New insights into the evolution of SPX gene family from algae to legumes; a focus on soybean.
Evolution
Gene family
Legumes
Phosphate homeostasis
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Dec 2021
30 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
24
08
2021
accepted:
09
12
2021
entrez:
31
12
2021
pubmed:
1
1
2022
medline:
4
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
SPX-containing proteins have been known as key players in phosphate signaling and homeostasis. In Arabidopsis and rice, functions of some SPXs have been characterized, but little is known about their function in other plants, especially in the legumes. We analyzed SPX gene family evolution in legumes and in a number of key species from algae to angiosperms. We found that SPX harboring proteins showed fluctuations in domain fusions from algae to the angiosperms with, finally, four classes appearing and being retained in the land plants. Despite these fluctuations, Lysine Surface Cluster (KSC), and the third residue of Phosphate Binding Sites (PBS) showed complete conservation in almost all of SPXs except few proteins in Selaginella moellendorffii and Papaver sumniferum, suggesting they might have different ligand preferences. In addition, we found that the WGD/segmentally or dispersed duplication types were the most frequent contributors to the SPX expansion, and that there is a positive correlation between the amount of WGD contribution to the SPX expansion in individual species and its number of EXS genes. We could also reveal that except SPX class genes, other classes lost the collinearity relationships among Arabidopsis and legume genomes. The sub- or neo-functionalization of the duplicated genes in the legumes makes it difficult to find the functional orthologous genes. Therefore, we used two different methods to identify functional orthologs in soybean and Medicago. High variance in the dynamic and spatial expression pattern of GmSPXs proved the new or sub-functionalization in the paralogs. This comprehensive analysis revealed how SPX gene family evolved from algae to legumes and also discovered several new domains fused to SPX domain in algae. In addition, we hypothesized that there different phosphate sensing mechanisms might occur in S. moellendorffii and P. sumniferum. Finally, we predicted putative functional orthologs of AtSPXs in the legumes, especially, orthologs of AtPHO1, involved in long-distance Pi transportation. These findings help to understand evolution of phosphate signaling and might underpin development of new legume varieties with improved phosphate use efficiency.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
SPX-containing proteins have been known as key players in phosphate signaling and homeostasis. In Arabidopsis and rice, functions of some SPXs have been characterized, but little is known about their function in other plants, especially in the legumes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We analyzed SPX gene family evolution in legumes and in a number of key species from algae to angiosperms. We found that SPX harboring proteins showed fluctuations in domain fusions from algae to the angiosperms with, finally, four classes appearing and being retained in the land plants. Despite these fluctuations, Lysine Surface Cluster (KSC), and the third residue of Phosphate Binding Sites (PBS) showed complete conservation in almost all of SPXs except few proteins in Selaginella moellendorffii and Papaver sumniferum, suggesting they might have different ligand preferences. In addition, we found that the WGD/segmentally or dispersed duplication types were the most frequent contributors to the SPX expansion, and that there is a positive correlation between the amount of WGD contribution to the SPX expansion in individual species and its number of EXS genes. We could also reveal that except SPX class genes, other classes lost the collinearity relationships among Arabidopsis and legume genomes. The sub- or neo-functionalization of the duplicated genes in the legumes makes it difficult to find the functional orthologous genes. Therefore, we used two different methods to identify functional orthologs in soybean and Medicago. High variance in the dynamic and spatial expression pattern of GmSPXs proved the new or sub-functionalization in the paralogs.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This comprehensive analysis revealed how SPX gene family evolved from algae to legumes and also discovered several new domains fused to SPX domain in algae. In addition, we hypothesized that there different phosphate sensing mechanisms might occur in S. moellendorffii and P. sumniferum. Finally, we predicted putative functional orthologs of AtSPXs in the legumes, especially, orthologs of AtPHO1, involved in long-distance Pi transportation. These findings help to understand evolution of phosphate signaling and might underpin development of new legume varieties with improved phosphate use efficiency.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34969367
doi: 10.1186/s12864-021-08242-5
pii: 10.1186/s12864-021-08242-5
pmc: PMC8717665
doi:
Substances chimiques
Phosphates
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
915Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Jan;43(Database issue):D222-6
pubmed: 25414356
Plant Cell. 2014 Apr 1;26(4):1586-1597
pubmed: 24692424
Plant Physiol. 2008 Jun;147(2):696-706
pubmed: 18434606
BMC Bioinformatics. 2008 Dec 29;9:559
pubmed: 19114008
Genomics. 2020 Mar;112(2):1233-1244
pubmed: 31323298
PLoS Comput Biol. 2018 Jan 16;14(1):e1005896
pubmed: 29337990
New Phytol. 2009 Aug;183(3):557-564
pubmed: 19555435
Plant J. 2007 Jun;50(6):982-94
pubmed: 17461783
Plant Cell. 2006 Apr;18(4):921-34
pubmed: 16500988
Funct Integr Genomics. 2020 May;20(3):321-341
pubmed: 31655948
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Aug 16;102(33):11934-9
pubmed: 16085708
Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 Jan 1;32(Database issue):D138-41
pubmed: 14681378
Mol Plant. 2010 Mar;3(2):288-99
pubmed: 20142416
Brief Bioinform. 2011 Sep;12(5):401-12
pubmed: 21705766
Nat Plants. 2019 Apr;5(4):401-413
pubmed: 30911122
Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 Apr;40(7):e49
pubmed: 22217600
Plant Cell. 2017 Sep;29(9):2269-2284
pubmed: 28842534
BMC Genomics. 2018 May 29;19(1):407
pubmed: 29843611
Plant Cell. 2010 Mar;22(3):703-15
pubmed: 20354198
Science. 2000 Nov 10;290(5494):1151-5
pubmed: 11073452
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Jul 30;116(31):15735-15744
pubmed: 31311863
Planta. 2008 Apr;227(5):1025-36
pubmed: 18094993
Plant Cell. 2014 Mar;26(3):996-1008
pubmed: 24681622
Plant Cell. 2011 Jan;23(1):240-57
pubmed: 21258004
Ann Bot. 2010 Jun;105(7):1081-102
pubmed: 20410048
New Phytol. 2013 Jul;199(1):188-202
pubmed: 23506613
BMC Bioinformatics. 2019 Mar 14;20(Suppl 2):99
pubmed: 30871456
J Exp Bot. 2014 Jul;65(12):3299-310
pubmed: 24790114
BMC Evol Biol. 2013 May 24;13:103
pubmed: 23705930
BMC Plant Biol. 2021 Jun 5;21(1):259
pubmed: 34090337
Science. 2016 May 20;352(6288):986-90
pubmed: 27080106
Mol Plant. 2020 Aug 3;13(8):1194-1202
pubmed: 32585190
Plant Cell. 2014 Jul;26(7):2792-802
pubmed: 25082857
J Exp Bot. 2018 Jun 27;69(15):3515-3522
pubmed: 29788117
Plant Cell. 2011 Sep;23(9):3129-36
pubmed: 21917551
Ann Bot. 2014 Sep;114(3):477-88
pubmed: 25074550
Plant J. 2008 Jun;54(6):965-75
pubmed: 18315545
Plant Physiol. 2010 Mar;152(3):1693-704
pubmed: 20081045
Heliyon. 2019 Jun 09;5(6):e01868
pubmed: 31206092
Plant J. 2007 Apr;50(2):320-37
pubmed: 17355433
Dev Biol. 2009 Jul 1;331(1):50-7
pubmed: 19406114
Arabidopsis Book. 2002;1:e0024
pubmed: 22303200
Int J Biol Macromol. 2019 Nov 1;140:17-32
pubmed: 31419556
Plant Cell. 2015 Aug;27(8):2119-32
pubmed: 26265761
New Phytol. 2021 Apr;230(1):205-217
pubmed: 33617039
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2018 Feb;49:156-162
pubmed: 28889038
Plant Sci. 2016 Jul;248:82-91
pubmed: 27181950
Plant Cell. 2009 Jan;21(1):106-17
pubmed: 19141706
Plant Cell Physiol. 2010 Dec;51(12):2119-31
pubmed: 21062869
Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Mar 04;21(5):
pubmed: 32143436
BMC Genomics. 2016 Aug 15;17(1):636
pubmed: 27527343
Plant J. 2020 Jul;103(1):197-211
pubmed: 32072682
Plant Cell. 2002 Apr;14(4):889-902
pubmed: 11971143
Plant J. 2000 Dec;24(5):559-67
pubmed: 11123795
Plant J. 2020 May;102(3):448-466
pubmed: 31811679
Genome Biol. 2019 Nov 14;20(1):238
pubmed: 31727128
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Nov 29;7:1802
pubmed: 27965700
BMC Genomics. 2013 Jul 03;14:442
pubmed: 23822863
Nat Commun. 2018 Jan 2;9(1):13
pubmed: 29296019
J Exp Bot. 2008;59(11):2991-3007
pubmed: 18552355
Plant Cell. 2017 Jun;29(6):1278-1292
pubmed: 28584165
Plant J. 2012 Sep;71(6):1038-50
pubmed: 22607031
Plant Physiol. 2019 Sep;181(1):332-352
pubmed: 31262954
Breed Sci. 2012 Jan;61(5):437-44
pubmed: 23136483
J Integr Plant Biol. 2009 Jul;51(7):663-74
pubmed: 19566645
Nucleic Acids Res. 2010 Jan;38(Database issue):D161-6
pubmed: 19858104
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Oct 14;111(41):14947-52
pubmed: 25271326
Nucleic Acids Res. 2007 Jul;35(Web Server issue):W585-7
pubmed: 17517783
Hortic Res. 2021 Jan 1;8(1):5
pubmed: 33384435
Front Plant Sci. 2017 Jan 25;8:35
pubmed: 28179909
Genomics. 2019 Jul;111(4):619-628
pubmed: 29621573
New Phytol. 2012 Mar;193(4):842-51
pubmed: 22403821
Open Biol. 2018 Jan;8(1):
pubmed: 29298909
Trends Plant Sci. 2010 Sep;15(9):479-87
pubmed: 20638891
Science. 2008 Apr 25;320(5875):486-8
pubmed: 18436778
Mol Plant. 2021 May 3;14(5):838-846
pubmed: 33515767
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Jan;43(Database issue):D257-60
pubmed: 25300481
PLoS Genet. 2011 Mar;7(3):e1002021
pubmed: 21455488