Genomic Heterogeneity in a Natural Archaeal Population Suggests a Model of tRNA Gene Disruption

Understanding the mechanistic basis of the disruption of tRNA genes, as manifested in the intron-containing and split tRNAs found in Archaea, will provide considerable insight into the evolution of the tRNA molecule. However, the evolutionary processes underlying these disruptions have not yet been identified. Previously, a composite genome of the deep-branching archaeon Caldiarchaeum subterraneum was reconstructed from a community genomic library prepared from a C. subterraneum–dominated microbial mat. Here, exploration of tRNA genes from the library reveals that there are at least three types of heterogeneity at the tRNAThr(GGU) gene locus in the Caldiarchaeum population. All three involve intronic gain and splitting of the tRNA gene. Of two fosmid clones found that encode tRNAThr(GGU), one (tRNAThr-I) contains a single intron, whereas another (tRNAThr-II) contains two introns. Notably, in the clone possessing tRNAThr-II, a 5′ fragment of the tRNAThr-I (tRNAThr-F) gene was observed 1.8-kb upstream of tRNAThr-II. The composite genome contains both tRNAThr-II and tRNAThr-F, although the loci are >500 kb apart. Given that the 1.8-kb sequence flanked by tRNAThr-F and tRNAThr-II is predicted to encode a DNA recombinase and occurs in six regions of the composite genome, it may be a transposable element. Furthermore, its dinucleotide composition is most similar to that of the pNOB8-type plasmid, which is known to integrate into archaeal tRNA genes. Based on these results, we propose that the gain of the tRNA intron and the scattering of the tRNA fragment occurred within a short time frame via the integration and recombination of a mobile genetic element

Molecular Evolution of Ultraspiracle Protein (USP/RXR) in Insects

Ultraspiracle protein/retinoid X receptor (USP/RXR) is a nuclear receptor and transcription factor which is an essential component of a heterodimeric receptor complex with the ecdysone receptor (EcR). In insects this complex binds ecdysteroids and plays an important role in the regulation of growth, development, metamorphosis and reproduction. In some holometabolous insects, including Lepidoptera and Diptera, USP/RXR is thought to have experienced several important shifts in function. These include the acquisition of novel ligand-binding properties and an expanded dimerization interface with EcR. In light of these recent hypotheses, we implemented codon-based likelihood methods to investigate if the proposed shifts in function are reflected in changes in site-specific evolutionary rates across functional and structural motifs in insect USP/RXR sequences, and if there is any evidence for positive selection at functionally important sites. Our results reveal evidence of positive selection acting on sites within the loop connecting helices H1 and H3, the ligand-binding pocket, and the dimer interface in the holometabolous lineage leading to the Lepidoptera/Diptera/Trichoptera. Similar analyses conducted using EcR sequences did not indicate positive selection. However, analyses allowing for variation across sites demonstrated elevated non-synonymous/synonymous rate ratios (dN/dS), suggesting relaxed constraint, within the dimerization interface of both USP/RXR and EcR as well as within the coactivator binding groove and helix H12 of USP/RXR. Since the above methods are based on the assumption that dS is constant among sites, we also used more recent models which relax this assumption and obtained results consistent with traditional random-sites models. Overall our findings support the evolution of novel function in USP/RXR of more derived holometabolous insects, and are consistent with shifts in structure and function which may have increased USP/RXR reliance on EcR for cofactor recruitment. Moreover, these findings raise important questions regarding hypotheses which suggest the independent activation of USP/RXR by its own ligand

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field