Coevolution of the olfactory organ and its receptor repertoire in ray-finned fishes.
Actinopterygii
Gene family dynamics
Olfactory epithelium
Olfactory lamellae
Olfactory receptor genes
Journal
BMC biology
ISSN: 1741-7007
Titre abrégé: BMC Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190720
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2022
01 09 2022
Historique:
received:
23
02
2022
accepted:
24
08
2022
entrez:
1
9
2022
pubmed:
2
9
2022
medline:
9
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) perceive their environment through a range of sensory modalities, including olfaction. Anatomical diversity of the olfactory organ suggests that olfaction is differentially important among species. To explore this topic, we studied the evolutionary dynamics of the four main gene families (OR, TAAR, ORA/VR1 and OlfC/VR2) coding for olfactory receptors in 185 species of ray-finned fishes. The large variation in the number of functional genes, between 28 in the ocean sunfish Mola mola and 1317 in the reedfish Erpetoichthys calabaricus, is the result of parallel expansions and contractions of the four main gene families. Several ancient and independent simplifications of the olfactory organ are associated with massive gene losses. In contrast, Polypteriformes, which have a unique and complex olfactory organ, have almost twice as many olfactory receptor genes as any other ray-finned fish. We document a functional link between morphology of the olfactory organ and richness of the olfactory receptor repertoire. Further, our results demonstrate that the genomic underpinning of olfaction in ray-finned fishes is heterogeneous and presents a dynamic pattern of evolutionary expansions, simplifications, and reacquisitions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) perceive their environment through a range of sensory modalities, including olfaction. Anatomical diversity of the olfactory organ suggests that olfaction is differentially important among species. To explore this topic, we studied the evolutionary dynamics of the four main gene families (OR, TAAR, ORA/VR1 and OlfC/VR2) coding for olfactory receptors in 185 species of ray-finned fishes.
RESULTS
The large variation in the number of functional genes, between 28 in the ocean sunfish Mola mola and 1317 in the reedfish Erpetoichthys calabaricus, is the result of parallel expansions and contractions of the four main gene families. Several ancient and independent simplifications of the olfactory organ are associated with massive gene losses. In contrast, Polypteriformes, which have a unique and complex olfactory organ, have almost twice as many olfactory receptor genes as any other ray-finned fish.
CONCLUSIONS
We document a functional link between morphology of the olfactory organ and richness of the olfactory receptor repertoire. Further, our results demonstrate that the genomic underpinning of olfaction in ray-finned fishes is heterogeneous and presents a dynamic pattern of evolutionary expansions, simplifications, and reacquisitions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36050670
doi: 10.1186/s12915-022-01397-x
pii: 10.1186/s12915-022-01397-x
pmc: PMC9438307
doi:
Substances chimiques
Receptors, Odorant
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
195Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Bioinformatics. 2012 Dec 1;28(23):3150-2
pubmed: 23060610
Genome Res. 2014 Sep;24(9):1485-96
pubmed: 25053675
BMC Genomics. 2015 Apr 23;16:335
pubmed: 25900688
BMC Bioinformatics. 2005 Feb 15;6:31
pubmed: 15713233
Bioinformatics. 2019 Feb 1;35(3):526-528
pubmed: 30016406
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jun 12;115(24):6249-6254
pubmed: 29760103
Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 8;11(1):7807
pubmed: 33833329
Mol Biol Evol. 2007 Sep;24(9):2099-107
pubmed: 17634392
J R Soc Interface. 2008 Jun 6;5(23):575-93
pubmed: 18184629
J Fish Biol. 2019 Jul;95(1):263-273
pubmed: 29956322
Commun Biol. 2019 Jun 21;2:235
pubmed: 31263779
Cell Tissue Res. 2021 Jan;383(1):353-365
pubmed: 33409651
Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Apr;30(4):772-80
pubmed: 23329690
Prog Neurobiol. 1975;5(4):271-335
pubmed: 830087
Cell. 1991 Apr 5;65(1):175-87
pubmed: 1840504
J Neurocytol. 2005 Sep;34(3-5):183-208
pubmed: 16841163
BMC Genomics. 2016 Jan 27;17:83
pubmed: 26818853
Mol Biol Evol. 2021 Sep 27;38(10):4238-4251
pubmed: 34003267
Bioinformatics. 2020 Sep 15;36(18):4822-4824
pubmed: 33085745
Bioinformatics. 2007 Jan 1;23(1):127-8
pubmed: 17050570
Development. 2016 Dec 1;143(23):4521-4532
pubmed: 27899509
PLoS One. 2019 Dec 18;14(12):e0226130
pubmed: 31851726
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Mar 17;106(11):4313-8
pubmed: 19237578
Nature. 2018 Jul;559(7714):392-395
pubmed: 29973726
Cell. 2021 Mar 4;184(5):1377-1391.e14
pubmed: 33545088
Genome Biol Evol. 2009 Apr 30;1:34-44
pubmed: 20333175
Mol Biol Evol. 2015 Jan;32(1):268-74
pubmed: 25371430
Bioinformatics. 2009 Aug 15;25(16):2078-9
pubmed: 19505943
Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2017 Nov;300(11):2039-2045
pubmed: 28681530
J Fish Biol. 2015 Oct;87(4):1118-26
pubmed: 26377954
Mol Biol Evol. 2021 Aug 23;38(9):3742-3753
pubmed: 33950257
Genome Biol Evol. 2019 Feb 1;11(2):398-405
pubmed: 30649300
J Anim Ecol. 2015 May;84(3):590-603
pubmed: 25643743
Mol Biol Evol. 2018 Mar 1;35(3):543-548
pubmed: 29220515
Genome Biol Evol. 2021 Sep 1;13(9):
pubmed: 34499158
BMC Bioinformatics. 2009 Dec 15;10:421
pubmed: 20003500