- Research article
- Open Access
Evidence for the adaptive significance of an LTR retrotransposon sequence in a Drosophila heterochromatic gene
© McCollum et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2002
- Received: 17 December 2001
- Accepted: 19 March 2002
- Published: 19 March 2002
The potential adaptive significance of transposable elements (TEs) to the host genomes in which they reside is a topic that has been hotly debated by molecular evolutionists for more than two decades. Recent genomic analyses have demonstrated that TE fragments are associated with functional genes in plants and animals. These findings suggest that TEs may contribute significantly to gene evolution.
We have analyzed two transposable elements associated with genes in the sequenced Drosophila melanogaster y; cn bw sp strain. A fragment of the Antonia long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposon is present in the intron of Chitinase 3 (Cht3), a gene located within the constitutive heterochromatin of chromosome 2L. Within the euchromatin of chromosome 2R a full-length Burdock LTR retrotransposon is located immediately 3' to cathD, a gene encoding cathepsin D. We tested for the presence of these two TE/gene associations in strains representing 12 geographically diverse populations of D. melanogaster. While the cathD insertion variant was detected only in the sequenced y; cn bw sp strain, the insertion variant present in the heterochromatic Cht3 gene was found to be fixed throughout twelve D. melanogaster populations and in a D. mauritiana strain suggesting that it maybe of adaptive significance. To further test this hypothesis, we sequenced a 685bp region spanning the LTR fragment in the intron of Cht3 in strains representative of the two sibling species D. melanogaster and D. mauritiana (~2.7 million years divergent). The level of sequence divergence between the two species within this region was significantly lower than expected from the neutral substitution rate and lower than the divergence observed between a randomly selected intron of the Drosophila Alcohol dehydrogenase gene (Adh).
Our results suggest that a 359 bp fragment of an Antonia retrotransposon (complete LTR is 659 bp) located within the intron of the Drosophila melanogaster Cht3 gene is of adaptive evolutionary significance. Our results are consistent with previous suggestions that the presence of TEs in constitutive heterochromatin may be of significance to the expression of heterochromatic genes.
- Transposable Element
- Long Terminal Repeat
- Constitutive Heterochromatin
- Drosophila Gene
- Long Terminal Repeat Retrotransposon
The potential adaptive significance of transposable elements (TEs) to the host genomes in which they reside is a topic that has been hotly debated by molecular evolutionists for more than two decades. While the biological importance of TEs seemed self-evident to those scientists involved in their initial discovery [e.g., [1, 2]], the subsequent realization that TEs could be maintained in populations even while imparting slight selective disadvantage to their hosts [e.g., [3–5]] drew into question the presumption of adaptive significance. However, even if TEs can be maintained in populations on a day-to-day basis without providing selective advantage, it does not preclude the possibility that the insertion of TEs in or near genes may, in some instances, be of adaptive advantage.
If TE insertion variants have contributed to adaptive gene evolution, such variants might be expected to be in high frequency or fixed in populations and species. Initial surveys of natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster showing that TE insertion alleles are in uniformly low frequency seemed to negate the adaptive hypothesis . However, the sporadic discovery of degenerate TEs or TE fragments as critical components of functional genes in both plants and animals was sufficient to keep the adaptive hypothesis alive throughout the pre-genomic era [7–11].
The current availability of the complete or nearly complete sequence of select genomes representing a variety of species is providing an unprecedented opportunity to examine the frequency and distribution of TEs in eukaryotic genomes. The results have been dramatic. TEs not only comprise a significant fraction of nearly all eukaryotic genomes thus far sequenced, they have been found to be components of the regulatory and/or coding regions of a surprisingly large number of genes [e.g., ]. For example, a recent genomic analysis of 13,799 human genes revealed that approximately 4% harbored retrotransposon sequences within protein-coding regions . Similar results have been recently reported for the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Here we analyze the polymorphism of two LTR retrotransposon / host gene associations across geographically widespread D. melanogaster populations and a representative population of the D. melanogaster sibling species, Drosophila mauritiana.
We have initiated a genomic analysis of LTR retrotransposons present in the Drosophila melanogaster genome [e.g., ]. Of particular interest is identification of genes harboring TEs and determining if these insertion alleles are in high frequency or fixed among natural populations as would be expected from the adaptive hypothesis. We report here the results of an analysis of two LTR retrotransposon-containing genes located on the second chromosome of the sequenced D. melanogaster y; cn bw sp strain. These two genes present an interesting contrast in that one of them, Chitinase 3 (Cht3), is located within constitutive heterochromatin (Genbank accession: AE002743) while the other, cathD, is located in a euchromatic region of the chromosome (Genbank accession: AE003839). Our findings demonstrate that while the euchromatic cathD insertion variant was not detected in any of the natural populations examined, the insertion variant present in the heterochromatic Cht3 gene was found to be apparently fixed throughout the species. These results are consistent with the view that the presence of TEs in constitutive heterochromatin may have relevance to the expression of heterochromatic genes [e.g., [16, 17]].
Presence or absence of retroelement sequence associated with cathD and Cht3 genes in strains representing 12 natural populations of D. melanogaster.
cathD / Burdock
Cht3 / Antonia
y; cn bw sp
It is formally possible that the presence of the Antonia LTR within the Cht3 intron was the result of a chance fixation event prior to the expansion of D. melanogaster around the world. Thus, to further test the adaptive hypothesis we compared the level of sequence divergence within the LTR and its flanking intronic sequence between the two sibling species Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila mauritiana. If the LTR-containing intron is under stabilizing selection, a lower than neutral rate of substitution would be expected. A total of 685 bp of the Cht3 intron was sequenced. This region spans 264 bp of the 359 bp Antonia LTR fragment. The sequence of this region in a D. melanogaster (Dimonika, Africa) and D. mauritiana (Mauritius, Africa) strain was aligned with the homologous region in the sequenced D. melanogaster y; cn bw sp strain (Figure 3). The two melanogaster strains were 100% identical. The melanogaster sequences were found to be only 1.3% (9 substitutions/685 nucleotide sites) diverged from that of D. mauritiana. This value is significantly less than half of the expected 4.3 % (± 2.7) divergence based on the Drosophila neutral substitution rate of 0.016 (± 0.005) substitutions/site/million year  over the estimated 2.7 million years separating the two species .
To directly compare the substitution rate for the Cht3 intron with that of another Drosophila gene intron, we randomly selected intron 1 of the Drosophila alcohol dehydrogenase (Adh) gene. Adh is a widely studied Drosophila gene and it has been sequenced in several Drosophila species including D. melanogaster, accession X60793  and D. mauritiana, accession M19264 . The sequence divergence between D. melanogaster and D. mauritiana in the Adh intron 1 (7.9%, Figure 4), is higher than that for the LTR containing Cht3 intron (1.3%). These results strongly suggest that conservative selection has been operating on the LTR containing intron associated with the Drosophila Cht3 gene over the past 2.7 million years.
For many years, constitutive heterochromatin was considered to be of little or no functional significance . This view seemed to be supported by early molecular studies showing that heterochromatin consists almost exclusively of highly repeated and middle repetitive DNA [e.g., [23, 24]]. The middle repetitive fraction was viewed as the descendent of once active TEs that had the misfortune of inserting into transcriptionally inert heterochromatin at some point in their evolutionary history [e.g., [6, 20]]. The view of heterochromatin as a genetic wasteland gradually changed with the mapping of a number of functionally important Drosophila genes to constitutive heterochromatin [e.g., [24–31]]. Reexamination of Drosophila constitutive heterochromatin revealed that long stretches of highly repetitive DNA are interrupted by "islands" of retrotransposon sequences [e.g., [32, 33]]. Drosophila genes in heterochromatin are typically associated with these islands of retrotransposons [2, 31, 34–36]. It has been suggested that transposable elements inserted into heterochromatin may locally alter chromatin structure [e.g., ]. Our results suggest that in at least some instances, the association of heterochromatic genes with transposable element sequences may be of adaptive significance.
The results presented here are consistent with the hypothesis that a 359 bp fragment of the Antonia retrotransposon located within the intron of the heterochromatic Drosophila melanogaster Cht3 gene may be of adaptive evolutionary significance. Further genomic and molecular analyses will be required to assess the general importance of LTR retrotransposon sequences to the evolution of heterochromatic gene structure and function.
Gene Region Annotation
BLASTS of sequenced DNA turned up several instances of genes proximal to an LTR retrotransposon. Sequence retrieval was initiated via BLASTN searches (default parameters- ) against the BDGP http://www.fruitfly.org and GenBank http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov databases using LTRs from previously identified Drosophila retroelements as queries . Results with E-values < e-10 were annotated on the corresponding clone, whereupon visual inspection of several annotations confirmed the presence of retroelements proximal to known genes. Selected genes were BLASTed against NCBI's EST database and mapped along with predicted transcript structures from Flybase http://www.flybase.org. Chromosomal location of clones was also determined from Flybase.
D. melanogaster strains from Dimonika, Niamey, Swaziland, Kenia, Capetown, Cotonake, and India were obtained from Charles F. Aquadro, Cornell University. Germany, Italy, and Antilles strains were obtained from Nikolaj Junakovic, Universitá la Sapienza, Rome, Italy. California and Athens strains are from Daniel Promislow, University of Georgia. D. melanogaster y; cn bw sp strain was obtained from the Bloomington, IN, stock center. The D. mauritiana (241.0) strain was provided by the Bowling Green, OH, Drosophila stock center.
Primers used for PCR analysis.
The PCR products for primer set cht3(f) and cht3(r) and primer set Antonia LTR(f) and Antonia LTR(r) were amplified in a 25 μl reaction containing 3 mM MgCl2, 10X PCR buffer supplied by Pierce (Rockford, IL), 5% DMSO, 0.2 mM dNTPs, 0.5 μM of each primer, and 0.5 U of Taq DNA polymerase supplied by Pierce [Rockford, IL]. The program consisted of an initial incubation at 94°C for 3 min for 1 cycle, a 30 cycle extension at 94°C for 30 sec, 56°C for cht3(f)/cht3(r) primer set or 57°C for Antonia LTR(f)/Antonia LTR(r) primer set for 30 sec, 72°C for 1 min 30 sec, and a 1 cycle final extension of 72°C for 5 min. The PCR products for primer set cht3(f2) and LTR(r) were amplified in a 25 μl reaction containing Expand Long Template PCR System 10X PCR buffer #1 supplied by Roche (Indianapolis, IN), 0.35 mM dNTPs, 0.32 μM of each primer, and 1.3 U of Expand Long Template PCR System DNA polymerase mix supplied by Roche (Indianapolis, IN). The program consisted of an initial incubation at 94°C for 3 min for 1 cycle, a 30 cycle extension at 94°C for 30 sec, 52°C for 30 sec, 68°C for 3 min, and a 1 cycle final extension at 68°C for 5 min.
The reaction mix and program used for all sets of primers are the same as those described for primer set cht3(f) and cht3(r) and primer set Antonia LTR(f) and Antonia LTR(r) in the Cht3 PCR (above). The annealing temperature for primer set cathD(f) and cathD(r) is 58°C, for primer set Burdock LTR(f) and Burdock element(r) is 59°C, and for primer set cathDff) and Burdock element(r) is 56°C.
Note added in proof
The two Cht3 intron fragments descibed in Figure 3 have the following provisional accession numbers in GenBank:
D. melanogaster, Africa - AY081055
D. mauritiana - AY081054
E.W.G supported through an NIH Genetics Training Grant. This work supported by a National Institutes of Health grant to J.F.M.
- McClintock B: Chromosome organization and genic expression. Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 1951, 16: 13-17.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Shapiro J: DNA insertion elements and the evolution of chromosome primary structure. Trends Biochem. Sci. 1977, 2: 622-627. 10.1016/0968-0004(77)90072-X.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Doolittle WF, Sapienza C: Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution. Nature. 1980, 284: 601-603.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hickey DA: Selfish DNA: a sexually-transmitted nuclear parasite. Genetics. 1982, 101: 519-531.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Orgel LE, Crick FH: Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite. Nature. 1980, 284: 604-607.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Charlesworth B, Langley CH: The population genetics of Drosophila transposable elements. Annu Rev Genet. 1989, 23: 251-287. 10.1146/annurev.ge.23.120189.001343.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Britten RJ: DNA sequence insertion and evolutionary variation in gene regulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996, 93: 9374-9377. 10.1073/pnas.93.18.9374.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Britten RJ: Mobile elements inserted in the distant past have taken on important functions. Gene. 1997, 205: 177-182. 10.1016/S0378-1119(97)00399-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Brosius J: Retroposons–seeds of evolution. Science. 1991, 251: 753-View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Makalowski W, Mitchell GA, Labuda D: Alu sequences in the coding regions of mRNA: a source of protein variability. Trends Genet. 1994, 10: 188-193. 10.1016/0168-9525(94)90254-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McDonald JF: Evolution and consequences of transposable elements. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 1993, 3: 855-864.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Brosius J: Genomes were forged by massive bombardments with retroelements and retrosequences. In: Transposable Elements and Genome Evolution. Edited by: McDonald JF. 2000, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 209-238.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nekrutenko A, Li WH: Transposable elements are found in a large number of human protein- coding genes. Trends Genet. 2001, 17: 619-621. 10.1016/S0168-9525(01)02445-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ganko EW, Fielman KT, McDonald JF: Evolutionary History of Cer Elements and Their Impact on the C. elegans Genome. Genome Res. 2001, 11: 2066-2074. 10.1101/gr.196201.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bowen NJ, McDonald JF: Drosophila euchromatic LTR retrotransposons are much younger than the host species in which they reside. Genome Res. 2001, 11: 1527-1540. 10.1101/gr.164201.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gatti M, Pimpinelli S: Functional elements in Drosophila melanogaster heterochromatin. Annu Rev Genet. 1992, 26: 239-275. 10.1146/annurev.ge.26.120192.001323.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Spradling AC: Transposable elements and the evolution of heterochromatin. Soc Gen Physiol Ser. 1994, 49: 69-83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Li WH: Molecular Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer. 1997Google Scholar
- Li YJ, Satta Y, Takahata N: Paleo-demography of the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup: application of the maximum likelihood method. Genes Genet Syst. 1999, 74: 117-127. 10.1266/ggs.74.117.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Laurie CC, Bridgham JT, Choudhary M: Associations between DNA sequence variation and variation in expression of the Adh gene in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1991, 129: 489-499.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cohn VH, Moore GP: Organization and evolution of the alcohol dehydrogenase gene in Drosophila. Mol Biol Evol. 1988, 5: 154-166.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hannah A: Localization and function of heterochromatin in Drosophila melanogaster. Adv. Genet. 1951, 4: 87-125.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Appels R, Peacock WJ: The arrangement and evolution of highly repeated (satellite) DNA sequences with special reference to Drosophila. Int Rev Cytol Suppl. 1978, Suppl: 69-126.Google Scholar
- Brutlag DL: Molecular arrangement and evolution of heterochromatic DNA. Annu Rev Genet. 1980, 14: 121-144. 10.1146/annurev.ge.14.120180.001005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hilliker AJ, Holm DG: Genetic analysis of the proximal region of chromosome 2 of Drosophila melanogaster. I. Detachment products of compound autosomes. Genetics. 1975, 81: 705-721.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hilliker AJ: Genetic analysis of the centromeric heterochromatin of chromosome 2 of Drosophila melanogaster: deficiency mapping of EMS-induced lethal complementation groups. Genetics. 1976, 83: 765-782.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ganetzky B: On the components of segregation distortion in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1977, 86: 321-355.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pimpinelli S, Sullivan W, Prout M, Sandler L: On biological functions mapping to the heterochromatin of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1985, 109: 701-724.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Marchant GE: Genetic analysis of the heterochromatin of chromosome 3 in Drosophila melanogaster. I. Products of compound autosome detachment. Genetics. 1988, 120: 503-517.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Marchant GE: Genetic analysis of the heterochromatin of chromosome 3 in Drosophila melanogaster. II. Vital loci identified through EMS mutagenesis. Genetics. 1988, 120: 519-532.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Devlin RH, Holm DG, Morin KR, Honda BM: Identifying a single-copy DNA sequence associated with the expression of a heterochromatic gene, the light locus of Drosophila melanogaster. Genome. 1990, 33: 405-415.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Caizzi R, Caggese C, Pimpinelli S: Bari-1, a new transposon-like family in Drosophila melanogaster with a unique heterochromatic organization. Genetics. 1993, 133: 335-345.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pimpinelli S, Berloco M, Fanti L, Dimitri P, Bonaccorsi S, Marchetti E, Caizzi R, Caggese C, Gatti M: Transposable elements are stable structural components of Drosophila melanogaster heterochromatin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1995, 92: 3804-3808.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dimitri P, Junakovic N: Revising the selfish DNA hypothesis: new evidence on accumulation of transposable elements in heterochromatin. Trends Genet. 1999, 15: 123-124. 10.1016/S0168-9525(99)01711-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Berghella L, Dimitri P: The heterochromatic rolled gene of Drosophila melanogaster is extensively polytenized and transcriptionally active in the salivary gland chromocenter. Genetics. 1996, 144: 117-125.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dimitri P, Junokovic N, Arca B: Nested transposons within the intron II of rolled, a heterochromatic gene of Drosophila melanogaster. Dros Res Conf. 1999, 40: 663B-Google Scholar
- Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ: Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997, 25: 3389-3402. 10.1093/nar/25.17.3389.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gloor GB, Preston CR, Johnson-Schlitz DM, Nassif NA, Phillis RW, Benz WK, Robertson HM, Engels WR: Type I repressors of P element mobility. Genetics. 1993, 135: 81-95.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.