4.6 Article

The repertoire of vertebrate STAT transcription factors: Origin and variations in fish

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dci.2020.103929

关键词

STAT; Interferon signalling; Gene duplication; Comparative immunology; Evolution; Vertebrates

资金

  1. VetBioNet project (EU) [INFRA-2016-1 731014]
  2. INRAE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The STAT gene family diversified during early vertebrate evolution through two rounds of whole genome duplication. While main types of STAT factors can be found from bony fish to mammals in Agnathan genomes, a typical STAT1-6 repertoire is only observed in jawed vertebrates. Whole genome duplications did not lead to a uniform expansion of stat genes, as seen in fish including polyploid species.
The stat gene family diversified during early vertebrate evolution thanks to two rounds of whole genome duplication (WGD) to produce a typical repertoire composed of 6 STAT factors (named 1-6). In contrast, only one or two stat genes have been reported in C. elegans and in D. melanogaster. The main types of STAT found from bony fish to mammals are present in Agnathan genomes, but a typical STAT1-6 repertoire is only observed in jawed vertebrates. Comparative syntenies showed that STAT6 was the closest to the ancestor of the family. An extensive survey of stat genes across fish including polyploid species showed that whole genome duplications did not lead to a uniform expansion of stat genes. While 2 to 5 stat1 are present in salmonids, whose genome duplicated about 35My ago, only one copy of stat2 and stat6 is retained. In contrast, common carp, with a recent whole genome duplication (5-10My), possesses a doubled stat repertoire indicating that the elimination of stat2 and stat6 additional copies is not immediate. Altogether our data shed light on the multiplicity of evolutionary pathways followed by key components of the canonical cytokine receptor signalling pathway, and point to differential selective constraints exerted on these factors.

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

4.6
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