Functional Evolution of Mammalian Odorant Receptors
The mammalian odorant receptor (OR) repertoire is an attractive model to study evolution, because ORs have been subjected to rapid evolution between species, presumably caused by changes of the olfactory system to adapt to the environment. However, functional assessment of ORs in related species remains largely untested. Here we investigated the functional properties of primate and rodent ORs to determine how well evolutionary distance predicts functional characteristics. Using human and mouse ORs with previously identified ligands, we cloned 18 OR orthologs from chimpanzee and rhesus macaque and 17 mouse-rat orthologous pairs that are broadly representative of the OR repertoire. We functionally characterized the in vitro responses of ORs to a wide panel of odors and found similar ligand selectivity but dramatic differences in response magnitude. 87% of human-primate orthologs and 94% of mouse-rat orthologs showed differences in receptor potency (EC50) and/or efficacy (dynamic range) to an individual ligand. Notably dN/dS ratio, an indication of selective pressure during evolution, does not predict functional similarities between orthologs. Additionally, we found that orthologs responded to a common ligand 82% of the time, while human OR paralogs of the same subfamily responded to the common ligand only 33% of the time. Our results suggest that, while OR orthologs tend to show conserved ligand selectivity, their potency and/or efficacy dynamically change during evolution, even in closely related species. These functional changes in orthologs provide a platform for examining how the evolution of ORs can meet species-specific demands.
Vyšlo v časopise:
Functional Evolution of Mammalian Odorant Receptors. PLoS Genet 8(7): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002821
Kategorie:
Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002821
Souhrn
The mammalian odorant receptor (OR) repertoire is an attractive model to study evolution, because ORs have been subjected to rapid evolution between species, presumably caused by changes of the olfactory system to adapt to the environment. However, functional assessment of ORs in related species remains largely untested. Here we investigated the functional properties of primate and rodent ORs to determine how well evolutionary distance predicts functional characteristics. Using human and mouse ORs with previously identified ligands, we cloned 18 OR orthologs from chimpanzee and rhesus macaque and 17 mouse-rat orthologous pairs that are broadly representative of the OR repertoire. We functionally characterized the in vitro responses of ORs to a wide panel of odors and found similar ligand selectivity but dramatic differences in response magnitude. 87% of human-primate orthologs and 94% of mouse-rat orthologs showed differences in receptor potency (EC50) and/or efficacy (dynamic range) to an individual ligand. Notably dN/dS ratio, an indication of selective pressure during evolution, does not predict functional similarities between orthologs. Additionally, we found that orthologs responded to a common ligand 82% of the time, while human OR paralogs of the same subfamily responded to the common ligand only 33% of the time. Our results suggest that, while OR orthologs tend to show conserved ligand selectivity, their potency and/or efficacy dynamically change during evolution, even in closely related species. These functional changes in orthologs provide a platform for examining how the evolution of ORs can meet species-specific demands.
Zdroje
1. MombaertsP 2004 Genes and ligands for odorant, vomeronasal and taste receptors. Nat Rev Neurosci 5 263 278
2. KellerAVosshallLB 2008 Better smelling through genetics: mammalian odor perception. Curr Opin Neurobiol 18 364 369
3. HaydenSBekaertMCriderTAMarianiSMurphyWJ 2010 Ecological adaptation determines functional mammalian olfactory subgenomes. Genome Res 20 1 9
4. KooninEV 2005 Orthologs, paralogs, and evolutionary genomics. Annu Rev Genet 39 309 338
5. StuderRARobinson-RechaviM 2009 How confident can we be that orthologs are similar, but paralogs differ? Trends Genet 25 210 216
6. NehrtNLClarkWTRadivojacPHahnMW 2011 Testing the ortholog conjecture with comparative functional genomic data from mammals. PLoS Comput Biol 7 e1002073 doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002073
7. GharibWHRobinson-RechaviM 2011 When orthologs diverge between human and mouse. Brief Bioinform
8. GiladYManOPaaboSLancetD 2003 Human specific loss of olfactory receptor genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100 3324 3327
9. ManOWillhiteDCCrastoCJShepherdGMGiladY 2007 A framework for exploring functional variability in olfactory receptor genes. PLoS ONE 2 e682 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000682
10. GiladYManOGlusmanG 2005 A comparison of the human and chimpanzee olfactory receptor gene repertoires. Genome Res 15 224 230
11. GlusmanGYanaiIRubinILancetD 2001 The complete human olfactory subgenome. Genome Res 11 685 702
12. MatsuiAGoYNiimuraY 2010 Degeneration of olfactory receptor gene repertories in primates: no direct link to full trichromatic vision. Mol Biol Evol 27 1192 1200
13. GoYNiimuraY 2008 Similar Numbers but Different Repertoires of Olfactory Receptor Genes in Humans and Chimpanzees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 25 1897 1907
14. NiimuraYNeiM 2007 Extensive gains and losses of olfactory receptor genes in Mammalian evolution. PLoS ONE 2 e708 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000708
15. KambereMBLaneRP 2007 Co-regulation of a large and rapidly evolving repertoire of odorant receptor genes. BMC Neurosci 8 Suppl 3 S2
16. GodfreyPAMalnicBBuckLB 2004 The mouse olfactory receptor gene family. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101 2156 2161
17. ManOGiladYLancetD 2004 Prediction of the odorant binding site of olfactory receptor proteins by human-mouse comparisons. Protein Sci 13 240 254
18. ZhangXFiresteinS 2002 The olfactory receptor gene superfamily of the mouse. Nat Neurosci 5 124 133
19. MalnicBHironoJSatoTBuckLB 1999 Combinatorial receptor codes for odors. Cell 96 713 723
20. GlusmanGBaharASharonDPilpelYWhiteJ 2000 The olfactory receptor gene superfamily: data mining, classification, and nomenclature. Mamm Genome 11 1016 1023
21. SchmiedebergKShirokovaEWeberHPSchillingBMeyerhofW 2007 Structural determinants of odorant recognition by the human olfactory receptors OR1A1 and OR1A2. J Struct Biol 159 400 412
22. KrautwurstDYauKWReedRR 1998 Identification of ligands for olfactory receptors by functional expression of a receptor library. Cell 95 917 926
23. ZhuangHChienMSMatsunamiH 2009 Dynamic functional evolution of an odorant receptor for sex-steroid-derived odors in primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106 21247 21251
24. LiYRMatsunamiH 2011 Activation state of the m3 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor modulates mammalian odorant receptor signaling. Sci Signal 4 ra1
25. ZhuangHMatsunamiH 2007 Synergism of accessory factors in functional expression of mammalian odorant receptors. J Biol Chem 282 15284 15293
26. ZhuangHMatsunamiH 2008 Evaluating cell-surface expression and measuring activation of mammalian odorant receptors in heterologous cells. Nat Protoc 3 1402 1413
27. SaitoHChiQZhuangHMatsunamiHMainlandJD 2009 Odor coding by a Mammalian receptor repertoire. Sci Signal 2 ra9
28. GrusWEZhangJ 2008 Distinct evolutionary patterns between chemoreceptors of 2 vertebrate olfactory systems and the differential tuning hypothesis. Mol Biol Evol 25 1593 1601
29. GranthamR 1974 Amino acid difference formula to help explain protein evolution. Science 185 862 864
30. JukesTHCantorCR 1969 Evolution of protein molecules; HNM New York Academic Press
31. LimanEInnanH 2003 Relaxed selective pressure on an essential component of pheromone transduction in primate evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100 3328
32. NeiMNiimuraYNozawaM 2008 The evolution of animal chemosensory receptor gene repertoires: roles of chance and necessity. Nat Rev Genet 951 963
33. HaddadRKhanRTakahashiYKMoriKHarelD 2008 A metric for odorant comparison. Nat Methods 5 425 429
34. SaitoHKubotaMRobertsRWChiQMatsunamiH 2004 RTP family members induce functional expression of mammalian odorant receptors. Cell 119 679 691
35. GlusmanGBaharASharonDPilpelY 2000 The olfactory receptor gene superfamily: data mining, classification, and nomenclature. Mammalian genome
36. DeySMatsunamiH 2011 Calreticulin chaperones regulate functional expression of vomeronasal type 2 pheromone receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108 16651 16656
37. DeySZhanSMatsunamiH 2011 Assaying surface expression of chemosensory receptors in heterologous cells. J Vis Exp
38. GiladYPrzeworskiMLancetD 2004 Loss of olfactory receptor genes coincides with the acquisition of full trichromatic vision in primates. PLoS Biol 2 e5 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020005
39. NiimuraYNeiM 2005 Evolutionary changes of the number of olfactory receptor genes in the human and mouse lineages. Gene 346 23 28
40. ZozulyaSEcheverriFNguyenT 2001 The human olfactory receptor repertoire. Genome Biology
41. BremnerEAMainlandJDKhanRMSobelN 2003 The prevalence of androstenone anosmia. Chem Senses 28 423 432
42. KellerAZhuangHChiQVosshallLBMatsunamiH 2007 Genetic variation in a human odorant receptor alters odour perception. Nature 449 468 472
43. WyartCWebsterWWChenJHWilsonSRMcClaryA 2007 Smelling a single component of male sweat alters levels of cortisol in women. J Neurosci 27 1261 1265
44. JacobSKinnunenLHMetzJCooperMMcClintockMK 2001 Sustained human chemosignal unconsciously alters brain function. Neuroreport 12 2391 2394
45. EnardWGehreSHammerschmidtKHolterSMBlassT 2009 A humanized version of Foxp2 affects cortico-basal ganglia circuits in mice. Cell 137 961 971
46. FujitaETanabeYShiotaAUedaMSuwaK 2008 Ultrasonic vocalization impairment of Foxp2 (R552H) knockin mice related to speech-language disorder and abnormality of Purkinje cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105 3117 3122
47. TeramitsuIKudoLCLondonSEGeschwindDHWhiteSA 2004 Parallel FoxP1 and FoxP2 expression in songbird and human brain predicts functional interaction. J Neurosci 24 3152 3163
48. YokoyamaSTadaTZhangHBrittL 2008 Elucidation of phenotypic adaptations: Molecular analyses of dim-light vision proteins in vertebrates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105 13480 13485
49. BridghamJTCarrollSMThorntonJW 2006 Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation. Science 312 97 101
50. ThorntonJWKelleyDB 1998 Evolution of the androgen receptor: structure-function implications. Bioessays 20 860 869
51. ThorntonJWNeedECrewsD 2003 Resurrecting the ancestral steroid receptor: ancient origin of estrogen signaling. Science 301 1714 1717
52. WoodingSBufeBGrassiCHowardMTStoneAC 2006 Independent evolution of bitter-taste sensitivity in humans and chimpanzees. Nature 440 930 934
53. GrosmaitreXFussSHLeeACAdipietroKAMatsunamiH 2009 SR1, a mouse odorant receptor with an unusually broad response profile. J Neurosci 29 14545 14552
54. AcamporaDAvantaggiatoVTuortoFBaronePReichertH 1998 Murine Otx1 and Drosophila otd genes share conserved genetic functions required in invertebrate and vertebrate brain development. Development 125 1691 1702
55. AngSLJinORhinnMDaigleNStevensonL 1996 A targeted mouse Otx2 mutation leads to severe defects in gastrulation and formation of axial mesoderm and to deletion of rostral brain. Development 122 243 252
56. DubouleDDolleP 1989 The Structural and Functional-Organization of the Murine Hox Gene Family Resembles That of Drosophila Homeotic Genes. Embo Journal 8 1497 1505
57. MalickiJSchughartKMcginnisW 1990 Mouse Hox-2.2 Specifies Thoracic Segmental Identity in Drosophila Embryos and Larvae. Cell 63 961 967
58. MatsuoIKurataniSKimuraCTakedaNAizawaS 1995 Mouse Otx2 Functions in the Formation and Patterning of Rostral Head. Genes & Development 9 2646 2658
59. McClintockJMJozefowiczCAssimacopoulosSGroveEALouviA 2003 Conserved expression of Hoxa1 in neurons at the ventral forebrain/midbrain boundary of vertebrates. Development Genes and Evolution 213 399 406
60. NagaoTLeuzingerSAcamporaDSimeoneAFinkelsteinR 1998 Developmental rescue of Drosophila cephalic defects by the human Otx genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95 3737 3742
61. WestmorelandJJMcEwenJMooreBAJinYSCondieBG 2001 Conserved function of Caenorhabditis elegans UNC-30 and mouse Pitx2 in controlling GABAergic neuron differentiation. Journal of Neuroscience 21 6810 6819
62. CareyAFWangGSuCYZwiebelLJCarlsonJR 2010 Odorant reception in the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Nature 464 66 71
63. NeiMGojoboriT 1986 Simple methods for estimating the numbers of synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide …. Molecular Biology and Evolution
Štítky
Genetika Reprodukčná medicínaČlánok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS Genetics
2012 Číslo 7
- Je „freeze-all“ pro všechny? Odborníci na fertilitu diskutovali na virtuálním summitu
- Gynekologové a odborníci na reprodukční medicínu se sejdou na prvním virtuálním summitu
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Guidelines for Genome-Wide Association Studies
- The Role of Rice HEI10 in the Formation of Meiotic Crossovers
- Identification of Chromatin-Associated Regulators of MSL Complex Targeting in Dosage Compensation
- GWAS Identifies Novel Susceptibility Loci on 6p21.32 and 21q21.3 for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Carriers