Joana Projecto Garcia
  • Home
  • Research Interests
  • CV
  • Publications
  • Blog/News

Maybe they were garbage, but not anymore!

8/11/2019

0 Comments

 

Old ideas linger in our minds, the same happens with old papers that we would like to discuss. Although not that old, just from the beginning of the year, the article by Parenteau et al. (2019) in Nature, about introns being mediators of some types of cell responses, caught my eye and made some thoughts resurface on how intragenic regions may have major functions in the regulation of cells. This is, of course, not a new idea. Biologists and biochemists since the discovery of introns (1977) have proposed several functions and discovered regulatory signals within these regions (a thorough survey through PubMed can attest to that). What is quite thrilling at this moment in time is that we are getting further and further away from the idea that intronic regions are junk DNA.
An outstanding theory about intron evolution states that the increase of introns’ abundance in smaller populations is explained mostly by mutations and their fixation through genetic drift (Lynch 2002). The same theory also refers that in order to maintain those introns selective forces should be at play. This theory is quite relevant for species with typical small populations. But what about yeast? Yeast has large population sizes and relatively a low number of introns/gene.
 
The work by Parenteau and colleagues (2019) shows that keeping introns (even though in limited numbers), in large populations might have its advantages. The aforementioned paper demonstrates the involvement of introns in nutrient sensing pathways and their effect in cell growth in times of stress. Although only some introns are essential for the growth in rich medium, by repressing the expression of deleterious genes, many more seem to be important for cell maintenance, especially in stress conditions, as starvation. By using recombinant yeast strains (with absence of specific introns), the authors tested which pathways would be more susceptible to starvation when there was intron loss in representative genes. In the vast majority, cell survival had a negative value, which highlights the importance introns gained through time, and particularly in several metabolic responses.
To add more detail to how introns might exert their influence, the authors tested two types of nutrients; phosphate and dextrose, and also monitored the different phases of growth. Results showed that both nutrients were limiting, and introns seem to be important in the stationary phase, time at which, most recombinant strains disappeared from culture. Interestingly, when measuring intron abundance in wild type cells, it was during the stationary phase that it was the highest, due to the accumulation of unspliced RNA. Growth control in the stationary phase seems to be partly mediated by intron repression of ribosomal protein genes (RPG), since once the removal of some introns there was the increased expression of these genes. This is an indicator that the advantage of having introns is linked to the arrest of consuming too much nutrients in starvation conditions, by avoiding translation.
The authors also found that introns influence cell growth through the same metabolic pathway and they do not depend on the expression levels of their host gene. They do depend on the spatial interaction with 5’UTR regions of the host gene. Once this interaction is destabilized the intron-deletion phenotype was no longer rescued. This means to support cell maintenance/growth gene context is vital. In terms of which part of the nutrient-sensing pathway introns play a role, it seems that they influence the expression of a set of genes that are associated with ribosome production. Again, hindering translation will have benefits in starved populations. That process is in turn controlled by a kinase (TORC1) that apparently induces the abundance of introns in starvation conditions. This kinase is known to be a regulator of a large protein complex involved in cellular protein degradation.
 
One of the conclusions that can be put forward is that evidence is proving Lynch’s theory right. Most likely introns that have been kept in large populations have been the target of positive selective forces. The advantages that introns confer in stressful conditions, as starvation, are of extreme importance at the evolutionary level. Although the emergence of such advantage has probably originated by chance (mutation, genetic drift), the retention of the mechanisms presented above could not be maintained if no selective forces would act upon their preservation.
 


Lynch M. 2002. Intron evolution as a population-genetic process. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99:6118–6123.
Parenteau J, Maignon L, Berthoumieux M, Catala M, Gagnon V, Abou Elela S. 2019. Introns are mediators of cell response to starvation. Nature 565:612–617.
0 Comments

Music from gene sequences

23/9/2015

0 Comments

 
0 Comments

Words DO matter in Biology!

3/6/2015

0 Comments

 
Lost in post‐translation
Olivier Putois, François Villa, Jonathan B Weitzman
DOI 10.15252/embr.201439980 | Published online 16.04.2015
EMBO reports (2015) 16, 671
http://embor.embopress.org/content/16/6/671?etoc
0 Comments

Nice read on how to address women researcher in reference letters

9/5/2015

0 Comments

 
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6235/611.full?utm_campaign=email-sci-toc&utm_src=email
0 Comments

When in lack of inspiration...

8/4/2015

0 Comments

 
...there is nothing better than this! :)

0 Comments

Does plasticity hinders evolution?

6/4/2015

0 Comments

 
Not so long ago a very interesting paper surfaced, on the scientific journal eLife, with a subject that has been discussed for quite a long time (1). Has phenotypic plasticity (the anatomical, physiological or behavioural capacity, coded by a genotype, to respond to environmental change) an influence in evolutionary outcomes? Does the diversity of “the size of the neck of the giraffes” has an effect on the amount of “same size of necks” in the next generation (is it in some way inherited)? Do these “sizes” have the same ecological and evolutionary relevance?

Lamarckian reference apart, it is known that phenotypic plasticity can be an important step for organisms to withstand changing conditions in their environment. But, until what point this capacity to change anatomical, physiological or behaviour phenotypes is crucial to a subsequent adaptive status?!

Using taxa from an important family of parasitic nematodes with developmental plasticity, Susoy and colleagues (2) tried to answer these questions by making use of correlational patterns between different mouth types (
morphotypes: narrow or wide) in nematode worms and a) these morphotypes complexity and b) evolutionary rates of the different taxa. The authors selected inbred strains to guarantee general homozygosity (genes with identical alleles – no genetic diversity) and tested for the presence of the two morphotypes by inducing stress (starvation, predation). From these strains they used several genes to preform the phylogenetic analyses.

They found out that when species exhibited the two morphotypes this was associated with bursts in evolutionary rates and mouth complexities. But the evolutionary rates were even higher once one of the morphotypes had been lost. According to the authors this could be due mainly to two reasons: first, during the two morph stage, epistatic effects (gene interaction with other genes) and all the downstream machinery involved in the alternate phenotypes could not be dissociated, leading to slower (or not as fast) evolutionary rates, or second, there was a built-up of genetic variation before the lost of one of the morphotypes, due to relaxed selection, that would be released once the pressure of having two morphotypes was raised.

Although these are fascinating propositions, as the authors also point out, there is no certainty about the mechanisms that drive these correlations to happen. The use of genes with known phenotypes (preferably with no epistatic effects), and their manipulation, would shed some light into this matter and give us causality. Even so, this elegant study reinforces the idea that phenotypic plasticity is crucial for evolutionary events.


References
1.     Bradshaw AD. 1965. Evolutionary Significance of Phenotypic Plasticity in Plants. Advances in Genetics 13: 115-155.
2.     Susoy V, Ragsdale EJ, Kanzaki N, and Sommer RJ. 2015. Rapid Diversification Associated with a Macroevolutionary Pulse of Developmental Plasticity. eLife 4: 1–17. doi:10.7554/eLife.05463. 

0 Comments

Evolution is a bitch...

31/3/2015

 
Picture
The author shows the concept of evolution in a very funny way. Click on the image to get to the original.

    Joana PG

    In this page you will find news and comments about interesting research! And sometimes thoughts about science related books (sci-fi counts as research...). :)

    Picture

    Archives

    November 2019
    September 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.