4.4 Article

The crowns have eyes: multiple opsins found in the eyes of the crown-of-thorns starfish Acanthaster planci

期刊

BMC EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12862-018-1276-0

关键词

Transcriptomics; Asteroidea; Vision; Photoreceptors; Evolution; Echinoderm

资金

  1. Marie Curie ITN Neptune [317172]
  2. Danish Research Council [4002-00284]
  3. German Research Foundation (DFT) [UL 428/2-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundOpsins are G protein-coupled receptors used for both visual and non-visual photoreception, and these proteins evolutionarily date back to the base of the bilaterians. In the current sequencing age, phylogenomic analysis has proven to be a powerful tool, facilitating the increase in knowledge about diversity within the opsin subclasses and, so far, at least nine types of opsins have been identified. Within echinoderms, opsins have been studied in Echinoidea and Ophiuroidea, which do not possess proper image forming eyes, but rather widely dispersed dermal photoreceptors. However, most species of Asteroidea, the starfish, possess true eyes and studying them will shed light on the diversity of opsin usage within echinoderms and help resolve the evolutionary history of opsins.ResultsUsing high-throughput RNA sequencing, we have sequenced and analyzed the transcriptomes of different Acanthaster planci tissue samples: eyes, radial nerve, tube feet and a mixture of tissues from other organs. At least ten opsins were identified, and eight of them were found significantly differentially expressed in both eyes and radial nerve, with R-opsin being the most highly expressed in the eye.ConclusionThis study provides new important insight into the involvement of opsins in visual and nonvisual photoreception. Of relevance, we found the first indication of an r-opsin photopigment expressed in a well-developed visual eye in a deuterostome animal. Additionally, we provided tissue specific A. planci transcriptomes that will aid in future Evo Devo studies.

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

4.4
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