4.8 Article

The African coelacanth genome provides insights into tetrapod evolution

Journal

NATURE
Volume 496, Issue 7445, Pages 311-316

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature12027

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. South African National Department of Science and Technology
  2. National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)
  3. European Science Foundation
  4. BBSRC [BBS/E/T/000PR5885, BBS/E/T/000PR6193] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. MRC [MC_U137761446] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24113520, 23370101] Funding Source: KAKEN
  7. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/E/T/000PR5885, BBS/E/T/000PR6193] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Medical Research Council [MC_U137761446] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The discovery of a living coelacanth specimen in 1938 was remarkable, as this lineage of lobe-finned fish was thought to have become extinct 70 million years ago. The modern coelacanth looks remarkably similar to many of its ancient relatives, and its evolutionary proximity to our own fish ancestors provides a glimpse of the fish that first walked on land. Here we report the genome sequence of the African coelacanth, Latimeria chalumnae. Through a phylogenomic analysis, we conclude that the lungfish, and not the coelacanth, is the closest living relative of tetrapods. Coelacanth protein-coding genes are significantly more slowly evolving than those of tetrapods, unlike other genomic features. Analyses of changes in genes and regulatory elements during the vertebrate adaptation to land highlight genes involved in immunity, nitrogen excretion and the development of fins, tail, ear, eye, brain and olfaction. Functional assays of enhancers involved in the fin-to-limb transition and in the emergence of extra-embryonic tissues show the importance of the coelacanth genome as a blueprint for understanding tetrapod evolution.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available