4.8 Article

The Dscam homologue of the crustacean Daphnia is diversified by alternative splicing like in insects

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 25, 期 7, 页码 1429-1439

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msn087

关键词

Dscam evolution; immunoglobulin domains; somatic diversity; immunity; nervous system; arthropoda

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In insects, the homologue of the Down syndrome cell adhesion molecule (Dscam) is a unique case of a single-locus gene whose expression has extensive somatic diversification in both the nervous and immune systems. How this situation evolved is best understood through comparative studies. We describe structural, expression, and evolutionary aspects of a Dscam homolog in 2 species of the crustacean Daphnia. The Dscam of Daphnia generates up to 13,000 different transcripts by the alternative splicing of variable exons. This extends the taxonomic range of a highly diversified Dscam beyond the insects. Additionally, we have identified 4 alternative forms of the cytoplasmic tail that generate isoforms with or without inhibitory or activating immunoreceptor tyrosine-based motifs (ITIM and ITAM respectively), something not previously reported in insect's Dscam. In Daphnia, we detected exon usage variability in both the brain and hemocytes ( the effector cells of immunity), suggesting that Dscam plays a role in the nervous and immune systems of crustaceans, as it does in insects. Phylogenetic analysis shows a high degree of amino acid conservation between Daphnia and insects except in the alternative exons, which diverge greatly between these taxa. Our analysis shows that the variable exons diverged before the split of the 2 Daphnia species and is in agreement with the nearest-neighbor model for the evolution of the alternative exons. The genealogy of the Dscam gene family from vertebrates and invertebrates confirmed that the highly diversified form of the gene evolved from a nondiversified form before the split of insects and crustaceans.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据