Comparison of coelacanth, human, and zebrafish protocadherin clusters identifies modifications specific to tetrapods and teleosts
To determine the phylogenetic relationship of coelacanth, zebrafish, and human protocadherin cluster proteins, we aligned protocadherin extracellular domain sequences from all three species by using CLUSTALW, and built maximum likelihood (ML) trees in SEMPHY (see Methods for details). On the basis of these analyses and our library screening, coelacanth has one protocadherin cluster comprised of 49 variable exons arrayed in α, β, and γ subclusters, in the same order and orientation as mammalian protocadherins (). The coelacanth protocadherin cluster shows no evidence of whole-genome duplication, consistent with the explanation that the coelacanth genome has not experienced a recent polyploidization event. The coelacanth α and γ subclusters also have the characteristic arrangement of multiple variable and three constant region exons seen in mammals and zebrafish. Zebrafish, coelacanth, and human variable exon splice donor sites are essentially identical (data not shown). Few orthologous relationships are evident among individual coelacanth, human, and zebrafish protocadherins, but all three lineages share conserved Pcdhα and Pcdhγ paralog subgroups (Figs. , , ). The phylogenies of these paralog subgroups follow the species tree for these organisms, in which zebrafish is the outgroup to both human and coelacanth (). These subgroups are likely to be conserved in all vertebrates. However, the diversity of modern teleost and mammalian species is the product of an adaptive radiation in each lineage, which is driven by the lineage-specific adaptive evolution of genomes. Coelacanth sequence can be used to identify these tetrapod- and teleost-specific changes in gene content.
Ancestral Pcdhα paralog subgroups present in coelacanth have been lost in mammals. (A) Maximum likelihood phylogenies of coelacanth and human protocadherin α cluster proteins. Colors indicate paralog subgroups as shown in . The ...
Maximum likelihood phylogeny of coelacanth and human protocadherin β and γ proteins. Colors indicate paralog subgroups as shown in . The subtrees of human Pcdhβ1-β16, PcdhγA1-γA12, and PcdhγB1-γB7 ...
Comparison of the human (Hs), coelacanth (Lm), and zebrafish (Dr1 and Dr2) protocadherin clusters. The known phylogeny is shown at left. The yellow circle indicates the teleost whole-genome duplication. Genes in each paralog subgroup are indicated by ...
Phylogenetic relationship of coelacanth (Lm), zebrafish (Dr), and human Pcdhα (A) and Pcdhγ (B) proteins. Subtrees have been collapsed for clarity, so terminal branch lengths are approximate. Colors refer to paralog subgroups shown in ...
The 15 human protocadherin α genes belong to one of two paralog subgroups,
Pcdhα
1-α
13 and
Pcdhα
C1 and α
C2. This arrangement is conserved in mouse and, most likely, in all mammals (
Wu et al. 2001; J.P. Noonan, J. Grimwood, J. Danke, J. Schmutz, M. Dickson, C.T. Amemiya, and R.M. Myers, unpubl.). The coelacanth
Pcdhα subcluster is more complex than its mammalian counterparts, consisting of 21 variable exons organized into three divergent paralog subgroups as follows:
LmPcdhα
1-α
10, α
11α-
14, and α
15α-
21 (Figs. , ). These subgroups are physically contiguous, indicating that they arose from three diverse, single-copy ancestors and have since resisted rearrangement.
LmPcdhα
11-α
14 and human
Pcdhα
1-α
13 are derived from a common ancestral paralog, as are
LmPcdhα
15-α
21 and human
Pcdhα
C1. LmPcdhα
21and human
Pcdhα
C2 are clearly orthologs (). The order of these groups is also conserved between human and coelacanth protocadherin clusters ().
The majority
Pcdhα paralog subgroup in coelacanth,
LmPcdhα
1-α
10, has no equivalent in mammals. On the basis of the tree topologies in ,
LmPcdhα
1α-
10 appear to be descended from the same ancestral protocadherin as
LmPcdhα
21 and human
Pcdhα
C2. However,
LmPcdhα
1-α
10 and
LmPcdhα
21 are considerably diverged in sequence, copy number, and physical position within the coelacanth
Pcdhα cluster (Figs. , ). In addition, coelacanth
Pcdhα
1 and zebrafish
Pcdh1α
1 are orthologous, indicating that this paralog subgroup predates the divergence of ray-finned and lobe-finned fishes (Figs. , ). Given their physical proximity, coelacanth
Pcdhα
2-α
10 may have arisen through tandem duplication and subsequent diversification in the coelacanth lineage, or else their zebrafish orthologs have not been maintained. Coelacanth
Pcdhα
8 and
Pcdhα
10 are clearly the products of a recent duplication (), indicating that gene duplication continues to generate new coelacanth protocadherin paralogs. We searched the
Xenopus tropicalis genome assembly (v1.0;
http://genome.jgi-psf.org/xenopus/) for paralogs in this class by using TBLASTN, and found one predicted protein that is ∼70% identical to coelacanth Pcdhα1. This predicted protein appears to be orthologous to coelacanth Pcdhα1 when included in a maximum likelihood phylogeny of zebrafish, coelacanth, and human Pcdhα proteins (data not shown). The protocadherin paralog subgroup including coelacanth
Pcdhα
1-α
10 and zebrafish
Pcdh1α
1 was evidently lost subsequent to the emergence of tetrapods, but prior to the mammalian radiation. Functional differences between these two paralog subgroups may contribute to adaptive differences in coelacanth and mammalian brain development.
The phylogeny of coelacanth Pcdhγ proteins is straightforward (Figs. , ). Coelacanth Pcdhγ1-γ19 and human PcdhγA1-γA12 and γB1-γB7 are derived from the same ancestral Pcdhγ paralog, as are coelacanth Pcdhγ20-γ24 and human PcdhγC3-γC5. Coelacanth Pcdhγ20, γ21, and γ23 are orthologous to human γC3, γC4, and γC5, respectively. These orthologous relationships are not evident between human and zebrafish Pcdhγ proteins (). The division of mammalian Pcdhγ proteins into γA and γB subtypes is absent in coelacanth. Coelacanth nevertheless has a diverse Pcdhγ repertoire. On the basis of their physical distribution and their relationships in the protein tree, coelacanth Pcdhγ paralogs arose through multiple tandem-duplication events. The most recent duplications were physically localized and generatedPcdhγ13 through Pcdhγ16, which are very similar to one another. However, most related coelacanth Pcdhγ paralogs, such as Pcdhγ1 and Pcdhγ9 or Pcdhγ5 and Pcdhγ8, are much more divergent and are dispersed throughout the Pcdhγ cluster, indicating that they are the product of ancient duplications ().
Protocadherin β genes likely arose by duplication and sequence divergence of existing
Pcdhγ genes at some undetermined point in vertebrate evolution (
Wu et al. 2001;
Noonan et al. 2004). Coelacanth and humans each have a
Pcdhβ cluster, whereas zebrafish apparently do not (Figs. , , ). However, there are only four functional coelacanth
Pcdhβ paralogs, versus 16 in human and 22 in mouse. The four
LmPcdhβ paralogs appear to be the products of ancient tandem duplications (). There are nearly as many
Pcdhβ pseudogenes as functional
Pcdhβ genes in coelacanth, suggesting that the common ancestor of coelacanth and tetrapods had a substantial
Pcdhβ repertoire that has expanded in tetrapods and decayed in coelacanth. The most obvious effect of this expansion is that the protocadherin repertoire in mammals is more diverse than that in coelacanth. The maintenance and diversification of so many duplicate genes in mammals could provide some adaptive benefit, most likely by allowing a greater number and variety of Pcdhβ-mediated interactions between neurons, both at synapses and elsewhere, in the developing brain. The absence of β protocadherins in zebrafish could be due to secondary loss in teleosts, or the
Pcdhβ cluster could have arisen after the separation of teleosts from lobe-finned fishes. In either event, depending solely on zebrafish sequence as a reference would lead to the faulty conclusion that β protocadherins are purely tetrapod-specific genes.
The teleost whole-genome duplication event has radically altered the overall protocadherin complement in zebrafish relative to coelacanth and mammals. Zebrafish has two highly divergent protocadherin clusters:
DrPcdh1, consisting of 38 α and γ protocadherins, and
DrPcdh2, which has at least 59 genes (
Noonan et al. 2004; ). Sequencing of
DrPcdh2 is incomplete, but sufficient sequence is available to indicate that more α and γ protocadherins, and no β protocadherins, will be identified in the finished sequence. Ohno postulated that, following gene duplication, one duplicate would evolve rapidly relative to the other, because only one copy is necessarily under functional constraint (
Ohno 1970). The massive expansion and diversification of protocadherins in zebrafish relative to coelacanth is an excellent illustration of this concept. Comparison of coelacanth and zebrafish protocadherin cluster sequences suggests that
DrPcdh2 is considerably more divergent relative to the preduplication ancestor than is
DrPcdh1 (). In addition, two
DrPcdh2 protocadherin α paralog subgroups,
Pcdh2α
1-
2α
7 and
Pcdh2α
8-
2α
25, have no counterpart in coelacanth or human protocadherin clusters (). These subgroups are ultimately descended from redundant ancestral paralogs generated by the whole-genome duplication. The absence of functional constraint on these duplicates evidently allowed them to accumulate diversifying substitutions, and additional tandem duplications have greatly increased the number of paralogs in each subgroup. Many of the paralogs in the
Pcdh2α
8-
2α
25 subgroup are also ancient duplicates, and the maintenance of these paralogs indicates that they have acquired a teleost-specific function (
Noonan et al. 2004).
Zebrafish also has at least 49 Pcdhγ genes, although all of these are paralogous to human and coelacanth γ protocadherins (Figs. , , ). The maintenance of so many paralogs since the whole-genome duplication represents a massive expansion in Pcdhγ gene content in zebrafish relative to other species. Although many of these genes appear to be the products of recent duplications (), they engage in frequent gene conversion events, as we discuss below. Gene conversion reduces sequence diversity among paralogs and can thereby make ancient paralogs appear to be recent duplicates. It is therefore difficult to estimate the age of zebrafishPcdhγ paralogs on the basis of sequence similarity. In addition, there are no Pcdh2γ pseudogenes evident in zebrafish and very few DrPcdh2 pseudogenes overall. This implies that many Pcdh2γ genes are under purifying selection, despite their apparent similarity. However, gene conversion between highly similar paralogs could also be acting to repair inactivating substitutions, thus causing both paralogs to be maintained when only one is constrained. Interestingly, although there is some indication that groups of Pcdh1γ and Pcdh2γ paralogs are descended from a common preduplication ancestor, there are apparently no remaining Pcdh1γ and Pcdh2γ paralogs that arose directly from the whole-genome duplication (). Therefore, many modern zebrafish protocadherin paralogs seem to be the products of tandem duplications occurring subsequent to the whole-genome duplication event. Two possibilities arise from this observation. Zebrafish Pcdhγ genes may be generated through a continuous process of gene duplication, in which case, many of the current, highly similar zebrafish Pcdhγ genes will be lost and subsequently replaced by new, equally disposable duplicates. Alternatively, many zebrafish Pcdhγ genes may have arisen in a burst of tandem duplication occurring after the whole-genome duplication, with additional duplications occurring at a lower frequency since that event. In this scenario, many zebrafish Pcdhγ genes are functionally constrained. A comparison of zebrafish and pufferfish Pcdhγ genes would help resolve this issue. However, whole-genome shotgun sequence, which comprises the current Fugu and tetraodon genome builds, is inadequate for assembling contiguous protocadherin cluster sequences, due to the highly repetitive nature of the genes (data not shown). Any inferences as to protocadherin cluster organization or paralog content that we could make from current Fugu and tetraodon genome assemblies would therefore be unreliable.
Massive expansion of the Pcdhγ paralog subgroup in zebrafish.
DrPcdh1γ paralogs (see ) are shown in green.
DrPcdh2γ paralogs from
BX005294 are
...
Low frequency of gene conversion events in coelacanth protocadherin cluster genes
We recently determined that paralogous protocadherin cluster genes in zebrafish and mammals undergo gene conversion events, resulting in ectodomain-specific sequence homogenization (
Noonan et al. 2004). To compare the frequencies of gene conversion in human, coelacanth, and zebrafish protocadherin subgroups, we aligned the full-length extracellular domains and individual ectodomains of all paralogs in each subgroup and estimated the total number of synonymous substitutions per codon (dS) in the gene tree generated from each alignment (; see Methods). Our results indicate that coelacanth protocadherins rarely engage in gene conversion. Coelacanth
Pcdhγ
1-γ
19 and zebrafish
Pcdh2γ
15-
2γ
31 have similar overall estimated neutral substitution rates (). However, the distribution of substitutions among the ectodomains in each subgroup is very different (). The ratio of substitution rates for the most divergent and least divergent ectodomains in
LmPcdhγ
1-γ
19 is 1.59, indicating a uniform distribution of synonymous-site diversity among the ectodomains in this class. In contrast, the estimated total neutral substitution rate in
DrPcdh2γ
15-
2γ
31 ectodomain 6 is zero. The estimated substitution rate for the most divergent ectodomain in this class is 53.32 total substitutions per codon.
DrPcdh2α
8-
2α
25 shows a similar substitution rate distribution. At this level of diversity, the variance in these estimates is considerable. Nevertheless, these results indicate that gene conversion causes much of the overall sequence diversity among zebrafish protocadherins, but not coelacanth protocadherins, to be sequestered in particular ectodomains.
Coelacanth protocadherins rarely undergo gene conversion events. Distribution of synonymous substitution rates across ectodomains 1 through 6 and the cytoplasmic domain for zebrafish Pcdh2α and coelacanth Pcdhα (A) and zebrafishPcdh2 ...
Total number of synonymous substitutions per codon in full-length extracellular domains and the most divergent and least divergent ectodomains from various human, coelacanth and zebrafish protocadherin paralog subgroups
Because the effective substitution rate in each ectodomain is inversely proportional to the rate of gene conversion, the conversion rate in coelacanth protocadherins must be very low. The high rate of gene conversion in zebrafish protocadherins may reflect a recombination-driven propensity for frequent tandem duplication and gene conversion in teleosts in the wake of the whole-genome duplication. Unlike zebrafish, and to a lesser extent, mammals, coelacanth appears to tolerate repetitive gene sequences without frequent tandem duplication, gene loss, or conversion. The coelacanth genome may also have a lower overall substitution rate compared with mammalian and teleost genomes. Coelacanth protocadherins with identifiable zebrafish or human orthologs have accumulated fewer amino acid substitutions per site relative to the common ancestor than their zebrafish or human counterparts (Figs. , ). For example, in the ML protein tree of coelacanth Pcdhα21, human PcdhαC2, and zebrafish Pcdh1α10 (), coelacanth Pcdhα21 has diverged less from its ortholog in the last common ancestor of mammals and lobe-finned fishes than has human PcdhαC2 (0.14 vs. 0.36 substitutions per site). Coelacanth Pcdhα21 shows a similar low substitution rate relative to zebrafish Pcdh1α10 (0.20 vs. 0.32 substitutions per site since the last common ancestor). A recent study comparing
Rag1and
Rag2 genes from coelacanth and many other vertebrate species also found a low substitution rate in coelacanth relative to teleosts and mammals (
Brinkmann et al. 2004). In this study and in our results, zebrafish proteins show a relatively high rate of amino acid replacement compared with their orthologs in other vertebrate species, consistent with a relaxation of selective constraint following the whole-genome duplication.
In addition, numerous diversifying speciation events, and episodes of adaptive evolution associated with the teleost radiation, have occurred on the teleost lineage since the divergence of teleosts and lobe-finned fishes. Coelacanths, however, appear to be evolving largely under purifying selection, with relatively few recent adaptive changes in the lineage. These historical differences undoubtedly contribute to the apparent substitution rate difference between the lineages. Differences in generation time and effective population size between coelacanth and teleost species will also yield different evolutionary rates. Unlike zebrafish, which have external fertilization, a generation time of 3 mo, and which produce hundreds of offspring per mating, coelacanths give birth to live pups and may have long generation times and small brood sizes as a result (
Heemstra and Greenwood 1992). Long generation times mean fewer opportunities for introducing genetic change into the population, and thus, a slower rate of molecular evolution. The high substitution rate in mammalian protocadherins relative to their coelacanth orthologs may be due to similar processes operating on the lineage leading to placental mammals. The relative stability of the coelacanth genome makes it an ideal reference against which the derived genomes of mammals and teleosts can be compared.
Our results also suggest that gene conversion can act to increase diversity among protocadherin cluster genes. Protocadherin proteins are believed to be homophilic adhesion molecules, a mechanism that requires sequence diversity among paralogs. Particular ectodomains could determine specificity in homophilic interactions, and would therefore show the greatest sequence diversity. The substitution rate variation we observe in both zebrafish and mammalian protocadherins is consistent with a model of gene conversion in which long conversion events completely homogenize ectodomains where diversity is not required, whereas short conversion events shuffle sequences among necessarily diverse domains, thereby inflating the substitution rate. This may explain the extreme diversity of some zebrafish Pcdh2α8-2α25 and Pcdh2γ15-2γ31 ectodomains and the complete absence of substitutions in other ectodomains in these subgroups (; ). The accumulation of gene conversion tracts eventually leads to the deterioration of sequence similarity between orthologs. Whole-genome or tandem duplications, which introduce redundant paralogs free to accumulate conversion tracts, would greatly accelerate this process. However, the coelacanth protocadherin cluster, subject mostly to individual tandem duplications and neutral substitutions, is likely to have remained similar to the protocadherin cluster in the true tetrapod ancestor.
Regulatory element conservation in coelacanth and human protocadherin clusters
A major aim in comparative sequence analysis is to use sequence conservation to identify functionally constrained regulatory elements. All mammalian protocadherin cluster promoters share a 15-bp core sequence element (
Wu et al. 2001). This element is also present in all zebrafish protocadherin promoters (
Noonan et al. 2004). However, comparing consensus protocadherin core promoter element sequences from coelacanth, human, and zebrafish illustrates the effect of whole-genome and tandem duplication on regulatory element evolution. The 15-bp core promoter motif is well conserved among human and coelacanth protocadherin promoters (). The coelacanth and human motifs are virtually identical, particularly the CGCT element, which has been implicated in promoter function (
Tasic et al. 2002). This motif is highly conserved in zebrafish
Pcdh1γ and
Pcdh2γ promoters (). However, the CGCT motif in
DrPcdh1α and
DrPcdh2α promoters is divergent (). As mentioned above, zebrafish α protocadherins are considerably more diverse than coelacanth or mammalian protocadherins due to whole-genome and tandem duplication. Many of these zebrafish
Pcdhα genes are the product of ancient duplications and are clearly under purifying selection (
Noonan et al. 2004). Zebrafish α protocadherins that have a novel, teleost-specific function may also have acquired a new expression pattern through substitutions in the core promoter element. These substitutions are not likely to inactivate the promoters, as the genes are constrained. Alternatively, complementary mutations in the promoters of duplicated genes can lead to subfunctionalization and the maintenance of both duplicates by limiting the expression of each duplicate to a subset of cells or conditions relative to the ancestor. These processes make it difficult to call regulatory elements tetrapod specific on the basis of their absence from the zebrafish genome, as there may be many cases in which the divergent copy of an ancient element has been retained and the original lost. Comparisons that use coelacanth genome sequence are not subject to this limitation, and will therefore capture more ancient regulatory elements and reliably identify elements specific to tetrapods.
Divergence of the zebrafish Pcdhα core promoter element following whole-genome and tandem duplication. WebLogo plots of consensus human Pcdh (A), coelacanth Pcdh (B), zebrafish Pcdh1γ (C), Pcdh2γ (D), Pcdh1α (E), and Pcdh2 ...
To determine the overall level of intergenic conservation between human, mouse, coelacanth, and zebrafish protocadherin clusters, we aligned protocadherin cluster sequences from each species by using multi-LAGAN and visualized this alignment with VISTA (
Mayor et al. 2000). We found many noncoding elements conserved between human and mouse that are clustered around
Pcdhα and
Pcdhγ constant region exons. However, there is little intergenic conservation evident between human and coelacanth or human and zebrafish protocadherin cluster sequences (Supplemental Fig. S1). Human, coelacanth, and zebrafish exons show some sequence similarity, and there are a few instances of weak conservation visible between coelacanth and human that appear to correlate with regions of human-mouse conservation, but none of the noncoding elements conserved between human and mouse are detectable in coelacanth or zebrafish by BLAST search (data not shown). These elements are likely to be tetrapod or mammalian innovations, a conclusion made more certain by their absence from a basal lineage— coelacanth—as opposed to the highly derived teleost lineage, in which ancestral sequences are more subject to frequent secondary loss or adaptation.