Display options
Cite
Small CM, Harlin-Cognato AD, Jones AG. Functional similarity and molecular divergence of a novel reproductive transcriptome in two male-pregnant Syngnathus pipefish species. Ecol Evol. 2013;3(12):4092-108doi: 10.1002/ece3.763.
Small, C. M., Harlin-Cognato, A. D., & Jones, A. G. (2013). Functional similarity and molecular divergence of a novel reproductive transcriptome in two male-pregnant Syngnathus pipefish species. Ecology and evolution, 3(12), 4092-108. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.763
Small, Clayton M, et al. "Functional similarity and molecular divergence of a novel reproductive transcriptome in two male-pregnant Syngnathus pipefish species." Ecology and evolution vol. 3,12 (2013): 4092-108. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.763
Small CM, Harlin-Cognato AD, Jones AG. Functional similarity and molecular divergence of a novel reproductive transcriptome in two male-pregnant Syngnathus pipefish species. Ecol Evol. 2013 Oct;3(12):4092-108. doi: 10.1002/ece3.763. Epub 2013 Sep 20. PMID: 24324861; PMCID: PMC3853555.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Ecol Evol. 2013 Oct;3(12):4092-108. doi: 10.1002/ece3.763. Epub 2013 Sep 20.

Functional similarity and molecular divergence of a novel reproductive transcriptome in two male-pregnant Syngnathus pipefish species.

Ecology and evolution

Clayton M Small, April D Harlin-Cognato, Adam G Jones

Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Texas A&M University College Station, Texas, 77843, USA ; Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon, 97403, USA.

PMID: 24324861 PMCID: PMC3853555 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.763

Abstract

Evolutionary studies have revealed that reproductive proteins in animals and plants often evolve more rapidly than the genome-wide average. The causes of this pattern, which may include relaxed purifying selection, sexual selection, sexual conflict, pathogen resistance, reinforcement, or gene duplication, remain elusive. Investigative expansions to additional taxa and reproductive tissues have the potential to shed new light on this unresolved problem. Here, we embark on such an expansion, in a comparison of the brood-pouch transcriptome between two male-pregnant species of the pipefish genus Syngnathus. Male brooding tissues in syngnathid fishes represent a novel, nonurogenital reproductive trait, heretofore mostly uncharacterized from a molecular perspective. We leveraged next-generation sequencing (Roche 454 pyrosequencing) to compare transcript abundance in the male brooding tissues of pregnant with nonpregnant samples from Gulf (S. scovelli) and dusky (S. floridae) pipefish. A core set of protein-coding genes, including multiple members of astacin metalloprotease and c-type lectin gene families, is consistent between species in both the direction and magnitude of expression bias. As predicted, coding DNA sequence analysis of these putative "male pregnancy proteins" suggests rapid evolution relative to nondifferentially expressed genes and reflects signatures of adaptation similar in magnitude to those reported from Drosophila male accessory gland proteins. Although the precise drivers of male pregnancy protein divergence remain unknown, we argue that the male pregnancy transcriptome in syngnathid fishes, a clade diverse with respect to brooding morphology and mating system, represents a unique and promising object of study for understanding the perplexing evolutionary nature of reproductive molecules.

Keywords: Male pregnancy; RNA-seq; Syngnathidae; molecular evolution; pyrosequencing; transcriptome

References

  1. J Comp Physiol B. 2009 Apr;179(3):325-33 - PubMed
  2. Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Mar 22;277(1683):971-7 - PubMed
  3. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Dec 22;268(1485):2531-5 - PubMed
  4. Q Rev Biol. 2005 Mar;80(1):37-45 - PubMed
  5. Int J Dev Biol. 2008;52(5-6):769-80 - PubMed
  6. Comput Appl Biosci. 1997 Oct;13(5):555-6 - PubMed
  7. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2009 Sep;154(1):98-104 - PubMed
  8. J Fish Biol. 2011 Jun;78(6):1725-37 - PubMed
  9. FEBS Lett. 2003 Aug 28;550(1-3):124-34 - PubMed
  10. Genetics. 1998 Mar;148(3):929-36 - PubMed
  11. BMC Genomics. 2011 Jun 02;12:285 - PubMed
  12. Horm Behav. 2010 Nov;58(5):800-7 - PubMed
  13. PLoS Comput Biol. 2009 Jan;5(1):e1000262 - PubMed
  14. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2012;13:109-25 - PubMed
  15. FEBS J. 2005 Mar;272(5):1221-35 - PubMed
  16. Nat Rev Genet. 2002 Apr;3(4):262-73 - PubMed
  17. Mol Biol Evol. 2006 Sep;23(9):1656-69 - PubMed
  18. Nat Rev Genet. 2002 Feb;3(2):137-44 - PubMed
  19. Toxicon. 2011 Apr;57(5):657-71 - PubMed
  20. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 15;100(8):4639-43 - PubMed
  21. Glycobiology. 2001 May;11(5):71R-9R - PubMed
  22. Nature. 2000 Jan 20;403(6767):304-9 - PubMed
  23. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jul 24;104(30):12404-9 - PubMed
  24. J Hered. 2001 Mar-Apr;92(2):159-66 - PubMed
  25. Mol Ecol. 2009 Apr;18(7):1476-90 - PubMed
  26. Nature. 1995 Jan 19;373(6511):241-4 - PubMed
  27. J Evol Biol. 2009 Feb;22(2):275-86 - PubMed
  28. Genome Biol. 2013 Feb 20;14(2):R16 - PubMed
  29. Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Nov;19(11):1973-80 - PubMed
  30. Reproduction. 2006 Jan;131(1):11-22 - PubMed
  31. J Exp Biol. 2006 Mar;209(Pt 6):1112-21 - PubMed
  32. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008 Jun;36(10):3420-35 - PubMed
  33. Biol Bull. 1992 Feb;182(1):97-104 - PubMed
  34. Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Apr;22(4):1044-52 - PubMed
  35. Mol Biol Evol. 2010 Sep;27(9):2000-13 - PubMed
  36. Nat Rev Immunol. 2006 Aug;6(8):584-94 - PubMed
  37. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011 Oct 18;12 Suppl 10:S5 - PubMed
  38. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2006 Nov;1760(11):1713-22 - PubMed
  39. Genome Biol Evol. 2012;4(3):394-411 - PubMed
  40. Mol Biol Evol. 1996 Feb;13(2):397-406 - PubMed
  41. J Biol Chem. 1996 Oct 11;271(41):25575-81 - PubMed
  42. Evolution. 1997 Oct;51(5):1611-1622 - PubMed
  43. Mol Ecol. 2007 Jun;16(12):2596-606 - PubMed
  44. Annu Rev Physiol. 2011;73:479-501 - PubMed
  45. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2010 Feb 15;133(2-4):256-63 - PubMed
  46. BMC Genomics. 2013 Mar 12;14:167 - PubMed
  47. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Feb 27;98(5):2509-14 - PubMed
  48. Mol Ecol. 1997 Mar;6(3):203-13 - PubMed
  49. PLoS Genet. 2013;9(2):e1003287 - PubMed
  50. Bioinformatics. 2010 Jan 1;26(1):136-8 - PubMed
  51. Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Dec;22(12):2472-9 - PubMed
  52. Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Feb;21(2):236-9 - PubMed
  53. Plant Cell. 2013 Jan;25(1):71-82 - PubMed
  54. Mol Biol Evol. 2010 Jun;27(6):1221-5 - PubMed
  55. Genome Biol Evol. 2013;5(1):45-60 - PubMed
  56. Biol Lett. 2013 Feb 27;9(2):20130044 - PubMed
  57. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Jun 19;98(13):7375-9 - PubMed
  58. Evolution. 2003 Jun;57(6):1374-86 - PubMed
  59. Mol Biol Evol. 2008 May;25(5):972-9 - PubMed
  60. Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Dec 1;15(12):496-503 - PubMed
  61. Mol Biol Evol. 1988 Nov;5(6):704-16 - PubMed
  62. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994 Nov 11;22(22):4673-80 - PubMed
  63. Mol Ecol. 2010 Mar;19 Suppl 1:197-211 - PubMed
  64. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 May 26;95(11):6239-44 - PubMed
  65. Nature. 2010 Mar 18;464(7287):401-4 - PubMed
  66. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Dec 19;103(51):19407-12 - PubMed
  67. J Fish Biol. 2011 Jun;78(6):1603-23 - PubMed
  68. BMC Bioinformatics. 2009 Dec 15;10:421 - PubMed
  69. J Mol Biol. 1990 Oct 5;215(3):403-10 - PubMed
  70. Mol Biol Evol. 2000 Jan;17(1):68-74 - PubMed
  71. Mol Ecol. 2010 Mar;19 Suppl 1:115-31 - PubMed
  72. Genetics. 2004 Nov;168(3):1457-65 - PubMed

Publication Types