第774回 千葉医学会例会・第二内科例会 54.

InterProScan results. InterProScan [34] queries sequences against 16 member databases enabling protein classification by family as well as by conserved domains; the number of annotations and the percent of sequences receiving annotations varied across the different databases. (XLSX 32 kb

Data_Sheet_1_Correlated evolution of wing morphology and echolocation calls in bats.DOCX

IntroductionFlight and echolocation are two crucial behaviors associated with niche expansion in bats. Previous researches have attempted to explain the interspecific divergence in flight morphology and echolocation vocalizations in some bat groups from the perspective of foraging ecology. However, the relationship between wing morphology and echolocation vocalizations of bats remains obscure, especially in a phylogenetic context.ObjectivesHere, we aimed to assess the correlated evolution of wing morphology and echolocation calls in bats within a phylogenetic comparative framework.MethodsWe integrated the information on search-phrase echolocation call duration, peak frequency, relative wing loading, aspect ratio, and foraging guilds for 152 bat species belonging to 15 families. We quantified the association among wing morphology, echolocation call parameters, and foraging guilds using phylogeny-based comparative analyses.ResultsOur analyses revealed that wing morphology and echolocation call parameters depended on families and exhibited a marked phylogenetic signal. Peak frequency of the call was negatively correlated with relative wing loading and aspect ratio. Call duration was positively correlated with relative wing loading and aspect ratio among open-space aerial foragers, edge-space aerial foragers, edge-space trawling foragers, and narrow-space gleaning foragers. Wing morphology, call duration, and peak frequency were predicted by foraging guilds.ConclusionThese results demonstrate that adaptive response to foraging ecology has shaped the correlated evolution between flight morphology and echolocation calls in bats. Our findings expand the current knowledge regarding the link between morphology and vocalizations within the order Chiroptera.</p

Field-grown <i>Pro_35S</i>:<i>CO1</i>, <i>Pro_35S</i>:<i>CO2</i>, and control trees were observed for the onset of reproduction for five years, evaluated for the number of reproductive buds or catkins at age 5, and measured for height, diameter, and shoot growth at age 5.

<p>Differing letters to the right of the mean (superscript) within a row represent a statistical difference (<i>P</i>≤0.05) between the average control and average transformant. Height was measured in meter (m), whereas diameter and shoot length were measured in centimeter (cm).</p

Transcripts downstream of <i>CO1</i> and <i>CO2</i> and their year-round transcript levels were identified in mature <i>P. deltoides</i> via microarray.

<p>Log₂ fold-change of each time point relative to the baseline time point (September or Sep) was calculated. Clusters to the left of the heatmaps represent modules and the columns to right of the heatmaps represent the up- (red) and down-regulation (blue) of downstream genes. Months relative to September are above the heatmaps. The pie charts to the right of each heatmap show the functional categorization of GO Biological Process terms. N = number of genes. The Venn diagram shows the number of genes that were common to both <i>CO1</i> and <i>CO2</i> (<i>CO1</i>/<i>CO2</i>) datasets, and the pie chart below the diagram shows the GO categorization of <i>CO1</i>/<i>CO2</i> transcripts. Up (↑) and down (↓) arrows represent partitioning of overall percentage in each pie. “**” denotes the GO term is significantly (<i>P</i>≤0.001, except “development” for genes downstream of <i>CO1 P</i>≤0.006) over-represented in the microarray data when a hypergeometric test was conducted.</p

Ectopic expression of <i>CO1</i> and <i>CO2</i> individually (<i>Pro_35S</i>:<i>CO1</i> or <i>Pro_35S</i>:<i>CO2</i>) or together (<i>Pro_35S</i>:<i>CO1/CO2</i>) in poplar (<i>P. tremula</i> × <i>P alba</i>).

<p>(A) When compared with controls at age 5, <i>Pro_35S</i>:<i>CO1</i> or <i>Pro_35S</i>:<i>CO2</i> trees did not differ in reproductive onset, spring reproductive and vegetative bud break, and fall bud set. <i>Pro_35S</i>:<i>FT2</i> trees showed year-round active growth. Red arrows denote the emerging inflorescence in the spring, whereas black arrows point the dormant terminal vegetative bud in the fall. Unlike wild-type and vector controls, <i>Pro_35S</i>:<i>CO1</i> or <i>Pro_35S</i>:<i>CO2</i> trees (1, 2, and 3) significantly overproduced <i>CO1</i> or <i>CO2</i> transcripts when analyzed via qRT-PCR in leaves sampled in April. While the expression of <i>FT1</i> was undetectable, that of <i>FT2</i> fluctuated with no clear trend in controls and <i>CO1</i>- or <i>CO2</i>-overexpressing trees. Letters above the bars showing the abundance of <i>CO1</i> or <i>CO2</i> transcripts indicate statistically significant (<i>P</i>≤0.001) differences. Error bars indicate SD about the mean. (B) When <i>Pro_35S</i>:<i>CO1</i> and <i>Pro_35S</i>:<i>CO2</i> were co-expressed in the same trees, no difference between the transformants and controls was observed in spring bud break and fall bud set in two years. However, <i>Pro_35S</i>:<i>FT2</i> trees showed a non-dormant phenotype. Black arrows indicate the terminal vegetative bud, whereas purple arrows point to the axillary vegetative bud. The axillary vegetative buds were opening and preformed leaves were emerging from the control and co-expressing transgenic trees on March 23. Unlike wild-type and vector-control plants, co-expressing transgenic trees (1, 2, 3, and 4) significantly overproduced <i>CO1</i> and <i>CO2</i> transcripts in leaves sampled in April. While the expression of <i>FT1</i> was undetectable, that of <i>FT2</i> fluctuated with no clear trend in controls and <i>CO1</i>/<i>CO2</i> overexpressing trees. Letters above the bars showing the abundance of <i>CO1</i> or <i>CO2</i> transcripts indicate statistically significant (<i>P</i>≤0.001) differences. Error bars indicate SD about the mean.</p

<i>In situ</i> expression analysis of <i>CO1</i> and <i>CO2</i> in leaf, reproductive bud, and shoot apex collected during the growing season from mature <i>P. deltoides</i>.

<p>Panels in the first two columns were results from the bright-field image of <i>in situ</i> hybridization and colorimetric detection of <i>CO1</i> or <i>CO2</i> transcripts. The antisense probe generated positive signals (dark blue) if present, while the sense probe served as negative control. The third column (schematic drawing) illustrates leaf cross-sections and longitudinal reproductive bud and shoot apex sections where <i>CO1</i> and <i>CO2</i> transcripts (pink color) were located, based on visual observations, as well as captured images. Scale bar, 100 µm.</p

Number of PALs (potentially amplifiable loci) for each of ten hardwood tree species.

<p>Hundreds to thousands of PALs were identified for each species sequenced. For all species the most commonly identified repeat motif was 2 bases, followed by 3 base motifs. Reptitive motifs of 4 bases were found the least often.</p

Identified repetitive elements and genes in genomic reads.

<p>The percent of reconstructed fragments with sequence similarity to known plant repetitive elements and gene sequences vary across species. The majority of identified repetitive elements originate from the retrotransposon classes of Gypsy and Copia.</p

Analysis4 - alignments and trees when basal angiosperms and gymnosperms are considered

Analysis4 - alignments and trees when basal angiosperms and gymnosperms are considere

Analysis1 - alignments and trees of 9 sequenced genomes

Analysis1 - alignments and trees of 9 sequenced genome