4.7 Article

Coelacanth genomes reveal signatures for evolutionary transition from water to land

期刊

GENOME RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 10, 页码 1740-1748

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.158105.113

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [16064101, 21227002, 221S0002]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16064101, 21227002, 21370098, 221S0002, 22125008, 11J09181] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coelacanths are known as living fossils, as they show remarkable morphological resemblance to the fossil record and belong to the most primitive lineage of living Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fishes and tetrapods). Coelacanths may be key to elucidating the tempo and mode of evolution from fish to tetrapods. Here, we report the genome sequences of five coelacanths, including four Latimeria chalumnae individuals (three specimens from Tanzania and one from Comoros) and one L. menadoensis individual from Indonesia. These sequences cover two African breeding populations and two known extant coelacanth species. The genome is similar to 2.74 Gbp and contains a high proportion (similar to 60%) of repetitive elements. The genetic diversity among the individuals was extremely low, suggesting a small population size and/or a slow rate of evolution. We found a substantial number of genes that encode olfactory and pheromone receptors with features characteristic of tetrapod receptors for the detection of airborne ligands. We also found that limb enhancers of bmp7 and gli3, both of which are essential for limb formation, are conserved between coelacanth and tetrapods, but not ray-finned fishes. We expect that some tetrapod-like genes may have existed early in the evolution of primitive Sarcopterygii and were later co-opted to adapt to terrestrial environments. These coelacanth genomes will provide a cornerstone for studies to elucidate how ancestral aquatic vertebrates evolved into terrestrial animals.

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

4.7
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