Picky Sticks

by Christoph

Fig­ure 1. Ra­mu­lus artemis (Eu­phas­ma­todea), a 'walk­ing stick', on uniden­ti­fied plant (Rosaceae). Source

The trou­ble with go­ing ve­gan  As we know from our her­bi­vo­rous mam­ma­li­an re­la­ti­ves, the ru­mi­nants, you need to host cer­tain mi­cro­bes in your guts to sub­sist on plant po­ly­sac­cha­ri­des other than starch. Think salad or grass. Such 'non-starch' po­ly­sac­cha­ri­des – cel­lu­lo­se, pec­tin, and a few oth­ers – are com­­mon­­ly known as 'fi­bers'. Fi­bers are, for the most part, in­di­ges­ti­ble by ver­te­bra­tes, but are rea­di­ly me­ta­bo­li­zed by ma­ny bac­te­ria and fun­gi. Fa­cing si­mi­lar di­ges­ti­bi­li­ty is­sues with 'non-starch' po­ly­sac­cha­ri­des – ex­cept for cel­lu­lo­se and their own chi­tin 'hard­ware' – her­bi­vor­ous in­sects li­ke­wise har­bor a bunch of com­pe­tent mi­cro­bes in their mid­guts to han­dle that mat­ter. Take, for ex­am­ple, the 'wal­king stick', Ra­mu­lus ar­te­mis, which, like other mem­bers of its fa­mi­ly, pre­fers to snack on ro­ses or other mem­bers of the huge Ro­sa­ce­ae fa­mi­ly (Fig. 1). Stu­dy­ing their mid­guts should be re­vea­ling...

Fig­ure 2. Sub­strate tests of stick in­sect gut ex­tracts. The pos­i­tive con­trol was the gut ex­tract of the bee­tle Phae­don cochleariae (Chry­so­me­li­dae, Coleoptera). Black­berry leaves were used to con­trol for back­ground en­zymes in the diet, al­though guts were purged of con­tents be­fore use in this as­say. Aa = Are­taon as­per­rimus. BB = Black­berry leaves. Et = Ex­tato­soma tiara­tum. Me = Medau­roidea ex­traden­tata. PGA = Po­ly­ga­lac­tu­ro­nic acid, a pectin-break­down prod­uct. Ps = Pe­ruphasma schul­tei. Ra = Ra­mu­lus artemis. Ss = Sipy­loidea sipy­lus. Source

Be­ing ve­gan  The stick and leaf in­sects, the Phas­ma­to­dea, are not only her­bi­vores, but, in fact, are ex­clu­sively leaf-feed­ing, 'ob­lig­ate fo­li­vores' in sci­en­tese. This promp­ted Matan Sh­elomi and cowork­ers to study in more de­tail the plant cell wall de­grad­ing en­zymes (PCWDEs) of six se­lected species, in­clud­ing the just men­tioned Ra­mulus ar­temis. They dis­sected in­di­vid­ual an­i­mals and pre­pared tis­sue sam­ples of the anatom­i­cally dis­tin­guish­able an­te­ri­or and pos­te­rior midguts. Ex­tracts of the sam­ples were (clas­si­cally) an­a­lyzed for en­zyme ac­tiv­i­ties (Fig. 2), but most­ly spent on as­sem­bling their tran­scrip­tomes, i.e., se­quen­cing all tran­scripts present in the sam­ple at de­tec­table amounts. This, the au­thors ar­gue, is a sen­si­ble ap­proach to as­sess the meta­bolic prop­er­ties of species for which the genome se­quences are not avail­able. Only genes that are ac­tively ex­pressed are de­tected this way, but whether their mRNA is ac­tu­ally trans­lated into pro­tein re­mains an open ques­tion. Also, dis­crim­i­na­tion be­tween host and sym­biont mR­NAs is hard – a clear lim­i­ta­tion of this ap­proach when study­ing PCWDE ac­tivities in in­sect guts. By 'data­base mi­ning' (ba­si­cally pro­tein ho­mol­ogy and mo­tif sear­ches in data bases, but more re­fined ) Sh­elomi et al. iden­ti­fied in their tran­scrip­tomes more than twenty PCWDE gene fam­i­lies, rep­re­sent­ing var­i­ous iso­forms of cel­lu­lases, glu­canases and pec­ti­na­ses. Most of these PCWDE genes were dif­fer­en­tially ex­pressed, i.e., at ~10x higher rates in the an­terior midgut as com­pared to the pos­te­rior. They take this as a first mol­e­c­u­lar hint for one spe­cific func­tion of the an­te­rior midgut: break­down of large poly­sac­cha­ride mol­e­cules. That these genes were also found in ge­nomic DNA from brain tis­sue of the sam­ple an­i­mals, a tis­sue that should be es­sen­tially sym­biont-free, the au­thors sug­gest that they are true phas­ma­todean genes, not sym­biont genes. While most of the PCWDE genes showed ho­mol­ogy to those of other in­sects, the pec­ti­na­ses were strik­ingly ho­mol­o­gous to bac­te­r­ial genes.

Pecti­nases  The en­zy­matic break­down of pectin in­volves a num­ber of en­zymes col­lec­tively called pecti­nases (Fig. 3), one of which, the poly­galac­tur­onase (PG), comes in dif­fer­ent fla­vors. Al­though these GH28 fam­ily poly­galac­tur­onases are struc­turally and phy­lo­ge­net­i­cally re­lated, they each have ei­ther endo-poly­galac­tur­onase or exo-poly­galac­tur­onase ac­tiv­ity, the lat­ter of­ten ca­pa­ble to break­ing down their sub­strate to the monomers. They also dif­fer in ki­netic pa­ra­me­ters (tem­pe­ra­ture op­ti­mum, pH de­pen­dency) and with re­spect to rhamno­galac­tur­onase ac­tiv­ity.

Fig­ure 3. Pecti­nolytic en­zymes. Source

In a sub­se­quent study, Sh­elomi et al. char­ac­ter­ized the GH28 fam­ily PG tran­scripts of the Phas­ma­todea in more de­tail, and ob­tained strong ev­i­dence that they were not de­rived from bac­te­r­ial sym­bionts. A ma­jor­ity of the PG tran­scripts had 3' poly‑A tails – a hall­mark of eu­kar­yo­tic mR­NAs that is more sparsely found in bac­te­ria – and full-length tran­scripts en­coded sig­nal pep­tides typ­i­cal of eu­kary­otes. Each PG-en­cod­ing con­tig also had mul­ti­ple match­ing ge­nomic reads from (sym­biont-free) brain tis­sue that uniquely aligned to them ('con­tig' and 'reads' is se­que­nese and refers to par­tially as­sem­bled se­quen­ces and sin­gle­ton se­quences, re­spec­tively). When cloned in the bac­ulovirus sys­tem and ex­pressed in Sf9 in­sect cells, roughly 90% of 50 tested PG tran­scripts gave en­zy­mat­i­cally ac­tive pro­teins, which in­di­cates that these rep­re­sented mR­NAs of ac­tive genes. The ex­pressed pro­teins al­lowed the au­thors to de­ter­mine in­di­vid­u­ally their ex­act en­zy­matic spe­ci­fi­ci­ty (with as­says sim­i­lar to those shown in Fig. 2 ), and in­deed, endo- and exo-poly­galac­tur­onase ac­tiv­i­ties were found, both in good cor­re­la­tion to the sim­i­lar­i­ties of the re­spec­tive se­quences.

Pecti­nase Phy­logeny  Ho­mol­ogy searches for GH28 PG genes in the close phy­lo­ge­netic 'neigh­bor­hood' of the stud­ied species, that is among the Eu­phas­ma­todea branch of the Phas­ma­todea, were un­suc­cess­ful. No ev­i­dence for such genes was de­tected in the sin­gle se­quenced species of the ge­nus Timema, be­long­ing to the Timema­todea sis­ter branch of the Eu­phas­ma­todea, or among other mem­bers of the larger Poly­neoptera fam­ily (Fig. 4). These find­ings led the au­thors to con­clude that, un­like the cel­lu­lase genes, the GH28 PG genes do not have a deep evo­lu­tion­ary his­tory within the in­sects, which made a search for their source even more in­trigu­ing.

Fig­ure 4. Pres­ence of en­doge­nous pecti­nases in poly­neopteran species. The HGT oc­curred af­ter Eupha­smatodea and Timema­todea di­verged. Poly­neopteran phy­lo­ge­netic re­la­tion­ships and di­ver­gence times in mil­lions of years ago. Source

One of the perks of the se­quenc­ing craze in re­cent years is the abun­dance of pro­tein se­quences that now al­lows one to de­rive rather ro­bust phy­lo­ge­nies due to now hav­ing suf­fi­ciently large sam­ple sizes for sta­tis­ti­cal eva­lu­a­tion. In their first study, Sh­elomi et al. had com­pared their GH28 fam­ily PGs with 46 other GH28 PGs from bac­teria, fungi, ne­ma­todes, plants, and two in­sect fa­mi­lies, Hemiptera (ci­ca­das, leafhop­pers, aphids & Co.) and Co­leoptera (bee­tles). The Phas­ma­todea PGs formed a mo­nophyletic group with the PGs of Gammapro­teobac­te­ria (and one Be­ta­pro­teobacterium). Tak­ing a closer look in their new study for a pos­si­ble bac­te­r­ial donor for the PGs in the Phas­ma­todea, the au­thors find that all Phas­ma­to­dea PGs branch off as a sub­group within a mono­phyletic group of PGs from En­te­ro­bac­te­ri­a­ceae, in­clud­ing Er­winia pir­i­florin­i­grans and Pan­toea stew­artii. PGs found in a num­ber of leaf bee­tles (Chrysomel­i­dae) clus­ter to­gether with those from Bac­te­roi­de­tes, while PGs from root-knot ne­ma­todes (Ne­ma­toda, genus Meloidog­yne) clus­ter with a set of GH28 PGs from Be­tapro­teobac­te­ria and a dis­tinctly dif­fer­ent set of GH28 PGs from En­te­ro­bac­te­ri­a­ce­ae. The two sets of en­ter­obac­te­r­ial PGs share ~30% iden­tity, while the iden­tity within each group ris­ing to >60%. Thus, ac­qui­si­tion of PGs by the ne­ma­todes and the leaf bee­tles via HGT is con­ceiv­able, but has not yet been con­clu­sively proven. It seems clear, how­ever, that an an­ces­tor of the ex­tant stick in­sects (Phas­ma­todea) picked a GH28 PG gene from an an­ces­tral rel­a­tive of the Er­winia/Pan­toea-type en­ter­obac­te­ria, while the ne­ma­todes and leaf bee­tles drew from dif­fer­ent sources.

Per­spec­tive  Not re­ally an un­prece­dented break­through find­ing, the pres­ence of a pecti­nase gene of bona fide bac­te­r­ial ori­gin in the genomes of sev­eral Poly­neoptera species – ac­quired by their com­mon an­ces­tor 60 – 100 Ma ago and re­tained through­out its sub­se­quent spe­ci­a­tion, in­clud­ing gene du­pli­ca­tions and speci­ficity changes through mu­ta­tions – adds to the no­tion that "long-dis­­­tance" or even cross-king­dom hor­i­zon­tal gene trans­fer (HGT) is prob­a­bly less ex­cep­tional than sur­prised bi­ol­o­gists first as­sumed. The ac­qui­si­tion of a carotenoid de­sat­urase and cy­clase gene pair of fun­gal ori­gin by pea aphids – giv­ing them a pinky-ish phe­no­type – ap­peared al­most ex­cen­tric at first (fea­tured here in STC). But many more ex­am­ples have been found since (one men­tioned here in STC). It's a safe bet that even more ex­am­ples will be found among species – from what­ever branch of the tree of life – that hap­pen to share a par­tic­u­lar niche. As sym­bioses among var­i­ous smaller and larger things turn out to be the rule rather than the ex­cep­tion, it would be sur­pris­ing to not find some fre­quency of gene-shar­ing among these "co­hab­i­tants". How­ever, the phy­si­co­che­mi­cal ob­sta­cles to mov­ing in­tact DNA across mem­branes (con­juga­tive plas­mids, phages, and vi­ru­ses know these ob­sta­cles well enough!) have kept promis­cu­ous gene swap­ping at bay. So, bio­lo­gists, ease up, You will al­ways find 'species' and not find in­ex­tri­ca­ble 'gene bins'!

Yet 'de­tect­ing' hor­i­zon­tally trans­ferred genes in a genome comes at a price. It is im­pos­si­ble to ob­tain 'ex­per­i­men­tal ev­i­dence' for HGT by metic­u­lous ob­ser­va­tions and/or care­fully con­trolled bio­che­mical ex­per­i­ments. In­stead, bi­ol­o­gists have to do lots of math, sta­tis­tics that is. HGT can only be 'de­tected' by (meta-)genomic and tran­scrip­tomic analy­ses, and in sil­ico trans­la­tion of con­spi­cu­ous se­quences into pro­tein. (Spoiler: DNA se­quences are of no use here as in a genome any "in­com­ing" for­eign genes are stream­lined within a few hun­dred gen­er­a­tions, i.e., re­vamped to match host AT-con­tent, codon us­age, mRNA sta­bil­ity re­quire­ments, cog­nate reg­u­la­tory se­quences (pro­mo­ters), 'dec­o­ra­tion' by in­trons, trans­la­tion sig­nals, and ad­dress la­bels for ex­ported pro­teins). Align­ing pro­tein se­quences to de­tect sim­i­lar­i­ties is pretty straight­for­ward*), but cal­cu­lat­ing evo­lu­tio­nary dis­tances – or build­ing ro­bust phy­lo­ge­netic trees, for that mat­ter – is com­pli­cated and phy­lo­ge­neti­cists have yet to agree on a sta­tis­ti­cal 'gold stan­dard'. Clearly, pro­ce­dures sim­i­lar to those agreed upon by par­ti­cle phy­si­cist (in­clud­ing the 5‑sigma cri­te­rion) need to be adopted by bi­ol­o­gists. 'Ev­i­dence' will thus be sup­planted by 'prob­a­bil­ity'.

Tan­gen­tial  Among hard-core en­to­mol­o­gists – the folks study­ing in­sects – the 'walk­ing sticks' are known as Phas­ma­todea, or Phas­mids for short. Ap­par­ently, there had been an in­ci­dence of "Ho­ri­zon­tal Term Trans­fer" three decades ago that went largely un­de­tected. We mol­e­c­u­lar bi­ol­o­gists also knew phas­mids: cloning vec­tors that car­ried, in ad­di­tion to the usual (ds­DNA) plas­mid rep­li­ca­tion ori­gin, a sec­ondary ori­gin de­rived from phages like f1 that, given a helper phage, en­abled pro­duction of sin­gle-stranded DNA per­fect for Sanger se­quenc­ing. Yet, as soon as we learned (while still in the pre-PCR days) to se­quence the in­serts in dou­ble-stranded plas­mid vec­tors us­ing cus­­tom-made primers – in both di­rec­tions at once, with­out fum­bling with phas­mids or te­dious sub­cloning in M13 vec­tors, yeah! – phas­mids rapidly fell into obliv­ion. Thus en­deth the con­fu­sion of terms.

*) To give an ex­am­ple for what "straight­for­ward" looks like with real align­ment da­ta, go to Fi­gure 4 of the She­lo­mi et al. (2014) pa­per by click­ing the link. You see part of the alig­ned PG se­quen­ces for 28 spe­ci­es/spe­ci­es groups (res. 220 – 315). If you zoom in on a vir­tu­al "co­lumn" com­pri­sing re­si­dues 245 – 256 you can "see" also with un­trai­ned eyes two se­quen­ce blocks that are more si­mi­lar to each other – they are in fact al­most iden­ti­cal – than to any of the other se­quen­ces: Phas­ma­to­dea (red bar) and En­te­ro­bac­te­ri­a­ce­ae (or­ange bar).

 

Ref­er­ences

Sh­elomi M, Jasper WC, Atal­lah J, Kim­sey LS, John­son BR (2014). Dif­fer­en­tial ex­pres­sion of en­do­ge­nous plant cell wall de­grad­ing en­zyme genes in the stick in­sect (Phas­ma­todea) midgut. BMC Ge­no­mics, 15, 917 PMID 25331961 (PMC Free Ar­ti­cle)

Sh­elomi M, Danchin EG, Heckel D, Wipfler B, Bradler S, Zhou X, Pauchet Y (2016). Hor­i­zon­tal Gene Trans­fer of Pecti­nases from Bac­te­ria Pre­ceded the Di­ver­si­fi­ca­tion of Stick and Leaf In­sects. Sci Rep, 23 (6) 26388 PMID 26814170 (PMC Free Ar­ti­cle)

Boto L (2014). Hor­i­zon­tal gene trans­fer in the ac­qui­si­tion of novel traits by meta­zoans. Proc Biol Sci, 281 (1777), 20132450 PMID 24403327 (PMC Free Ar­ti­cle)

 

Other Posts