.-D. contributed equally to this work.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0000-9465
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2196-8507
                Article
                PMC5347542 PMC5347542 5347542 201614501
                10.1073/pnas.1614501114
                5347542
                28228521
                97001971-f375-43e3-8295-0b7915c3863c

                Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 10
                Categories
                PNAS Plus
                Biological Sciences
                Evolution
                PNAS Plus

                chaetae,shell fields,Lophotrochozoa, Wiwaxia ,Hox cluster
                chaetae, shell fields, Lophotrochozoa, Wiwaxia , Hox cluster

                Comments

                Comment on this article