How
Should We Think About Evolution in the Age of Genomics?
James A. Shapiro
Dept.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago,
Gordon Center for
Integrative Science W123B, 979 E. 57t Street, Chicago, IL
60637, USA jsha@uchicago.edu
ABSTRACT
Eibi Nevo’s
research highlights the
complexity of evolutionary responses to ecological
parameters. This important
work pioneered a growing awareness of the multiple levels of
biological
activity and organismal interactions that contribute to
evolutionary change. In
large measure, our current understanding of adaptive
innovation is based on the
newly acquired ability to track the details of evolutionary
processes through
genome analysis. Genomics has unambiguously demonstrated the
importance of cell
fusion, symbiosis, interspecific hybridization, genome
restructuring involving
mobile DNA elements, and the many forms of infectious
heredity all to be major
contributors to the appearance of organisms with novel
adaptive
characteristics. In addition, genomics has confirmed
interspecific
hybridization as a major stimulus to the rapid emergence of
new taxa among
sexually reproducing organisms. The work of Eibi and many
other scientists has
shown that ecology can trigger and influence all these
different modes of hereditary
change. We must recognize that genomic analyses have
provided 21st
Century evolutionary scientists with such a rich variety of
documented paths to
inherited novelty that it has become impossible to formulate
a comprehensive
theory of evolutionary change. Thus, an important part of
the future in
evolution science will be to adapt Eibi’s wisdom by devising
synthetic
Evolution Canyons as complex experimental microcosms, where
we can rigorously
study the principles governing ecological and biological
interactions in
adaptive innovation. Hopefully, those interactive principles
will make it
possible to integrate information from genomic analysis into
a coherent picture
of evolution as a biological response to ecological change.
KEY
WORDS:Cell
fusion; symbiosis; interspecific
hybridization; mobile DNA elements; infectious heredity;
horizontal DNA
transfer; virosphere; genome restructuring; ecological
triggers; synthetic
Evolution Canyons
Background:Tribute
to a unique
evolutionary biologist
This 90th Jubilee
Symposium and book, New Horizons in Evolution, pay tribute to Eviatar Nevo, a prolific
pioneer best known today
for his work at Evolution Canyon, where two distinct
ecologies sit side-by-side
[1]. Exploiting this special geography, Eibi and
his many colleagues
have been able to observe the effects of ecological
differences on real-time
processes of evolutionary change of numerous species from
microbes to mammals
at the population [2-4],
organismal [5, 6],
karyotypic [7] and molecular levels [8].
Eibi’s research highlights the
complexity of
evolutionary responses to ecological parameters using the
most up-to-date tools
available. In particular, he has documented the impacts of
ecological stresses [9] on specific processes that bring about
adaptive genome change: DNA
repair [10], mutation [8], chromosome rearrangements [11], amplification and movement of repetitive and
mobile DNA elements [12-14].
Eibi’s extremely broad documentation
of how real-world
ecological challenges integrate with genome change
operations presents us with
an opportunity to reconsider the basic principles of
evolutionary biology in
the age of genomics. Does our contemporary knowledge of how
genomes change in
the course of evolution confirm traditional principles
established in the 19th
and 20th Centuries? Or does that body of
information force us to
adopt a new, more contemporary set of principles? This paper
will argue in
favor of the latter position, based on contemporary
empirical data cited in a
pair of recent reviews [15, 16] and
also posted under various headings on my University of
Chicago web page (online
link 1 – the online links are listed before the references
after the main text
before the references).
Basic
principles of
evolutionary change necessary to encompass Eibi’s work
Traditional evolutionary theory in
the 19th
and early 20th Centuries focused on accidental
changes in isolated
genomes. Under the principle of “Descent with Modification,”
evolutionary
biologists had to explain where and how hereditary changes
took place. Each
species was assumed to have its own genome, comprising the
nuclear chromosomes.
The nuclear genome was isolated from the genomes of other
species by sexual
incompatibility (the Bateson-Dobzhansky-Muller model [17]) and from life history events by the Weismann
Barrier between the
soma and the germline [18, 19]. Within these isolated genomes, hereditary
changes were assumed to
occur by random accidents in the course of germline
reproduction. When DNA was
identified as the molecular carrier of genetic information,
the random accident
theory was updated to unavoidable copying errors in the
course of DNA
replication [20, 21].
The traditional perspective did not
allow any
possibilities for ecological inputs, like those Eibi’s
research has documented,
into the process of hereditary variation. Today, of course,
we can see that the
“isolationist” view of hereditary determination was
unjustifiably restrictive
in several fundamental ways. The second half of the 20th
Century
made us aware of many biochemical processes of hereditary
change, ranging from
the active movement of mobile DNA elements in the genomes of
maize and all
other organisms (online link 2) [22] to DNA transfer, repair, rearrangement and
mutator functions
(online link 3) [23, 24]. Like all physiological activities (and as
Eibi’s research demonstrates
so well), these molecular “Natural Genetic Engineering”
(NGE) processes of DNA
change are subject to cellular regulation (online link 4)
and operate in a
manner that is sensitive to ecological inputs (online link
5). As we shall see
below, genomic analysis has documented important
evolutionary adaptations that
result from NGE action.
In addition to the regulated
physiological processes
that alter DNA molecules, we now have overwhelming evidence
that genomes are
not as isolated from each other or from the environment as
traditional theories
assumed [16]. There are multiple forms of “infectious
heredity” understood in
its broadest sense (online link 6) [25]. All organisms reproduce in the presence of
abundant environmental
DNA as well as a staggering density of viruses, vesicles and
other forms of
enclosed DNA molecules. Multiple mechanisms exist for cells
of different
organisms to exchange DNA molecules, and there is abundant
genomic data that
adaptive horizontal DNA transfers have occurred across
virtually all taxonomic
boundaries. Moreover, as we shall discuss shortly, there is
no question that
cell fusions can combine unrelated genomes in a single
hereditary lineage to
form modified or new kinds of organisms, including the first
mitochondrion-bearing ancestor of all eukaryotes. The
reproductive boundaries
between species are not as absolute as once assumed, and we
shall see that
mating across species boundaries is a major stimulus to
evolutionary innovation
in sexually reproducing organisms.
The Weissman Barrier soma-germline
separation is also
not absolute, as some exponents of traditional theory have
claimed. Such a
barrier cannot exist in cells that proliferate by vegetative
multiplication,
such as all prokaryotes and lower unicellular eukaryotes,
where there is a
direct hereditary connection between “somatic” and
“germline” cells. Even in
unicellular eukaryotes that undergo sexual differentiation
and reproduction,
vegetative cells are the direct precursors of spores and
gametes. The same cell
lineage connection exists between soma and germline in
plants. Since flowers
containing plant sexual organs develop out of somatic
tissues, the genomic
consequences of life history events can be incorporated into
pollen and ovules
that merge to form the next generation. Only in animals,
where germline cells
separate from somatic tissues early in multicellular
development, is formation
of a Weismann Barrier a realistic possibility. Nonetheless,
we now know about
processes of macromolecular transport in animals which
facilitate the transfer
of somatically acquired genomic information to animal sperm
cells [26].
From the foregoing summary, we can
see that discoveries
based on genomic data provide us a 21st Century
picture of
ecologically sensitive evolutionary processes that coincides
with what Eibi’s
amazingly productive research has revealed.
Cell
fusions produced
foundational evolutionary innovations
The deepest
evolutionary divides among living organisms are the
separation of all cells
into three distinct lineages: Bacteria,
Archaea and Eukarya[27, 28]. It
is a salutary reminder of the power of genomic analysis and
of the capacity for
new data to transform our understanding of fundamental
evolution principles to
recognize that our knowledge of Archaea
as a distinct cell type only dates from analysis of
ribosomal RNA sequences in
1977, less than 50 years ago [29, 30]. The
same kind of early genomic evidence made it clear that the
mitochondrion of the
earliest known eukaryotic ancestor descended from an
endosymbiotic
Gram-negative Proteobacterium[31-34].
Parallel sequence analysis confirmed the evolutionary
origins of
light-harvesting plastid organelles in a wide range of
algae, plants and other
photosynthetic eukaryotes as descendants of endosymbiotic cyanobacteria (online link 8).
Fossil and genomic
data tell us that both Bacteria and Archaea are the
most ancient cell
lineages (dating from > 3.4 GYA) and that the primordial
symbiogenetic event
in evolution of Eukarya
occurred
approximately 1.6-1.8 GYA, as the Earth’s atmosphere was
accumulating a
significant concentration of molecular oxygen (O2),
following the
evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis in cyanobacteria[35-37]. The
O2 concentration is important because the best
genomic evidence
indicates that the host cell in the primordial symbiogenesis
was an anaerobic archaeal
cell encoding many proteins once considered to be exclusive
to eukaryotes [35, 38-41].
Since Proteobacteria
are aerobic and
contemporary mitochondria are the loci of oxidative
energy-yielding metabolism
in eukaryotic cells, it is evident that acquisition of an
aerobic endosymbiont
would provide a significant metabolic advantage to an
anaerobic host cell in an
environment with a growing atmospheric O2
concentration.
During the course
of transformation from an independent cell to a subcellular
organelle in the proto-eukaryotic
cell, the endosymbiont Proteobacterium
underwent a series of major changes in genome content
(online link 9). In all
eukaryotes, mitochondrial DNA coding content is only a
fraction of that in Proteobacteria.
The largest
mitochondrial genome encodes only 100 protein and RNA
molecules compared to
over 800 for the smallest Proteobacterium
cell. A typical animal mitochondrion like ours encodes only
37 molecules [42]. DNA containing the vast majority of bacterial
coding sequences
required for mitochondrial maintenance and metabolism
transferred to the
nuclear genome of the evolving eukaryotic host cells. The
resulting
nuclear-encoded mitochondrial proteins are synthesized like
other eukaryotic
proteins and imported into the mitochondrion organelle by
newly evolved protein
transport systems. Since overall genome size, physical DNA
structure, and
coding content differs greatly between the mitochondria in
the cells of various
eukaryotic lineages, it is clear that mitochondrial genome
evolution has
involved an ongoing and complex series of
taxonomically-specific DNA
restructuring processes [32].
Although sequence data
indicates that the symbiogenetic event originating
mitochondrial evolution
appears to have been unique, multiple cell fusion events
have transferred
plastids encoding photosynthetic capabilities to diverse
eukaryotic lineages
(online link 10). The oldest one involved a common
cyanobacterial progenitor of
the different plastids in four distinct groups of organisms:
green algae (Chlorophyta),
red algae (Rhodophyta),
blue-gray algae (Glaucophyta),
and green plants (Embryophyta).
Such a cyanobacterial fusion
is called a “primary symbiogenesis,” and there has been a
second, much more
recent primary symbiogenesis of a distinct species of
cyanobacteria creating a
single photosynthetic amoeba, Paulinella
chromatophora. Further “secondary” symbiogenetic
events have occurred when
a photosynthetic eukaryote, generally one of the algae, has
fused with a
non-photosynthetic eukaryote cell type to create a novel
photosynthetic lineage
[43]. If the product of a secondary photosynthetic
fusion merges with
another non-photosynthetic lineage, that creates a
“tertiary” symbiogenesis.
Many of the most important
photosynthetic organisms on
Earth, such as diatoms, have resulted from these secondary
and tertiary
symbiogeneses. Clearly, photosynthetic cell fusions have
occurred over a
prolonged period of evolutionary time and are quite likely
to be taking place
now. As with mitochondria, there has been significant DNA
transfer from
plastids to the nuclear genome, and plastid-specific protein
transport has
evolved to incorporate into the plastids nuclear-encoded
proteins needed for
photosynthesis. Also similar to mitochondria, there are
lineage-specific
differences in plastid DNA content, physical DNA structures,
and coding
capacities. In cases of secondary and tertiary
symbiogenesis, there are also
significant rearrangements and losses of nuclear DNA from
the eukaryotic
endosymbionts.
In addition to these various cases of
photosynthetic
symbiogenesis, there are numerous other cases of cell
fusions and endosymbiosis
that have profound adaptive significance [44-46].
Bacteria can invade other bacteria as well as virtually all
kinds of eukaryotic
cells [47, 48]. A smaller
number of endosymbiotic Archaea have been documented, but
more cases will
doubtless appear as genomic analysis comes to bear on more
types of organisms
from other parts of the biosphere. Eukaryotic microbes can
become endosymbionts
of other eukaryotes, just as they do in secondary and
tertiary photosynthetic
fusions [49]. The adaptive significance of these
endosymbiotic relationships
involve various adaptive characteristics, such as synthesis
of important
nutrients (vitamins, amino acids, etc.), utilization of
particular food sources
(e.g., digestion of plant polymers), or protection against
predators or
infectious agents [45, 50].
So-called “obligate” endosymbiosis occurs when the cell
fusion becomes
essential for reproduction of the host organism or the
endosymbiont (often due
to genome reduction, similar to what occurred in
mitochondria and plastids) [51, 52].
Microbiomes
and holobionts
Besides cell fusions,
microbes and multicellular organisms establish important
symbiotic
relationships simply by growing in close proximity or by the
microbes
colonizing the cells or interior cavities of major organ
systems, like the
intestine (online link 11). Each multicellular organism has
its own
“microbiome,” the generic term for all the associated
microorganisms [53]. The microbes interact biochemically with each
other and with the
multicellular host in ways that affect the overall
phenotype.
Different organs or regions of a
single host can have
distinct microbiome compositions with unique phenotypic
consequences. In
plants, for example, the microbiomes on leaves and roots are
dramatically
different and play radically different roles in transport of
nutrients and
responses to biotic and abiotic stresses [54]. Of particular importance for all plants and
animals is the role a
healthy microbiome at each site plays in blocking infection
by microbial pathogens.
The microbiome plays important roles
in many adaptive
phenotypes. We are becoming familiar with discussions of how
the “human
microbiome” (usually meaning the intestinal microbiome)
affects our health and
well-being, metabolism and digestion, pregnancy, immune
responses, and even
mood and states of mind. Microbiome species synthesize
critical nutrients for
the macroscopic holobiont host, ranging from amino acids in
aphids [55] to a
wide range of essential metabolites in primitive marine
animals [56] to signaling molecules that affect functioning
of our own
metabolic, neural and innate immune systems [57]. In Drosophila,
the
intestinal microbiome affects growth factor signaling and
morphogenesis [58], volatile pheromone production and social
attraction [59], and neuropeptide synthesis and locomotor
behavior [60].
Clearly, the adaptive properties of
the host plus its
microbiome result from expression of microbial as well as
host genomes.
Typically, the protein coding capacity of the total
microbiome genome is far
more diverse than that of the host genome [61]. In our
own case, the human gut microbiome is estimated to encode
from 3.3 to 9.9
million distinct proteins, or 150 – 450 times greater than
the basic
nucleus-encoded human proteome.
From an evolutionary point of view,
the recognition of
microbiome contributions to whole organism phenotypes poses
a definitional
challenge. What is the evolving entity? In order to deal
with this question,
the terms “holobiont” and “hologenome” were invented to
describe the evolving
entity and its genetic endowment [62-64]. A
holobiont is composed of a multicellular plant or animal
together with its
associated microbiome, and this terminology has been widely
adopted in the
relevant literature. Holobiont heredity differs radically
from Mendelian
principles and has been described as far more similar to
schemes proposed by
Lamarck [65] and Darwin (“gemmules”) [66]. Frequently, microbiome components are
transmitted horizontally to
the oocyte (pre- or post-fertilization) or developing embryo
by maternal
tissues [67, 68], but
horizontal transmission also occurs paternally [69, 70]. It
is safe to say that our knowledge of trans-generational
microbiome maintenance
is very partial and requires a great deal of further
research [71].
Because of their composite natures,
holobionts can
rapidly evolve complex adaptive phenotypes by acquisition or
loss of microbiome
constituents, outcomes not achievable simply by changes to
the host genome. In Drosophila,
mosquitoes and other
invertebrates, acquisition of bacterial endosymbionts from
the Wolbachia
group affects a variety of
important characteristics, such as resistance to viruses and
parasites, and
also frequently generates mating incompatibility between
colonized and Wolbachia-free
hosts [50, 72, 73].
Since mating incompatibility between two populations is
often the first step of
divergence into separate species, Wolbachia
entry into the microbiome has been characterized as
stimulating “speciation by
symbiosis” [74].
Interspecific
hybridization
Cell fusions are an
essential feature of sexual reproduction. Contrary to the
idealized assumption
of complete reproductive isolation between different
species, there is abundant
genomic evidence of mating between related but distinct
microbial, plant and
animal species, including real-time observations (online
link 12).
Interspecific matings are ecologically sensitive because
their frequency will
increase when mating population sizes decline and
conspecific mates become
harder to find.
The consequences of
interspecific mating are high levels of genome instability
(such as chromosome
rearrangements, activation of mobile DNA elements, whole
genome duplications –
online link 13) and the formation of novel species with
phenotypic traits that
are more than simple mixtures of characters from the two
parents. This kind of hybrid
speciation was long ago characterized as “Cataclysmic
Evolution” by the
distinguished evolutionary biologist G. Ledyard Stebbins [75]. Typically, the karyotype of the hybrid
species contains a diploid
number equal to the sum of the chromosomes in the two
parental species. The
increase in chromosome number results from the whole genome
duplications
necessary for the initial hybrid to undergo successful
meiosis.
Although hybrid
speciation was long known to occur in plants and serve as
the source of useful
agricultural crop species, its importance in animals was not
appreciated before
genomics provided evidence for many hybrid species. Of
particular interest are
Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Islands, an important
evolutionary model
cited by Darwin [76], and freshwater cichlid fishes that have
become models for rapid
speciation and phenotypic diversification [77-79]. In
the case of the Galapagos finches, it is worthwhile noting
that interspecific
hybridization has also been followed in real time by
Rosemary and Peter Grant
and colleagues, who have documented abrupt changes in beak
morphology in hybrid
birds rather than the gradual changes postulated by Darwin [80-82].
Protein
evolution.
Ever since the
articulation of the “one gene – one protein” hypothesis in
the middle of the 20th
Century [83], the formation of new protein sequences to
execute novel functions
has been seen as central to adaptive evolutionary change.
With the identification
of DNA as the genetic material and the elucidation of the
coding relationships
between genomic DNA and the sequence of amino acids in each
protein [84, 85], protein evolution was widely assumed to occur
largely by a gradual
succession of single amino acid substitutions due to random
mutations in the
underlying DNA code. However, DNA sequencing and genomic
comparisons led to a
number of unexpected insights which indicated that protein
evolution involves
far more active cellular DNA manipulation than initially
believed.
Proteins as
systems. The first pair of
insights concerned the organization of protein molecules and
of the DNA that
encodes them. Most proteins consist of structurally and
functionally
independent “domains” joined together, often connected by
short linker peptides
[86, 87]. Different
proteins are generally similar to each other in one or more
domains but not in
others. Because each domain has specific functional
characteristics, the
overall activity of a given protein is determined by the
integration of its
various domains into a functional system. This means that
proteins can evolve
functionally by amplifying, acquiring and rearranging their
domain contents to
generate novel combinations [88-94].
Mechanistically, amplifying and
rearranging domains
occurs by joining together distinct DNA coding regions, not
by mutational
changes altering particular amino acids. DNA joining
involves many distinct
biochemical processes and proteins that have to be
coordinated and synthesized
at the same time. Frequently, domain rearrangements involve
mobile DNA NGE
functions (online link 14).
While many domains are shared across
broad phylogenetic
distances, patterns of multi-domain architectures are
specific to each taxon [95, 96].
Domain organization indicates that the primary object of
evolutionary change is
often the domain rather than the whole protein [96-100].
There are protein domain databases [101, 102], and
it is common practice in contemporary comparative genomics
to describe a coding
region and its cognate protein product by its domain
content. One major
question in protein evolution involves the sources of new
domain architectures [103].
Domain loss and the appearance of novel kinds of domains are
genomic signatures
at the emergence of major new taxonomic groups [104].
Coding sequences
in pieces. When DNA
sequencing was applied to
mammalian regions encoding well-known proteins, a surprising
result emerged.
The sequences for a single polypeptide chain were not
continuous but consisted
of a series of expressed DNA elements (“exons”) encoding
segments of the chain
separated by intervening DNA elements (“introns”) [105, 106]. The intron-exon coding pattern is widespread
among eukaryotes. In
the process of protein synthesis, introns are “spliced” from
the primary
transcript to form the continuously coding mRNA that is
translated on the ribosomes
[107]. Although some introns are self-splicing
ribozymes [108], splicing generally takes place on a complex
“spliceosome”
organelle [109].
There are multiple ways that the
exon-intron-exon
protein coding structure contributes to protein diversity
and evolution. In
coding region transcripts with multiple exons and introns,
not all splicing
events necessarily produce only a single combination of
joined exons.
“Alternative splicing” that creates different combinations
of exons from a
single pre-mRNA transcript enhances an organism’s protein
repertoire [110].
Regulation of alternative splicing means that different
conditions can control
the expression of distinct proteins from a single coding
region [111-113]. In
many organisms, there is even “trans-splicing,” where exons
from two different
pre-mRNA transcripts can be joined together to produce
hybrid proteins encoded
by two different coding regions [114, 115].
Since the sequences of exon-intron boundaries are important
determinants of
where and when splicing events occur, one way that novel
protein architectures
evolve is by changes in splicing patterns rather than by
alteration of amino
acid coding sequences [116, 117].
By and large, there is a good (but
not absolute)
correspondence between exons and protein domains [118]. This means that protein evolution by domain
rearrangement often
involves mobilizing the corresponding exons, sometimes with
associated introns,
into new genomic sites. Since it is easier to mobilize a
domain coding sequence
that is isolated as one exon (or several exons in series),
split coding regions
facilitate functional protein evolution [119]. It has been documented that the requisite DNA
restructuring events
often involve the DNA rearrangement activities associated
with mobile DNA
elements (online link 14).
Another
major
question in protein evolution concerns the origins of new
domains. It turns out
that novel protein coding sequences have a variety of
sources in both “coding”
and “non-coding” DNA sequences (online link 15). The ability
of supposedly
“non-coding” genetic elements to contribute to protein
coding came as a
surprise to many evolutionary theorists, who called such
elements “selfish or
junk DNA” [120-122]. In
2001, it was first established that repetitive mobile DNA
elements contribute
directly to many protein coding sequences [123]. Since then, repetitive mobile DNA elements
have proven to be a
rich source for the origination of exons encoding novel
domains, often by acquiring
novel splicing signals so that previously intronic segments
form new exons
(online link 16) [124].
Combined with the above-cited
capacity of mobile DNA
elements to help mobilize exon rearrangements, it appears
from their role as
substrates for novel domain coding sequences that the mobile
DNA component of
various genomes serve as major facilitators of protein
evolution. We will see
below that mobile DNA elements play a parallel role in the
evolution of
regulatory and transcription networks for complex
adaptations in advanced plant
and animal species. These discoveries show that once poorly
understood
so-called “junk DNA” elements can play important roles in
evolution.
Recognizing the validity of that statement should serve as
an object lesson
about how dangerous it is to misinterpret unexpected
observations (in this
case, the abundance of repetitive DNA in genomes of advanced
organisms) and base
broad generalizations upon our ignorance rather than our
understanding.
Horizontal
DNA transfers
An important and
unexpected aspect of rapid evolutionary adaptation first
became evident when
antibiotics were widely used to combat bacterial infections
following World War
II. Rather than acquire resistance by mutation, the
mechanism well-documented
by laboratory experiments, the vast majority of resistant
bacteria isolated in
clinical settings were found to contain genetic elements
encoding high levels
of resistance that were able to transmit that resistance to
other,
phylogenetically distant strains of bacteria, thereby
helping to explain the
rapid spread of antibiotic resistance (online link 17).
These “resistance
transfer factors” (R-factors) encoded various resistance
mechanisms that
included chemical inactivation of specific antibiotics,
antibiotic removal from
the host bacterium, and modification of the cellular targets
of antibiotic
action. Many R-factors combined coding information for
multiple activities
conferring resistance to several antibiotics at once [125].
Interbacterial transmission became
known as a form of
“infective heredity” [126-128] and
provided a virtually instantaneous way of acquiring new
adaptive traits. No
extended process of developing a new character was
necessary. Since the new
genetic information came from another cell, infective
heredity constituted a
“horizontal transfer” of genetic information, quite distinct
from the normal
vertical transmission from ancestral cells. Over time, it
became evident that
many different kinds of adaptive traits in bacteria (and
later in archaea) are
subject to horizontal transfer, such as metabolic pathways,
surface attachment
structures, virulence factors, ability to establish
symbiotic relationships,
and synthesis of lethal compounds attacking unrelated
bacteria [129-134].
Horizontal transfer became so universal a feature of
bacterial genetics that
some scientists proposed the concept of a shared pan-genome
which individual
strains of bacteria sampled freely according to the demands
of the ecological
niches they inhabited [135].
With the advent of widespread DNA
sequence analysis, the
protein-coding complement of many eukaryotic genomes was
established.
Comparisons of these coding sequences helped define the
phylogenetic
relationships of various species by their protein
repertoires. While these
relationships were largely consistent with shared ancestries
and protein
diversification across the generations (including the
emergence of novel
proteins and domains), there were also instances of
protein-coding sequences appearing
in lineages that were absent from the genomes of ancestral
species but highly similar
to those of unrelated organisms, often from a completely
different domain of
life. These “misplaced” coding sequences must have been
acquired by horizontal
DNA transfer either directly or indirectly from their
original source. Multiple
cellular mechanisms exist for horizontal DNA transfer
(online link 18), but the
genomic data provide no indication of how any particular
transfer actually
occurred.
Horizontal DNA transfers have been
documented across
virtually all taxonomic boundaries (online link 19). They
involve many
important adaptive traits. For example, both Bdelloid
rotifers (a class of microscopic
animal) and herbivorous nematode worms have acquired coding
sequences from
bacteria and fungi on multiple occasions that allow them to
synthesize enzymes
to break down otherwise indigestible plant polymers [136-139].
Since different rotifers have acquired hundreds of distinct
bacterial and
fungal sequences, it is clear that horizontal DNA
acquisition by these tiny
animals has comprised ongoing molecular incorporations [138]. The ability to short-circuit the process of
protein adaptation and
immediately extend the organism’s range of food resources
illustrates the kind
of evolutionary advantage conferred by cellular capacities
for DNA uptake and
genome integration.
Horizontal transfers can involve DNA
segments encoding
whole proteins or only encoding one or more individual
domains. In either case,
the transfers involve the introduction of new domains into a
distant lineage
and set up conditions for the evolution of novel domain
architectures in
multiple proteins [140, 141]. In
this way, horizontal transfer can initiate the evolution of
new protein
families and the specialized adaptive traits they support.
Examples include the
proliferation of plant cell wall destabilizing proteins
following transfer of
expansin domains from plants to bacteria and fungi [142], interacting domains and regulatory networks
in oomycetes
(filamentous fungus-like water molds) [143], and the “effector” proteins with eukaryotic
domains that Legionella
bacteria inject into target
cells to commandeer host functions during infection [144-147].
Major adaptive changes have been
found to involve
horizontal DNA transfers. One such change is the use of
bacterial sequences to
foster the emergence from thermophilic ancestors of new
Archaeal lineages
capable of growth under mesophilic conditions [148, 149].
Another recently documented case is the ability of
autotrophic and osmotrophic
eukaryotic lineages to assimilate environmental nitrate as
their sole source of
metabolic nitrogen [150].
Although the precise mechanism of
horizontal DNA
transfer is indeterminate for any particular case, the kinds
of interactions
that occur throughout the biosphere provide us with multiple
potential paths
for this kind of genomic exchange [16]. One of the most important, the ubiquity of
genomic information
protected inside virus capsids, is our next topic.
The
virosphere as an
evolutionary R & D sector (online link 20)
Viruses are the
most abundant biological entities on planet Earth [151]. They are found at astonishing concentrations
in the soil, in
bodies of water (~1010 per liter), and in the
atmosphere (falling at
~109 per square meter per day) [152, 153]. In
addition to viruses, there are a variety of virus-like
particles (VLPs) that
contain nucleic acids but not viral genomes [154]. Among the VLPs are dedicated DNA transport
particles called “gene
transfer agents” (GTAs) [155]. While these viral and virus-like agents
inject DNA or RNA into
cells that have surface receptors, which limits their range
of target cells,
some have been documented to participate in cross-species
DNA transfers. VLP
donors capable of transferring genetic information to
mesophilic E. coli
and B. subtilis bacteria have been reported to
include microbial mats
of hyperthermophilic bacteria from hot springs and marine
bacteria from the
oceans [156, 157].
Viruses, and especially the
bacteriophages which infect
bacteria, are the most numerous reservoirs of protein coding
sequences on
planet Earth. These coding sequences can be divided into two
groups with quite
distinct evolutionary potentials:
(1)
The first group includes sequences encoding proteins similar
to
those found in cells that participate in established
metabolic routines,
ranging from the different steps of alternative
photosynthesis systems to
various forms of intracellular energy metabolism, phosphate
recycling,
apoptosis (programmed cell death), cell surface structures,
virulence and
infectivity [154, 158].
These reservoirs of established cell physiology functions
can be utilized to
repair damaged cells or to extend the metabolic capabilities
of an organism
adapting to novel ecological circumstances. [159-162]
(2) The second group consists of
uniquely viral protein
coding information that cells do not possess and which,
therefore, have the
potential to initiate the evolution of entirely new types of
cellular proteins [163]. Over 90% of all unique coding sequences in
the genomic databases occur
in viral genomes [164]. Since they are unique, they do not exist in
cells. When one of
these unique sequences is exapted by a cell (often for a
function related to
its source, like anti-virus defense), a novel protein
sequence and structure
appears in the genome. This new motif is then available to
combine with other
protein domains or mutate to a new functionality and thus
generate a capability
which did not previously exist, either in the virosphere or
cellular realm.
This creative capability is part of what makes the
virosphere an evolutionary R
and D domain of life. In this vein, retroviruses have been
cited as source of
new genes in vertebrates [165].
Virus particle capsids naturally
break down over time
and liberate their nucleic acid cargos into the environment.
The virosphere is
thus a major contributor to the free DNA molecules present
in all ecologies.
Many types of cells have been found to be capable of taking
up DNA from their
surroundings and incorporating it into their genomes (online
link 6): Archaea,
“competent” bacteria with dedicated DNA import complexes,
yeast, red algae and
invertebrate and vertebrate sperm. Under experimental
conditions, DNA
“transformation” has further been extended to cultured
animal cells, suggesting
that similar processes may occur under natural conditions.
The role of viruses
as sources of environmental DNA for uptake has recently been
demonstrated in
experiments with so-called “super-spreader” bacteriophages
that transfer
plasmid DNA from E.
coli bacteria to
unrelated phage-resistant Streptococcus
pneumonia bacteria competent for DNA import[166]. From
a public health point of view, bacteriophage particles have
also been
identified as environmental reservoirs for antibiotic
resistance elements [167].
In addition to spreading cellular DNA
in the
environment, viruses also serve directly as vectors for
intercellular DNA
transfer [168]. When a viral particle incorporates and
transfers a fragment of
host genomic DNA from an infected virus-producing cell to a
virus-sensitive
cell of the same taxonomic group, the process is called
“transduction” [169]. Typically, the transduced fragment is free of
viral DNA, does not
replicate, and can come from any region of the host cell
genome. For any
particular cellular locus this transfer process occurs at
low frequency and is
called “generalized transduction.” But there are other cases
where a fragment
of cellular DNA becomes linked to virus DNA in such a way
that it can replicate
together with the viral genome and incorporate into large
numbers of virus
particles. When those particles infect virus-sensitive
taxonomically related
cells, they carry multiple copies of a particular donor DNA
sequence at high
frequency to the recipients, and the transfer process is
designated
“specialized transduction.” Examples of such specialized
transduction include
bacteriophages carrying chromosomal loci [170, 171] and
animal tumor viruses carrying cellular oncogenes [172-176].
It is significant that Rous Sarcoma
Virus (RSV) and many
other animal tumor viruses are RNA-containing retroviruses
that must reverse-transcribe
their genomes into DNA prior to incorporation into the
infected cell genome.
This means that host loci transduced retrovirally are in RNA
and consequently
in spliced intron-free configuration. During the retroviral
replication cycle,
read-through transcription into adjacent chromosomal regions
is one mechanism
for incorporation of host cell sequences into the retrovirus
genome [177]. This mechanism also applies to
retrovirus-like elements that have
lost the ability to produce infectious particles but can
still proliferate
through the genome as endogenous retrovirus (ERV) elements.
One plant example
is the BS1
retrovirus-like element in
maize which retrotransduces a spliced coding sequence (pma) for a proton-transporting ATPase [178, 179]. This
retrotransposition process has been documented in a wide
range of eukaryotes
from yeast to primates, with significant evolutionary impact
on genome content [180-190].
Viral transduction of cellular DNA
also occurs in the
totally different recently recognized family of
nucleo-cytoplasmic large DNA
viruses (NCLDVs) (online link 21) [191]. The NCLDVs are characterized by their large
DNA genomes, which
range in size from about 100 kb to over 2.5 MB [192, 193]. They
include the Poxviridae
(variola smallpox
virus, vaccinia
virus, cowpox virus, etc.) and
can infect a wide range of eukaryotes, including amoebae,
green algae,
invertebrates and vertebrates. An outstanding characteristic
of NCLDV genomes
is expansion by the acquisition (horizontal transfer) of DNA
sequences from
eukaryotic host cells or from bacterial endosymbionts of the
host; one author has
dubbed this acquisition potential a “genomic accordion” [194, 195].
Thus, the larger NCLDV genomes acquire a mixture of
eukaryotic and bacterial
DNA sequences that they carry as they infect new host cells.
DNA acquired by NCLDVs is often rich
in sequences
encoding RNAs and proteins involved in translation of mRNA
into protein, which
may be adaptive, but they also include sequences encoding
functions of
questionable utility for viral reproduction, such as
bacterial
restriction-modification systems and mobile DNA elements.
The viruses
reproducing in amoeba and other protists have a higher
content of bacterial
DNA, which reflects the ability of many bacteria to
proliferate in these
eukaryotic hosts. The multiple transfers between eukaryotes,
viruses and
bacteria have earned the infected amoebae and similar cells
the appellation of
“evolutionary melting pots” [196-198]. This
name is even more appropriate when we consider that many of
the same bacteria
growing in amoebae are also able to infect the cells of
plants and animals,
where they typically act as pathogens.
Although the standard view of viruses
is that they are
basically destructive parasites lethal to their host cells,
many viruses
regularly integrate their genomes into the host cell genome
and reproduce as
part of the augmented biological combination. As we shall
see, such virus
integrations have profound evolutionary implications for
both microbes and
complex multicellular organisms. DNA bacteriophage genomes
integrate into the
bacterial genome to generate “prophages” at one or a few
defined sites using
site-specific recombinases [199, 200] or at
many sites throughout the host genome using transposase
functions [201, 202].
Bacterial strains carrying prophages are termed “lysogenic”
because various
treatments can induce the prophages to undergo viral
reproduction and produce
free phages that can go on to lyse sensitive bacteria [203].
When a prophage includes sequences
encoding one or more
proteins that affect host cell adaptation, the
prophage-bearing strain is said
to have undergone “lysogenic conversion” (online link 21).
Lysogenic conversion
was first noted in bacterial pathogens where the prophage
encoded a
disease-specific toxin (C. Diphteria,
C. botulinum, V. cholerae, S. dysenteriae),
but other bacterial pathogens proved to contain multiple
prophages encoding a
variety of virulence factors each contributing partially to
overall pathogenicity
[204, 205].
Lysogenic conversion also affects
bacterial functions
not necessarily related to pathogenesis, such as biofilm
formation and
sporulation [206, 207]. The
association of converting bacteriophages and their host
bacteria most likely
did not first arise in the context of human disease but
rather in other natural
environments, where toxin production may protect the
bacteria from grazing by
lower eukaryote predators, which are sensitive to the same
toxins as human
cells [154, 208, 209]. In
any case, it is clear that lysogenic conversion provides a
kind of “quantum leap”
in adaptive evolution that is similar to symbiont
acquisition by holobionts.
The holobiont analogy may also apply
to eukaryotic
viruses [210]. Single- and double-stranded DNA and RNA
eukaryotic virus genomes
have also been found to integrate into host cell chromosomes
[211-219]. In
many cases, the integration mechanisms are not understood,
but acquisition of
viral sequences is often protective against superinfection
by the same or
related viruses (online link 20). One case where the
integration details are
known in considerable detail comprises retroviruses,
including RSV and other
tumor viruses discussed above. In addition to their
oncogenic potential,
retroviral insertions can have profound implications for
mammalian adaptive
evolution by formatting complex genomic networks.
When a reverse-transcribed and
double-stranded cDNA copy
of a retroviral genome integrates into an infected cell
chromosome, the
resulting provirus is called an endogenous retrovirus (ERV)
and becomes a
template both for virus production and also for
retrotransposition of further
ERV copies into new genomic locations [220, 221]. Loss of sequences needed for infection but
not for
retrotransposition converts the mutant ERV into a
retrotransposon, which cannot
produce infectious virus but can still mobilize ERV
sequences in the genome. Because
of this DNA mobilization capacity, infection of a host
germline by a retrovirus
is typically followed by a burst of new ERV or derivative
retrotransposon
copies accumulating around the genome.
The distributed ERV copies provide a
network of related sequence
elements which can coordinate expression of unlinked genetic
loci for complex
adaptive functionalities. ERV-derived transcription networks
have been
well-documented in mammals for the following traits:
·Pluripotency
and stem cell
proliferation in humans [222-225];
·Interferon-inducible
innate
immunity in humans [226];
·Placental
development in mice
and humans [227-230].
ERVs provide key transcription signals
(promoters and enhancers) for
these critical mammalian adaptations. In addition, each
mammalian order exapts
one or two ERV envelope proteins (Env), which fuse viral and
target cell
membranes during retrovirus infection, to serve another
adaptive function as a
cell fusion protein (“Syncytin”) during development of the
placental multinuclear
syncytiotrophoblaststructure [231].
What is remarkable about these
different ERV holobiont
contributions to mammalian adaptation is that they tend to
involve recently
acquired, species-specific retroviruses, rather than ancient
retroviruses
shared by many mammals. For example, over 300
transcriptional signals used for
placental development in mice come from a superfamily of
mouse-specific ERVs,
most of which are not even found in rats [228]. Similarly,
each
mammalian order has its own distinct set of Syncytin
proteins [231, 232].This
is not the pattern we would expect to
find if these ERV-derived functions arose early in mammalian
evolution and were
retained as different orders of mammals radiated over time.
It is almost as
though networks for these particular traits evolved de
novo in each
species as its genome became populated with new ERV
elements. As more species
genomes are analyzed functionally, it will be important to
determine whether
they also show recently acquired ERVs providing
transcriptional formatting for
shared mammalian traits.
Extracellular
Vesicles –
stress responses and crossing the Weismann Barrier in
animals
The more we learn
about cells and their genomes, the more we discover about
intricate communication
systems that transmit useful information affecting genome
expression and
cellular function. Since their discovery in cultures of
maturing red blood
cells attracted broad scientific attention [233], membrane-enclosed extracellular vesicles
(EVs) have revealed a
whole new realm of intercellular communication vectors for
transport of DNA,
RNA and protein cargoes [234].
On-line databases catalogue the compositions of these
extracellular bodies:
Vesiclepedia (www.microvesicles.org/),
EVpedia (www.evpedia.info)
and ExoCarta (www.exocarta.org).
EVs have been found to transmit genomic DNA [235-239],
functional mRNAs, all manner of non-coding regulatory RNAs,
and an apparently
limitless repertoire of proteins.
EVs appear to be ubiquitous in the
biosphere. They are produced
by Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria [240], archaea [241-243], many
different eukaryotic microbes [244-247],
plants [248], and animals (online link 21). In bacteria,
where cause and effect
are most easily demonstrated, EV production occurs
non-randomly and is
regulated by stress [249], by environmental conditions [250], by a sensor kinase protein [251], by multi-component regulatory systems [252, 253], and
by quorum signaling between cells [254, 255].
Moreover, vesicles clearly operate functionally. Here is a
list of a small
fraction of the biological phenomena documented to involve
EVs:
·Bacterial
carcinogenesis [256-258];
·Bacterial
pathogenesis of
animals [259-261];
·Bacterial
pathogenesis of
plants [262, 263];
·Bacterial
signaling [264-267];
·Biofilm
formation [268-270];
·Cancer
proliferation and
metastasis [271-273];
·Defense
against bacteriophage
infection [274];
·Fungal
infections of humans [275];
·Inter-cellular
and inter-organ
metabolic signaling in normal growth and pregnancy [276];
·M.
xanthus predation [277];
·Plant
defenses against fungal
infection [278, 279];
·Signaling
radiation damage in
mouse cells [280];
·Transcription
regulation in
cancer cells [281];
·Bioluminescent Vibrio
fischerii symbionts
triggering
light organ biogenesis in their squid host [282, 283].
Although they form by different
mechanisms and have
distinct molecular compositions in the various organisms,
the basic physics of
membrane-enclosed EVs fusing with target cell membranes
imparts a potential for
interaction across any cellular or taxonomic barrier.Vesicles transfer their macromolecular
cargoes between cells of
the same species, between cells of different species, across
major taxonomic
divides, and through the circulatory systems of
multicellular organisms [284]. What the existence of EV transport means is
that there are no
insurmountable physical barriers to macromolecular
communication between cells.
From an evolutionary perspective,
perhaps the most
significant consequence of EV macromolecular transport is
sperm-mediated
communication between somatic and germline cells in animals,
i.e., crossing the
so-called Weismann
barrier [18]. As part of normal development, sperm acquire
a sequence of small
RNA cargoes as they mature in the epididymis from somatic
vesicles called “epididymosomes” [285].
Mature sperm transmit the last of these cargoes to the
fertilized oocyte and
thus provide epigenetic information that is essential for
successful embryonic
development [286].
In an unprogrammed manner, sperm
cells also acquire
somatic nucleic acids from circulating EVs from different
tissues and transmit
them to the developing embryo [26, 287, 288].
These somatic DNAs and RNAs can also be transmitted to the
fertilized oocyte
and inherited in the developing embryo and its later progeny
by a form of
episomal replication and non-Mendelian inheritance. RNA
inheritance depends on
sperm and embryonic reverse transcriptase activity [289]. Both sperm-carried somatic DNA and RNA
molecules are expressed in
progeny tissues and have been documented to affect the
properties of the
progeny animals according to environmental and other effects
on their fathers [290-293].
In other words, by virtue of EVs and
sperm cells,
somatically acquired epigenetic information is transmissible
through the
germline to animal progeny. The results cited above show
that the Weismann
Barrier is not inviolable and that there can be a type of
Lamarckian [65]/Darwinian [66] inheritance of acquired characteristics in
animals. Clearly, there
is no germline/soma separation for microorganisms or plants,
where flowers
carrying the germline cells develop from somatic tissue.
Thus, we now know of
cellular and subcellular (vesicular) mechanisms for
transmitting somatically
acquired traits in the course of evolutionary variation in
all organisms. It
remains to be determined empirically how important these
modes of non-Mendelian
inheritance are in shaping the outcomes of major
evolutionary transitions.
Evolutionary
changes in genome
composition
Central to all
contemporary
thinking about evolutionary processes is our conception of
the molecular and
cellular basis for the transmission of hereditary traits. As
we have just seen
in the discussion of sperm-mediated transfer of epigenetic
information to the next
generation and its progeny, there is no unitary mechanism.
It remains possible
that, as with EVs, we may yet discover new forms of
hereditary transmission.
Moreover, Darwin formulated his ideas about evolution in the
absence of any
clear information about the mechanism of hereditary
transmission [76].
Nonetheless, while recognizing the
incompleteness of our
knowledge, it has been true ever since the rediscovery of
Mendelism at the
start of the 20th Century [294], that virtually all evolutionary thinking has
focused on the
genome. Now that we can analyze genomes by their complete
DNA sequences, it is
instructive to review how our knowledge and thinking have
developed over the
last 120 years.
In the early decades of the 20th
Century, the
genome was thought to consist of a collection of factors
that determined
inherited characteristics and followed Mendel’s Laws. In
1905, Johannsen coined
the term “gene” to indicate any such inherited factor
independently of its
structure or function [295, 296]. Quickly, geneticists discovered that genes
did not always behave
independently in inheritance and could be grouped into
linkage groups, which
were quickly found to represent the chromosomes visible in
the eukaryotic cell
nucleus [297-299].
(Bacteria did not fully acquire the right to claim genetics
and genomes until
after WWII, in large part because they lacked visible
chromosomes.) Gradually,
in these early decades of the 20th Century,
Johannsen’s
intentionally neutral term took on a life of its own, and
the hereditary
apparatus came to be thought of as a “genome” (= “gene
body”) composed of
individual “gene” entities collected together in the
chromosomes. Naturally,
two related questions arose: (i) What does a gene do to
determine inherited
traits? (ii) What is a gene made of?
The middle of the 20th
Century provided
intellectually satisfying answers to both questions.
Analysis of biochemical
traits in the fungus Neurospora
indicated that different genes determined the function of
specific enzymatic
reactions [83, 300], leading to the “one gene-one enzyme”
hypothesis, which was quickly
generalized to the “one gene-one protein” or “one gene-one
polypeptide”
hypothesis. Thus, genes came to be considered the hereditary
units that encoded
the biochemically active proteins in all living cells. In
less than a dozen
years, the chemical nature of the hereditary material was
identified as DNA [301, 302], and the base-paired structure of DNA was
determined to be ideal
for carrying and replicating linear code determining the
order of amino acids
in protein chains [84, 303, 304]. The
problems of gene function and hereditary transmission were
considered
solved.The
double helix revealed the
“Secret of Life.”
Nonetheless, two lines of genetics
research indicated
that genomes were not as simple as assumed in 1953. One was
the branch called
cytogenetics, which centered on visualizing and studying
chromosomes under the
microscope. Cytogenetic analysis revealed that eukaryotic
chromosomes are not
uniform structures. They contain clearly visible physically
and functionally
distinct regions, such as centromeres and telomeres
essential for chromosome
duplication and transmission at cell division [305], plus other structures whose functions would
not become evident
until the era of molecular biology, such as the nucleolus
organizing region
(NOR) [306] that consisted of tandemly repeating DNA
templates for ribosomal
RNA as well as other still poorly characterized sequences.
(Highly repetitive
DNA regions are particularly difficult to sequence
accurately.)
A second line of research that
indicated greater genome
complexity beyond protein coding sequences came out of
studying how cells
regulate specific protein synthesis [307]. These studies led to the recognition of DNA
sequences that help
determine what conditions lead to transcription of specific
DNA regions into
mRNA that can then be translated into proteins on the
ribosomes. Initially,
these studies involved bacterial systems, where the
non-coding regulatory
sequences are relatively simple and mostly concern
transcription, but extension
to eukaryotic cells revealed many complexities in genome
expression, such as
widely spaced transcriptional control signals [308-310],
chromatin formatting [311-313], and
sequences that guide splicing of introns out of pre-mRNA
primary transcripts to
form mRNAs carrying continuous coding regions [107, 314]. In
other words, studies of genome maintenance and genome
expression revealed a
compositional and functional complexity unsuspected in the
mid-20th
Century. Detailed molecular analysis of genome function has
shown every genome
to be an elaborately formatted database that contains a
great deal of
information in addition to protein-coding sequences.
A third line of research which
indicated that genomes
are more than just collections of genes for different
proteins came from
analysis of the physical properties of genomic DNA from
humans and other
complex eukaryotes. By analyzing how rapidly denatured
single-stranded DNA
could recover base-pairing to a double-stranded state,
Britten and Kohne found
that genomic DNA from higher organisms contained a very
large fraction of
repetitive DNA sequences, completely different from the
largely unique
sequences predicted by gene theories [315]. The presence of this repetitive DNA fraction
took geneticists by
surprise. They could not understand what functions DNA
repeats could fulfil,
and distinguished scholars labelled them “junk DNA” [120] or “selfish DNA” [122]. A radical philosophy of strict neo-Darwinism
was even erected on
the basis of “the selfish gene” hypothesis [121].
Eventually, a more sophisticated
understanding of genome
function and evolution began to form in this century around
the notion that
genomes contain much more than genes. McClintock had
discovered in the late
1940s that maize chromosomes contained “controlling
elements” capable of moving
through the genome and altering developmental patterns [316]. Britten and Davidson pointed out that
repetitive DNA elements can
serve to form regulatory networks analogous to computer
circuits and documented
some of those circuits in invertebrate genomes [317-319]. The
need for repetitive elements to provide signals formatting
the genome for its
diverse functional roles became increasingly evident [320, 321].
Moreover, the role of repetitive mobile DNA elements (e.g., McClintock’s controlling elements) in
generating evolutionary
novelties gained broad recognition (online link 22).
One sign of the growing appreciation
for the so-called
“non-coding” portion of the genome was a graph showing the
correlation of
organismal complexity (measured by different cell types)
with genome content [322]. While protein-coding DNA content peaked at
about 35,000 proteins
and did not get larger with genome size, non-coding DNA
content continued to
increase at greater organismal complexity without
diminution. In other words,
the data seemed to indicate that non-coding genome sequences
became more
important as organisms became more complex. We do not fully
understand why this
correlation seems to hold, but part of the answer may lie in
our growing
appreciation of the complex regulatory roles played by
so-called “non-coding”
RNA transcripts [323, 324], both
smaller regulatory molecules and “long non-coding” lncRNAs
(online link 23) [325].
Evolutionary
Thinking in
the Years to Come
As Eibi has taught
us all, evolution is a complex ongoing process intimately
connected with
ecological dynamics. The genomics-based phenomena reviewed
here complement his
insights and lead us to three major conclusions:
Cell,
organism and genome evolution are active biological
processes that provide important adaptive benefits,
especially triggered at times of ecological change. In other words, RW DNA
databases are biologically superior to ROM databases [326].
Evolutionary
change typically results from biosphere interactions that
involve communication between two or more genomes in
cells, viruses or vesicles. As Evolution Canyons all over
the planet teach us, no genome is an island
[16].
Ecological
change stimulates evolutionary innovation by fostering
creative biosphere interactions and triggering natural
genetic engineering functions. In other words, as Eibi has
been documenting for decades, outside events trigger
active internal change [9, 327].
These three conclusions recognize the
inherent
complexity of evolutionary processes occurring at the
ecology/biology
interface. As we enter the third decade of the 21st
Century,
genomics has documented many important evolutionary
phenomena outside the
reductionist thinking that characterized the Modern
Synthesis and other
oversimplifications of the last Century. For example,
conventional theory
envisaged hereditary changes occurring within the isolated
genome of each
species [17], but we now know that virtually all genomes
interact with external
genomes in the course of evolutionary change [16].
It is time to acknowledge that our
current
genomics-based knowledge of evolutionary change is too
diverse to formulate a
single comprehensive theory encompassing roles for all the
ecological and
biological interactions documented to be involved in
stimulating and executing
evolutionary changes. Consequently, we need to focus on
experimental evolution
to uncover the evolutionary principles we do not yet have.
We need to abandon
artificial simplified culture conditions [328] and adapt the path forward that Eibi has
indicated. In other words,
we need to devise 21st Century versions of
synthetic Evolution
Canyons, controlled but complex microcosms where realistic
simulations of
ecological and biological interactions can trigger
meaningful adaptive
evolutionary changes. That is how we will learn new
principles involving the
dynamic connections of ecology to evolutionary innovation.
List
of abbreviations used:
·ERV
= endogenous retrovirus
·EV =
extracellular vesicle
·GTA
= gene transfer agent
·NCLDV
= nucleo-cytoplasmic
large DNA virus
·NGE
= natural genetic
engineering
·ROM
= read-only memory
·RSV
= Rous Sarcoma Virus
·RW =
read-write
·VLP
= virus-like particle
Declarations: The author is solely
responsible for the contents of this article, has no
competing interests,
received no funding for this article, consents to
publication in New
Horizons in Evolution, and makes relevant
references available on
his university web page http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/.
Specific
online links to the
author’s web site (each of these links leads to further, more
detailed sets of
references, most of which have a clickable link to the
article’s PubMed entry):
[1]E. Nevo,
""Evolution Canyon," a potential microscale monitor of
global
warming across life," (in eng), Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A, vol. 109, no. 8, pp. 2960-5, Feb
21 2012, doi:
10.1073/pnas.1120633109.
[2]S. Raz et al., "Scorpion biodiversity and interslope
divergence at
"evolution canyon", lower Nahal Oren microsite, Mt. Carmel,
Israel," (in Eng), PLoS
One, vol.
4, no. 4, p. e5214, 2009, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005214.
[3]E. Nevo, "Ecological
genomics of natural plant populations: the Israeli
perspective," (in Eng),
Methods Mol Biol, vol.
513, pp.
321-44, 2009, doi: 10.1007/978-1-59745-427-8_17.
[4]T. K. Ezov et
al., "Molecular-genetic
biodiversity in a natural population of the yeast
Saccharomyces cerevisiae from
"Evolution Canyon": microsatellite polymorphism, ploidy and
controversial sexual status," (in eng), Genetics, vol. 174, no. 3, pp. 1455-68, Nov
2006, doi:
10.1534/genetics.106.062745.
[5]S. Raz, J. H. Graham, A.
Cohen, B. L. de Bivort, I. Grishkan, and E. Nevo, "Growth
and asymmetry of
soil microfungal colonies from "Evolution Canyon," Lower
Nahal Oren,
Mount Carmel, Israel," (in eng), PLoS
One, vol. 7, no. 4, p. e34689, 2012, doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0034689.
[6]E. Nevo, Y. B. Fu, T.
Pavlicek, S. Khalifa, M. Tavasi, and A. Beiles, "Evolution
of wild cereals
during 28 years of global warming in Israel," (in eng), Proc Natl Acad Sci U S
A, vol. 109, no.
9, pp. 3412-5, Feb 28 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1121411109.
[7]E. Ivanitskaya, L.
Rashkovetsky, and E. Nevo, "Chromosomes in a hybrid zone of
Israeli mole
rats (Spalax, Rodentia)," (in eng), Genetika,
vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 1301-4, Oct 2010.
[8]B. C. Lamb, S. Mandaokar,
B. Bahsoun, I. Grishkan, and E. Nevo, "Differences in
spontaneous mutation
frequencies as a function of environmental stress in soil
fungi at
"Evolution Canyon," Israel," (in eng), Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, vol. 105, no. 15,
pp. 5792-6, Apr 15
2008, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0801995105.
[9]E. Nevo, "Evolution
under environmental stress at macro- and microscales," (in
eng), Genome Biol
Evol, vol. 3, pp. 1039-52,
2011, doi: 10.1093/gbe/evr052.
[10]A. Lupu, E. Nevo, I.
Zamorzaeva, and A. Korol, "Ecological-genetic feedback in
DNA repair in
wild barley, Hordeum spontaneum," (in eng), Genetica, vol. 127, no. 1-3, pp. 121-32, May
2006, doi: 10.1007/s10709-005-2611-0.
[11]O. Raskina, J. C. Barber, E.
Nevo, and A. Belyayev, "Repetitive DNA and chromosomal
rearrangements:
speciation-related events in plant genomes," (in Eng), Cytogenet Genome Res, vol.
120, no. 3-4,
pp. 351-7, 2008, doi: 10.1159/000121084.
[12]R. Kalendar, J. Tanskanen,
S. Immonen, E. Nevo, and A. H. Schulman, "Genome evolution
of wild barley
(Hordeum spontaneum) by BARE-1 retrotransposon dynamics in
response to sharp
microclimatic divergence," (in eng\), Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A, vol. 97, no. 12, pp. 6603-7,
2000, doi:
10.1073/pnas.110587497.
[13]A. Belyayev, R. Kalendar, L.
Brodsky, E. Nevo, A. H. Schulman, and O. Raskina,
"Transposable elements
in a marginal plant population: temporal fluctuations
provide new insights into
genome evolution of wild diploid wheat," Mob DNA, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 6, 2010.
[14]A. Beiles, S. Raz, Y.
Ben-Abu, and E. Nevo, "Putative adaptive inter-slope
divergence of
transposon frequency in fruit flies (Drosophila
melanogaster) at "Evolution
Canyon", Mount Carmel, Israel," (in eng), Biol Direct, vol. 10, p. 58, Oct 14 2015,
doi:
10.1186/s13062-015-0074-5.
[15]J. A. Shapiro, "Living
Organisms Author Their Read-Write Genomes in Evolution," (in
eng), Biology
(Basel), vol. 6, no. 4, Dec 6
2017, doi: 10.3390/biology6040042.
[16]J. A. Shapiro, "No
genome is an island: toward a 21st century agenda for
evolution," (in
eng), Ann N Y Acad
Sci, vol. 1447,
no. 1, pp. 21-52, Jul 2019, doi: 10.1111/nyas.14044.
[17]H. A. Orr, "Dobzhansky,
Bateson, and the genetics of speciation," (in eng), Genetics, vol. 144, no. 4, pp. 1331-5, Dec
1996.
[18]A. Weismann, The
Germ-Plasm: A Theory of Heredity.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1893.
[19]A. Weismann, Das
Keimplasma: eine Theorie der Vererbung
(The Germ Plasm: a theory of inheritance). Jena:
Fischer, 1892.
[20]S. Brenner, L. Barnett, F.
H. C. Crick, and A. Orgel, "The Theory of Mutagenesis," J. Mol. Biol., vol.
3, pp. 121-124,
1961.
[21]S. Brenner, "Turing
centenary: Life's code script," (in eng), Nature, vol. 482, no. 7386, p. 461, Feb 23
2012, doi:
10.1038/482461a.
[22]N. L. Craig, M. Chandler, M.
Gellert, A. L. Lambowitz, P. A. Rice, and S. B. Sandmeyer,
Eds. Mobile DNA III.
Washington DC: American
Society for Microbiology, 2015.
[23]J. A. Shapiro, Evolution:
A View from the 21st Century.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press Science, 2011, p. 272.
[24]J. E. Haber, Genome
Stability: DNA Repair and
Recombination, 1st ed. Garland Scientific, 2013.
[26]C. Spadafora, "The
"evolutionary field" hypothesis. Non-Mendelian
transgenerational
inheritance mediates diversification and evolution," (in
eng), Prog Biophys
Mol Biol, vol. 134, pp.
27-37, Dec 6 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2017.12.001.
[27]C. R. Woese, "On the
evolution of cells," Proc
Natl Acad
Sci U S A, vol. 99, no. 13, pp. 8742-7, Jun 25 2002.
[28]M. W. Gray, "Lynn
Margulis and the endosymbiont hypothesis: 50 years later,"
(in eng), Mol Biol
Cell, vol. 28, no. 10, pp.
1285-1287, May 15 2017.
[29]C. R. Woese and G. E. Fox,
"The concept of cellular evolution," J Mol Evol, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1-6, Sep 20
1977.
[30]C. R. Woese and G. E. Fox,
"Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the
primary
kingdoms," Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A,
vol. 74, no. 11, pp. 5088-90, Nov 1977.
[31]C. R. Woese,
"Endosymbionts and mitochondrial origins," J Mol Evol, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 93-6, Nov 25
1977.
[32]M. W. Gray,
"Mitochondrial evolution," (in eng), Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol, vol. 4, no.
9, p. a011403, Sep 01
2012, doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a011403.
[33]J. Martijn, J. Vosseberg, L.
Guy, P. Offre, and T. J. G. Ettema, "Deep mitochondrial
origin outside the
sampled alphaproteobacteria," (in eng), Nature, vol. 557, no. 7703, pp. 101-105, May
2018, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0059-5.
[34]M. P. Ferla, J. C. Thrash,
S. J. Giovannoni, and W. M. Patrick, "New rRNA gene-based
phylogenies of
the Alphaproteobacteria provide perspective on major groups,
mitochondrial
ancestry and phylogenetic instability," (in eng), PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 12, p. e83383, 2013.
[35]H. C. Betts, M. N. Puttick,
J. W. Clark, T. A. Williams, P. C. J. Donoghue, and D.
Pisani, "Integrated
genomic and fossil evidence illuminates life's early
evolution and eukaryote
origin," (in eng), Nat
Ecol Evol, vol.
2, no. 10, pp. 1556-1562, Oct 2018, doi:
10.1038/s41559-018-0644-x.
[36]E. J. Javaux, "The
early eukaryotic fossil record," Adv
Exp Med Biol, vol. 607, pp. 1-19, 2007.
[37]L. M. Ward, J. L.
Kirschvink, and W. W. Fischer, "Timescales of Oxygenation
Following the
Evolution of Oxygenic Photosynthesis," (in eng), Orig Life Evol Biosph, vol. 46, no. 1, pp.
51-65, Mar 2016, doi:
10.1007/s11084-015-9460-3.
[38]A. Spang et al., "Asgard archaea are the closest
prokaryotic relatives
of eukaryotes," (in eng), PLoS
Genet, vol. 14, no. 3, p. e1007080, Mar 2018.
[39]L. Eme, A. Spang, J.
Lombard, C. W. Stairs, and T. J. G. Ettema, "Archaea and the
origin of
eukaryotes," (in eng), Nat Rev
Microbiol, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 711-723, Nov 10 2017,
doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.133.
[40]A. Spang et al., "Proposal of the reverse flow model
for the origin of
the eukaryotic cell based on comparative analyses of Asgard
archaeal
metabolism," (in eng), Nat
Microbiol, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 1138-1148, Jul 2019,
doi: 10.1038/s41564-019-0406-9.
[41]K. Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka et al., "Asgard
archaea illuminate
the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity," (in eng), Nature, vol. 541,
no. 7637, pp. 353-358,
Jan 19 2017, doi: 10.1038/nature21031.
[42]D. C. Chan,
"Mitochondria: dynamic organelles in disease, aging, and
development," (in eng), Cell, vol.
125, no. 7, pp. 1241-52, Jun 30 2006, doi:
10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.010.
[43]P. J. Keeling, "The
number, speed, and impact of plastid endosymbioses in
eukaryotic
evolution," (in eng), Annu
Rev Plant
Biol, vol. 64, pp. 583-607, 2013, doi:
10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120144.
[44]P. J. Keeling, J. P.
McCutcheon, and W. F. Doolittle, "Symbiosis becoming
permanent: Survival
of the luckiest," (in eng), Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A, vol. 112, no. 33, pp. 10101-3, Aug 18
2015, doi:
10.1073/pnas.1513346112.
[45]J. P. McCutcheon, "From
microbiology to cell biology: when an intracellular
bacterium becomes part of
its host cell," (in eng), Curr Opin
Cell Biol, vol. 41, pp. 132-6, Aug 2016.
[46]N. A. Moran and G. M.
Bennett, "The tiniest tiny genomes," (in eng), Annu Rev Microbiol, vol. 68, pp. 195-215,
2014, doi:
10.1146/annurev-micro-091213-112901.
[47]J. P. McCutcheon and C. D.
von Dohlen, "An interdependent metabolic patchwork in the
nested symbiosis
of mealybugs," (in eng), Curr Biol, vol.
21, no. 16, pp. 1366-72, Aug 23 2011, doi:
10.1016/j.cub.2011.06.051.
[48]F. Husnik and J. P.
McCutcheon, "Repeated replacement of an intrabacterial
symbiont in the
tripartite nested mealybug symbiosis," (in eng), Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, vol. 113, no. 37,
pp. E5416-24, Sep 13
2016.
[49]N. Corradi,
"Microsporidia: Eukaryotic Intracellular Parasites Shaped by
Gene Loss and
Horizontal Gene Transfers," (in eng), Annu
Rev Microbiol, vol. 69, pp. 167-83, 2015, doi:
10.1146/annurev-micro-091014-104136.
[50]A. R. I. Lindsey, T.
Bhattacharya, I. L. G. Newton, and R. W. Hardy, "Conflict in
the
Intracellular Lives of Endosymbionts and Viruses: A
Mechanistic Look at
Wolbachia-Mediated Pathogen-blocking," (in eng), Viruses, vol. 10, no. 4, Mar 21 2018.
[51]J. P. McCutcheon and N. A.
Moran, "Extreme genome reduction in symbiotic bacteria," (in
eng), Nat Rev
Microbiol, vol. 10, no. 1, pp.
13-26, Nov 8 2011, doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2670.
[52]M. A. Campbell, P. Lukasik,
C. Simon, and J. P. McCutcheon, "Idiosyncratic Genome
Degradation in a
Bacterial Endosymbiont of Periodical Cicadas," (in eng), Curr Biol, vol.
27, no. 22, pp.
3568-3575 e3, Nov 20 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.10.008.
[53]B. Koskella, L. J. Hall, and
C. J. E. Metcalf, "The microbiome beyond the horizon of
ecological and
evolutionary theory," (in eng), Nat
Ecol Evol, vol. 1, no. 11, pp. 1606-1615, Nov 2017,
doi:
10.1038/s41559-017-0340-2.
[54]P. Vandenkoornhuyse, A.
Quaiser, M. Duhamel, A. Le Van, and A. Dufresne, "The
importance of the
microbiome of the plant holobiont," (in eng), New Phytol, vol. 206, no. 4, pp. 1196-206,
Jun 2015, doi:
10.1111/nph.13312.
[55]A. C. Wilson et
al., "Genomic insight into the
amino acid relations of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum,
with its symbiotic
bacterium Buchnera aphidicola," (in eng), Insect Mol Biol, vol. 19 Suppl 2, pp. 249-58,
Mar 2010, doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2583.2009.00942.x.
[56]N. Dubilier, C. Bergin, and
C. Lott, "Symbiotic diversity in marine animals: the art of
harnessing
chemosynthesis," Nat
Rev Microbiol, vol.
6, no. 10, pp. 725-40, Oct 2008.
[57]J. K. Nicholson
et al., "Host-gut microbiota
metabolic interactions," (in eng), Science,
vol. 336, no. 6086, pp. 1262-7, Jun 8 2012, doi:
10.1126/science.1223813.
[58]S. C. Shin et
al., "Drosophila microbiome
modulates host developmental and metabolic homeostasis via
insulin
signaling," (in eng), Science,
vol.
334, no. 6056, pp. 670-4, Nov 4 2011, doi:
10.1126/science.1212782.
[59]I. Venu, Z. Durisko, J. Xu,
and R. Dukas, "Social attraction mediated by fruit flies'
microbiome," (in eng), J Exp Biol, vol.
217, no. Pt 8, pp. 1346-52, Apr 15 2014, doi:
10.1242/jeb.099648.
[60]C. E. Schretter
et al., "A gut microbial factor
modulates locomotor behaviour in Drosophila," (in eng), Nature, vol. 563,
pp. 402–406, Oct 24
2018, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0634-9.
[61]K. R. Theis et
al., "Getting the Hologenome
Concept Right: an Eco-Evolutionary Framework for Hosts and
Their
Microbiomes," (in eng), mSystems, vol.
1, no. 2, Mar-Apr 2016, doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00028-16.
[62]L. Margulis,
"Symbiogenesis and symbionticism," in Symbiosis as a source of evolutionary innovation:
speciation and
morphogenesis, L. Margulis and R. Fester Eds.
Canbridge USA: MIT Press, 1991,
pp. 49-92.
[63]S. R. Bordenstein and K. R.
Theis, "Host Biology in Light of the Microbiome: Ten
Principles of
Holobionts and Hologenomes," (in eng), PLoS
Biol, vol. 13, no. 8, p. e1002226, Aug 2015, doi:
10.1371/journal.pbio.1002226.
[64]E. Rosenberg and I.
Zilber-Rosenberg, "Microbes Drive Evolution of Animals and
Plants: the
Hologenome Concept," (in eng), MBio,
vol. 7, no. 2, p. e01395, Mar 31 2016, doi:
10.1128/mBio.01395-15.
[65]J.-B. Lamarck, Philosophie
Zoologique, original edition of
1809 with introduction by Andre Pichot. Paris:
Flammarion, 1994.
[66]C. Darwin, The
Variation of Animals and Plants under
Domestication, 2 vols. . NewYork: Organe Judd, 1868.
[67]L. J. Funkhouser and S. R.
Bordenstein, "Mom knows best: the universality of maternal
microbial
transmission," (in eng), PLoS Biol, vol.
11, no. 8, p. e1001631, 2013.
[68]S. F. Gilbert, "A
holobiont birth narrative: the epigenetic transmission of
the human
microbiome," (in eng), Front Genet, vol.
5, p. 282, 2014, doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00282.
[69]M. Bright and S. Bulgheresi,
"A complex journey: transmission of microbial symbionts,"
(in eng), Nat Rev
Microbiol, vol. 8, no. 3, pp.
218-30, Mar 2010, doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2262.
[70]D. M. Drown, P. C. Zee, Y.
Brandvain, and M. J. Wade, "Evolution of transmission mode
in obligate
symbionts," (in eng), Evol
Ecol Res,
vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 43-59, 2013.
[71]B. M. Fitzpatrick,
"Symbiote transmission and maintenance of extra-genomic
associations," (in eng), Front
Microbiol, vol. 5, p. 46, 2014.
[72]J. H. Werren, L. Baldo, and
M. E. Clark, "Wolbachia: master manipulators of invertebrate
biology," Nat Rev
Microbiol, vol.
6, no. 10, pp. 741-51, Oct 2008.
[73]F. Landmann, "The
Wolbachia Endosymbionts," (in eng), Microbiol
Spectr, vol. 7, no. 2, Mar 2019, doi:
10.1128/microbiolspec.BAI-0018-2019.
[74]J. D. Shropshire and S. R.
Bordenstein, "Speciation by Symbiosis: the Microbiome and
Behavior,"
(in eng), MBio, vol.
7, no. 2, 2016,
doi: 10.1128/mBio.01785-15.
[75]J. Stebbins, G.L.,
"Cataclysmic Evolution," Scientific
American, vol. 184, no. 4, pp. 54 –59, April 1951.
[76]C. Darwin, On
the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the
Struggle for Life.
London: John Russel, 1859.
[77]W. Salzburger, "Understanding
explosive diversification through cichlid fish genomics,"
(in eng), Nat Rev
Genet, vol. 19, no. 11, pp.
705-717, Nov 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41576-018-0043-9.
[78]J. I. Meier, D. A. Marques,
C. E. Wagner, L. Excoffier, and O. Seehausen, "Genomics of
Parallel
Ecological Speciation in Lake Victoria Cichlids," (in eng),
Mol Biol Evol, vol.
35, no. 6, pp.
1489-1506, Jun 1 2018, doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy051.
[79]J. I. Meier, D. A. Marques,
S. Mwaiko, C. E. Wagner, L. Excoffier, and O. Seehausen,
"Ancient hybridization
fuels rapid cichlid fish adaptive radiations," (in eng), Nat Commun, vol.
8, p. 14363, Feb 10
2017.
[80]S. Lamichhaney
et al., "Evolution of Darwin's
finches and their beaks revealed by genome sequencing," (in
eng), Nature, vol.
518, no. 7539, pp. 371-5,
Feb 19 2015, doi: 10.1038/nature14181.
[81]S. Lamichhaney, F. Han, M.
T. Webster, L. Andersson, B. R. Grant, and P. R. Grant,
"Rapid hybrid
speciation in Darwin's finches," (in eng), Science, Nov 23 2017, doi:
10.1126/science.aao4593.
[82]B. R. Grant and P. R. Grant,
"Watching speciation in action," (in eng), Science, vol. 355, no. 6328, pp. 910-911, Mar
03 2017, doi:
10.1126/science.aam6411.
[83]G. W. Beadle, "The
genes of men and molds," Sci Am, vol.
179, no. 3, pp. 30-9, Sep 1948.
[84]F. Crick, "On protein
synthesis," Symp Soc
Exp Biol, vol.
12, pp. 138-163, 1958.
[85]F. H. Crick, "The
genetic code," (in eng), Sci Am, vol.
207, pp. 66-74, Oct 1962.
[87]C. P. Ponting and R. R.
Russell, "The natural history of protein domains," (in
eng\), Annu Rev
Biophys Biomol Struct, vol. 31,
pp. 45-71, 2002, doi:
10.1146/annurev.biophys.31.082901.134314 [doi]
[88]E. Bornberg-Bauer, F. Beaussart,
S. K. Kummerfeld, S. A. Teichmann, and J. Weiner, 3rd, "The
evolution of
domain arrangements in proteins and interaction networks," Cell Mol Life Sci, vol.
62, no. 4, pp.
435-45, Feb 2005.
[89]A. K. Bjorklund, D. Ekman,
S. Light, J. Frey-Skott, and A. Elofsson, "Domain
rearrangements in
protein evolution," J
Mol Biol, vol.
353, no. 4, pp. 911-23, Nov 4 2005.
[90]A. K. Bjorklund, D. Ekman,
and A. Elofsson, "Expansion of protein domain repeats," PLoS Comput Biol, vol.
2, no. 8, p.
e114, Aug 25 2006.
[91]J. Weiner, 3rd, F.
Beaussart, and E. Bornberg-Bauer, "Domain deletions and
substitutions in
the modular protein evolution," (in eng), FEBS J, vol. 273, no. 9, pp. 2037-47, May
2006, doi:
10.1111/j.1742-4658.2006.05220.x.
[92]M. Buljan, A. Frankish, and
A. Bateman, "Quantifying the mechanisms of domain gain in
animal
proteins," (in eng), Genome
Biol, vol.
11, no. 7, p. R74, 2010, doi: 10.1186/gb-2010-11-7-r74.
[93]J. G. Lees, N. L. Dawson, I.
Sillitoe, and C. A. Orengo, "Functional innovation from
changes in protein
domains and their combinations," (in eng), Curr Opin Struct Biol, vol. 38, pp. 44-52,
Jun 2016, doi:
10.1016/j.sbi.2016.05.016.
[94]E. S. Lander et
al., "Initial sequencing and
analysis of the human genome," Nature,
vol. 409, no. 6822, pp. 860-921, Feb 15 2001.
[95]M. Levitt, "Nature of
the protein universe," (in eng), Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A, vol. 106, no. 27, pp. 11079-84,
Jul 7 2009, doi:
10.1073/pnas.0905029106.
[96]S. Yang and P. E. Bourne,
"The evolutionary history of protein domains viewed by
species
phylogeny," (in eng\), PLoS One, vol.
4, no. 12, p. e8378, 2009, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008378
[doi].
[97]E. J. Deeds, H. Hennessey,
and E. I. Shakhnovich, "Prokaryotic phylogenies inferred
from protein
structural domains," (in eng), Genome
Res, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 393-402, Mar 2005, doi:
10.1101/gr.3033805.
[98]M. Liu, H. Walch, S. Wu, and
A. Grigoriev, "Significant expansion of exon-bordering
protein domains
during animal proteome evolution," Nucleic
Acids Res, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 95-105, 2005.
[99]S. Yang, R. F. Doolittle,
and P. E. Bourne, "Phylogeny determined by protein domain
content,"
(in eng), Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A, vol.
102, no. 2, pp. 373-8, Jan 11 2005, doi:
10.1073/pnas.0408810102.
[100]M. Buljan and A. Bateman, "The
evolution of protein domain families," Biochem
Soc Trans, vol. 37, no. Pt 4, pp. 751-5, Aug 2009.
[101]H. D. Carroll, J. L. Spouge,
and M. Gonzalez, "MultiDomainBenchmark: a multi-domain query
and subject
database suite," (in eng), BMC
Bioinformatics, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 77, Feb 14 2019.
[102]M. W. Gonzalez and W. R.
Pearson, "RefProtDom: a protein database with improved
domain boundaries
and homology relationships," (in eng), Bioinformatics,
vol. 26, no. 18, pp. 2361-2, Sep 15 2010, doi:
10.1093/bioinformatics/btq426.
[103]M. Toll-Riera and M. M. Alba,
"Emergence of novel domains in proteins," (in eng), BMC Evol Biol, vol.
13, p. 47, 2013,
doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-13-47.
[104]A. Nasir, K. M. Kim, and G.
Caetano-Anolles, "Global patterns of protein domain gain and
loss in
superkingdoms," (in eng), PLoS
Comput Biol, vol. 10, no. 1, p. e1003452, Jan 2014,
doi:
10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003452.
[106]W. Gilbert, "The exon
theory of genes," Cold
Spring Harb.
Symp. Quant. Biol., vol. 52, pp. 901-905, 1987.
[107]P. A. Sharp, "Split
genes and RNA splicing," Cell, vol.
77, pp. 805-815, 1994.
[108]T. R. Cech,
"Self-splicing of group I introns," (in eng), Annu Rev Biochem, vol. 59, pp. 543-68, 1990,
doi:
10.1146/annurev.bi.59.070190.002551.
[109]Y. Shi, "Mechanistic
insights into precursor messenger RNA splicing by the
spliceosome," (in eng),
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol,
vol. 18, no.
11, pp. 655-670, Nov 2017, doi: 10.1038/nrm.2017.86.
[110]X. Yang et al., "Widespread Expansion of Protein
Interaction
Capabilities by Alternative Splicing," (in eng), Cell, vol. 164, no. 4, pp. 805-17, Feb 11
2016, doi:
10.1016/j.cell.2016.01.029.
[111]W. Y. Tarn, "Cellular
signals modulate alternative splicing," (in eng), J Biomed Sci, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 517-22, Jul
2007, doi:
10.1007/s11373-007-9161-7.
[112]J. P. Venables, J. Tazi, and
F. Juge, "Regulated functional alternative splicing in
Drosophila,"
(in eng), Nucleic
Acids Res, vol. 40,
no. 1, pp. 1-10, Jan 2012, doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr648.
[113]A. M. Mastrangelo, D. Marone,
G. Laido, A. M. De Leonardis, and P. De Vita, "Alternative
splicing:
enhancing ability to cope with stress via transcriptome
plasticity," (in
eng), Plant Sci, vol.
185-186, pp.
40-9, Apr 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2011.09.006.
[114]T. Blumenthal,
"Trans-splicing and operons in C. elegans," (in eng), WormBook, pp.
1-11, 2012, doi: 10.1895/wormbook.1.5.2.
[115]Q. Lei, C. Li, Z. Zuo, C.
Huang, H. Cheng, and R. Zhou, "Evolutionary Insights into
RNA
trans-Splicing in Vertebrates," (in eng), Genome Biol Evol, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 562-77,
Mar 10 2016, doi:
10.1093/gbe/evw025.
[116]C. Zhang, H. Yang, and H.
Yang, "Evolutionary Character of Alternative Splicing in
Plants," (in
eng), Bioinform Biol
Insights, vol.
9, no. Suppl 1, pp. 47-52, 2015, doi: 10.4137/bbi.s33716.
[117]S. J. Bush, L. Chen, J. M.
Tovar-Corona, and A. O. Urrutia, "Alternative splicing and
the evolution
of phenotypic novelty," (in eng), Philos
Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, vol. 372, no. 1713, Feb
05 2017, doi:
10.1098/rstb.2015.0474.
[118]M. Liu and A. Grigoriev,
"Protein domains correlate strongly with exons in multiple
eukaryotic
genomes--evidence of exon shuffling?," Trends
Genet, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 399-403, Sep 2004.
[119]Y. Luo et al., "Splicing-related features of introns
serve to propel
evolution," (in eng), PLoS
One, vol.
8, no. 3, p. e58547, 2013, doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0058547.
[120]S. Ohno, "So much
"junk" DNA in our genome," (in eng), Brookhaven Symp Biol, vol. 23, pp. 366-70,
1972.
[121]R. Dawkins, The
Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1976.
[122]L. E. Orgel and F. H. Crick,
"Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite," Nature, vol. 284, no. 5757, pp. 604-7, Apr 17
1980.
[124]F. Abascal, M. L. Tress, and
A. Valencia, "Alternative splicing and co-option of
transposable elements:
the case of TMPO/LAP2alpha and ZNF451 in mammals," (in eng),
Bioinformatics, vol.
31, no. 14, pp.
2257-61, Jul 15 2015, doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv132.
[125]A. I. Bukhari, J.A. Shapiro,
and S. L. Adhya (Eds.), DNA insertion
elements, plasmids and episomes Cold Spring Harbor,
New York: Cold Spring
Harbor Press, 1977.
[126]J. Lederberg, L. L. Cavalli,
and E. M. Lederberg, "Sex Compatibility in Escherichia
Coli," (in
eng), Genetics, vol.
37, no. 6, pp.
720-30, Nov 1952.
[127]L. L. Cavalli, J. Lederberg,
and E. M. Lederberg, "An infective factor controlling sex
compatibility in
Bacterium coli," (in eng), J Gen
Microbiol, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 89-103, Feb 1953, doi:
10.1099/00221287-8-1-89.
[128]T. Watanabe, "Infective
heredity of multiple drug resistance in bacteria," (in eng),
Bacteriol Rev, vol.
27, pp. 87-115, Mar
1963.
[129]T. J. Treangen and E. P.
Rocha, "Horizontal transfer, not duplication, drives the
expansion of
protein families in prokaryotes," (in eng\), PLoS Genet, vol. 7, no. 1, p. e1001284, 2011,
doi:
10.1371/journal.pgen.1001284.
[130]A. Kanhere and M. Vingron,
"Horizontal Gene Transfers in prokaryotes show differential
preferences
for metabolic and translational genes," BMC Evol Biol, vol. 9, p. 9, 2009.
[131]Y. I. Wolf, K. S. Makarova,
N. Yutin, and E. V. Koonin, "Updated clusters of orthologous
genes for
Archaea: a complex ancestor of the Archaea and the byways of
horizontal gene
transfer," (in eng), Biol
Direct, vol.
7, p. 46, 2012, doi: 10.1186/1745-6150-7-46.
[133]N. C. Kyrpides and G. J.
Olsen, "Archaeal and bacterial hyperthermophiles: horizontal
gene exchange
or common ancestry?," Trends
Genet, vol.
15, no. 8, pp. 298-9, Aug 1999.
[134]E. V. Koonin,
"Horizontal gene transfer: essentiality and evolvability in
prokaryotes,
and roles in evolutionary transitions," (in eng), F1000Res, vol. 5, 2016, doi:
10.12688/f1000research.8737.1.
[135]S. Sonea and M. Panisset, A New Bacteriology.
Boston: Jones and
Batlett, 1983.
[136]E. G. Danchin
et al., "Multiple lateral gene
transfers and duplications have promoted plant parasitism
ability in
nematodes," (in eng\), Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A, vol. 107, no. 41, pp. 17651-6, Oct 12
2010, doi:
10.1073/pnas.1008486107.
[137]A. Haegeman, J. T. Jones, and
E. G. Danchin, "Horizontal gene transfer in nematodes: a
catalyst for
plant parasitism?," (in eng), Mol
Plant Microbe Interact, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 879-87,
Aug 2011, doi:
10.1094/mpmi-03-11-0055.
[138]I. Eyres et al., "Horizontal gene transfer in bdelloid
rotifers is
ancient, ongoing and more frequent in species from
desiccating habitats,"
(in eng), BMC Biol, vol.
13, no. 1,
p. 90, 2015, doi: 10.1186/s12915-015-0202-9.
[139]L. Szydlowski, C. Boschetti,
A. Crisp, E. G. Barbosa, and A. Tunnacliffe, "Multiple
horizontally
acquired genes from fungal and prokaryotic donors encode
cellulolytic enzymes
in the bdelloid rotifer Adineta ricciae," (in eng), Gene, vol. 566, no. 2, pp. 125-37, Jul 25
2015, doi:
10.1016/j.gene.2015.04.007.
[140]C. X. Chan, A. E. Darling, R.
G. Beiko, and M. A. Ragan, "Are protein domains modules of
lateral genetic
transfer?," PLoS One,
vol. 4,
no. 2, p. e4524, 2009.
[141]C. X. Chan, R. G. Beiko, A.
E. Darling, and M. A. Ragan, "Lateral transfer of genes and
gene fragments
in prokaryotes," (in eng\), Genome
Biol Evol, vol. 1, pp. 429-38, 2009, doi:
10.1093/gbe/evp044.
[142]N. Nikolaidis, N. Doran, and
D. J. Cosgrove, "Plant expansins in bacteria and fungi:
evolution by
horizontal gene transfer and independent domain fusion," (in
eng), Mol Biol Evol,
vol. 31, no. 2, pp.
376-86, Feb 2014, doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst206.
[143]P. F. Morris, L. R.
Schlosser, K. D. Onasch, T. Wittenschlaeger, R. Austin, and
N. Provart,
"Multiple horizontal gene transfer events and domain fusions
have created
novel regulatory and metabolic networks in the oomycete
genome," (in eng),
PLoS One, vol. 4,
no. 7, p. e6133,
2009, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006133.
[144]K. S. de Felipe
et al., "Legionella
eukaryotic-like type IV substrates interfere with organelle
trafficking,"
(in eng), PLoS
Pathog, vol. 4, no. 8,
p. e1000117, 2008, doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000117.
[145]K. S. de Felipe
et al., "Evidence for acquisition
of Legionella type IV secretion substrates via interdomain
horizontal gene
transfer," J
Bacteriol, vol.
187, no. 22, pp. 7716-26, Nov 2005.
[146]I. S. Franco, H. A. Shuman,
and X. Charpentier, "The perplexing functions and surprising
origins of
Legionella pneumophila type IV secretion effectors," (in
eng), Cell Microbiol,
vol. 11, no. 10, pp.
1435-43, Oct 2009, doi: 10.1111/j.1462-5822.2009.01351.x.
[147]C. T. Price, S. Al-Khodor, T.
Al-Quadan, and Y. Abu Kwaik, "Indispensable role for the
eukaryotic-like
ankyrin domains of the ankyrin B effector of Legionella
pneumophila within
macrophages and amoebae," (in eng), Infect
Immun, vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 2079-88, May 2010, doi:
10.1128/iai.01450-09.
[148]P. Deschamps, Y. Zivanovic,
D. Moreira, F. Rodriguez-Valera, and P. Lopez-Garcia,
"Pangenome evidence
for extensive interdomain horizontal transfer affecting
lineage core and shell
genes in uncultured planktonic thaumarchaeota and
euryarchaeota," (in
eng), Genome Biol
Evol, vol. 6, no.
7, pp. 1549-63, Jul 2014, doi: 10.1093/gbe/evu127.
[149]P. Lopez-Garcia, Y.
Zivanovic, P. Deschamps, and D. Moreira, "Bacterial gene
import and
mesophilic adaptation in archaea," (in eng), Nat Rev Microbiol, vol. 13, no. 7, pp.
447-56, Jul 2015, doi:
10.1038/nrmicro3485.
[150]E. Ocana-Pallares, S. R.
Najle, C. Scazzocchio, and I. Ruiz-Trillo, "Reticulate
evolution in
eukaryotes: Origin and evolution of the nitrate assimilation
pathway," (in
eng), PLoS Genet, vol.
15, no. 2, p.
e1007986, Feb 21 2019, doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007986.
[151]T. Olszak, A. Latka, B.
Roszniowski, M. A. Valvano, and Z. Drulis-Kawa, "Phage Life
Cycles Behind
Bacterial Biodiversity," (in eng), Curr
Med Chem, vol. 24, no. 36, pp. 3987-4001, Nov 24
2017, doi:
10.2174/0929867324666170413100136.
[152]I. Reche, G. D'Orta, N.
Mladenov, D. M. Winget, and C. A. Suttle, "Deposition rates
of viruses and
bacteria above the atmospheric boundary layer," (in eng), ISME J, vol. 12,
no. 4, pp. 1154-1162,
Apr 2018.
[153]M. Breitbart, C. Bonnain, K.
Malki, and N. A. Sawaya, "Phage puppet masters of the marine
microbial
realm," (in eng), Nat
Microbiol, vol.
3, no. 7, pp. 754-766, Jul 2018, doi:
10.1038/s41564-018-0166-y.
[154]F. Rohwer and R. V. Thurber,
"Viruses manipulate the marine environment," (in eng), Nature, vol. 459,
no. 7244, pp. 207-12,
May 14 2009, doi: 10.1038/nature08060.
[155]A. S. Lang, A. B. Westbye,
and J. T. Beatty, "The Distribution, Evolution, and Roles of
Gene Transfer
Agents in Prokaryotic Genetic Exchange," (in eng), Annu Rev Virol, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 87-104,
Sep 29 2017, doi:
10.1146/annurev-virology-101416-041624.
[156]H. X. Chiura,
"Generalized gene transfer by virus-like particles from
marine bacteria,"
Aquat. Microb. Ecol.,
vol. 13, pp.
75–83, 1997. [Online]. Available: https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/ame/v13/n1/p75-83/.
[157]H. X. Chiura, "Broad
host range xenotrophic gene transfer by virus-like particles
from a hot
spring," Microbes
Environ., vol.
17, pp. 53–58, 2002, doi: https://doi.org/10.1264/jsme2.2002.53s.
[158]I. Sharon et al., "Comparative metagenomics of
microbial traits within
oceanic viral communities," (in eng), Isme
J, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 1178-90, Jul 2011, doi:
10.1038/ismej.2011.2.
[159]C. A. Suttle,
"Environmental microbiology: Viral diversity on the global
stage,"
(in eng), Nat
Microbiol, vol. 1, no.
11, p. 16205, Oct 26 2016, doi: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.205.
[160]D. Paez-Espino
et al., "Uncovering Earth's
virome," (in eng), Nature,
vol.
536, no. 7617, pp. 425-30, Aug 25 2016, doi:
10.1038/nature19094.
[161]S. Roux et al., "Ecogenomics and potential
biogeochemical impacts of
globally abundant ocean viruses," (in eng), Nature, vol. 537, no. 7622, pp. 689-693, Sep
29 2016, doi:
10.1038/nature19366.
[162]B. C. M. Ramisetty and P. A.
Sudhakari, "Bacterial 'Grounded' Prophages: Hotspots for
Genetic
Renovation and Innovation," (in eng), Front
Genet, vol. 10, p. 65, 2019.
[163]E. V. Koonin and M. Krupovic,
"The depths of virus exaptation," (in eng), Curr Opin Virol, vol. 31, pp. 1-8, Jul 30
2018, doi:
10.1016/j.coviro.2018.07.011.
[164]E. V. Koonin and V. V. Dolja,
"A virocentric perspective on the evolution of life," (in
eng), Curr Opin
Virol, vol. 3, no. 5, pp.
546-57, Oct 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.coviro.2013.06.008.
[165]M. Naville et
al., "Not so bad after all:
retroviruses and long terminal repeat retrotransposons as a
source of new genes
in vertebrates," (in eng), Clin
Microbiol Infect, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 312-23, Apr
2016, doi:
10.1016/j.cmi.2016.02.001.
[166]E. C. Keen et
al., "Novel
"Superspreader" Bacteriophages Promote Horizontal Gene
Transfer by
Transformation," (in eng), MBio, vol.
8, no. 1, Jan 17 2017, doi: 10.1128/mBio.02115-16.
[167]O. Larranaga et
al., "Phage particles harboring
antibiotic resistance genes in fresh-cut vegetables and
agricultural
soil," (in eng), Environ
Int, vol.
115, pp. 133-141, Jun 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.envint.2018.03.019.
[168]N. D. Zinder and J. Lederberg,
"Genetic exchange in Salmonella," (in eng), J Bacteriol, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 679-99, Nov
1952.
[169]N. D. Zinder,
"Transduction in bacteria," (in eng), Sci Am, vol. 199, no. 5, pp. 38-43, Nov 1958.
[170]M. L. Morse, E. M. Lederberg,
and J. Lederberg, "Transduction in Escherichia Coli K-12,"
(in eng), Genetics, vol.
41, no. 1, pp. 142-56,
Jan 1956.
[172]H. E. Varmus, P. K. Vogt, and
J. M. Bishop, "Integration of deoxyribonucleic acid specific
for Rous sarcoma
virus after infection of permissive and nonpermissive
hosts," (in eng), Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A, vol. 70, no.
11, pp. 3067-71, Nov 1973.
[173]S. Saule, M. Roussel, C.
Lagrou, and D. Stehelin, "Characterization of the oncogene
(erb) of avian
erythroblastosis virus and its cellular progenitor," (in
eng), J Virol, vol.
38, no. 2, pp. 409-19, May
1981.
[174]T. J. Gonda, D. K. Sheiness,
and J. M. Bishop, "Transcripts from the cellular homologs of
retroviral
oncogenes: distribution among chicken tissues," (in eng), Mol Cell Biol, vol.
2, no. 6, pp.
617-24, Jun 1982.
[175]K. H. Klempnauer and J. M.
Bishop, "Transduction of c-myb into avian myeloblastosis
virus: locating
points of recombination within the cellular gene," (in eng),
J Virol, vol. 48,
no. 3, pp. 565-72, Dec
1983.
[176]G. Symonds, E. Stubblefield,
M. Guyaux, and J. M. Bishop, "Cellular oncogenes (c-erb-A
and c-erb-B)
located on different chicken chromosomes can be transduced
into the same
retroviral genome," (in eng), Mol
Cell Biol, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 1627-30, Aug 1984.
[177]A. Swain and J. M. Coffin,
"Mechanism of transduction by retroviruses," Science, vol. 255, no. 5046, pp. 841-5, Feb
14 1992, doi: PMID:
1371365.
[178]M. G. Palmgren,
"Capturing of host DNA by a plant retroelement: Bs1 encodes
plasma
membrane H(+)-ATPase domains," (in eng), Plant Mol Biol, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 137-40,
May 1994.
[180]B. Song et al., "Comparative Genomics Reveals Two
Major Bouts of Gene
Retroposition Coinciding with Crucial Periods of
Symbiodinium Evolution,"
(in eng), Genome Biol
Evol, vol. 9,
no. 8, pp. 2037-2047, Aug 1 2017.
[181]S. Tan et al., "LTR-mediated retroposition as a
mechanism of
RNA-based duplication in metazoans," (in eng), Genome Res, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 1663-1675,
Dec 2016, doi:
10.1101/gr.204925.116.
[182]Y. Hahn, "Evidence for
the dissemination of cryptic non-coding RNAs transcribed
from intronic and intergenic
segments by retroposition," (in Eng), Bioinformatics,
vol. 29, no. 13, pp. 1593-9, Jul 1 2013, doi:
10.1093/bioinformatics/btt258.
[183]A. Bohne, A. Darras, H.
D'Cotta, J. F. Baroiller, D. Galiana-Arnoux, and J. N.
Volff, "The
vertebrate makorin ubiquitin ligase gene family has been
shaped by large-scale
duplication and retroposition from an ancestral
gonad-specific, maternal-effect
gene," (in eng), BMC
Genomics, vol.
11, p. 721, 2010, doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-11-721.
[184]M. Osterholz, L. Walter, and
C. Roos, "Retropositional events consolidate the branching
order among New
World monkey genera," (in eng), Mol
Phylogenet Evol, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 507-13, Mar
2009, doi:
10.1016/j.ympev.2008.12.014.
[185]J. N. Volff and J. Brosius,
"Modern genomes with retro-look: retrotransposed elements,
retroposition
and the origin of new genes," Genome
Dyn, vol. 3, pp. 175-90, 2007.
[186]W. Wang et al., "High rate of chimeric gene
origination by
retroposition in plant genomes," (in eng), Plant Cell, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1791-802, Aug
2006.
[187]A. Pavlicek, A. J. Gentles,
J. Paces, V. Paces, and J. Jurka, "Retroposition of
processed pseudogenes:
the impact of RNA stability and translational control," (in
eng), Trends Genet, vol.
22, no. 2, pp. 69-73,
Feb 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2005.11.005.
[188]A. C. Marques, I. Dupanloup,
N. Vinckenbosch, A. Reymond, and H. Kaessmann, "Emergence of
young human
genes after a burst of retroposition in primates," PLoS Biol, vol. 3, no. 11, p. e357, Nov 2005.
[189]J. Schacherer, Y. Tourrette,
J. L. Souciet, S. Potier, and J. De Montigny, "Recovery of a
function
involving gene duplication by retroposition in Saccharomyces
cerevisiae,"
(in eng), Genome Res,
vol. 14, no. 7,
pp. 1291-7, Jul 2004, doi: 10.1101/gr.2363004.
[190]J. Brosius, "The
contribution of RNAs and retroposition to evolutionary
novelties," Genetica,
vol. 118, pp. 99–116, 2003.
[191]N. Yutin, Y. I. Wolf, D.
Raoult, and E. V. Koonin, "Eukaryotic large
nucleo-cytoplasmic DNA
viruses: clusters of orthologous genes and reconstruction of
viral genome
evolution," (in eng), Virol
J, vol.
6, p. 223, Dec 17 2009.
[192]N. Philippe et
al., "Pandoraviruses: amoeba
viruses with genomes up to 2.5 Mb reaching that of parasitic
eukaryotes,"
(in eng), Science, vol.
341, no. 6143,
pp. 281-6, Jul 19 2013, doi: 10.1126/science.1239181.
[193]M. Legendre et
al., "Diversity and evolution
of the emerging Pandoraviridae family," (in eng), Nat Commun, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 2285, Jun 11
2018.
[194]J. Filee, "Route of
NCLDV evolution: the genomic accordion," (in Eng), Curr Opin Virol, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 595-9,
Jul 26 2013, doi:
10.1016/j.coviro.2013.07.003.
[195]J. Filee, "Genomic
comparison of closely related Giant Viruses supports an
accordion-like model of
evolution," (in eng), Front
Microbiol,
vol. 6, p. 593, 2015, doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00593.
[196]C. Moliner, P. E. Fournier,
and D. Raoult, "Genome analysis of microorganisms living in
amoebae
reveals a melting pot of evolution," (in Eng), FEMS Microbiol Rev, vol. 34, no. 3, pp.
281-94, Feb 1 2010, doi:
10.1111/j.1574-6976.2010.00209.x.
[197]M. Boyer et al., "Giant Marseillevirus highlights the
role of amoebae
as a melting pot in emergence of chimeric microorganisms," Proc Natl Acad Sci U S
A, vol. 106, no.
51, pp. 21848-53, Dec 22 2009.
[198]Z. Wang and M. Wu,
"Comparative Genomic Analysis of Acanthamoeba Endosymbionts
Highlights the
Role of Amoebae as a "Melting Pot" Shaping the Rickettsiales
Evolution," (in eng), Genome
Biol
Evol, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 3214-3224, Nov 1 2017.
[199]A. M. Segall and N. L. Craig,
"New wrinkles and folds in site-specific recombination," (in
eng), Mol Cell, vol.
19, no. 4, pp. 433-5, Aug
19 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2005.08.003.
[200]N. D. Grindley, K. L.
Whiteson, and P. A. Rice, "Mechanisms of site-specific
recombination,"
Annu Rev Biochem, vol.
75, pp.
567-605, 2006.
[201]B. Hallet and D. J. Sherratt,
"Transposition and site-specific recombination: adapting DNA
cut-and-paste
mechanisms to a variety of genetic rearrangements," (in
eng\), FEMS Microbiol
Rev, vol. 21, no. 2, pp.
157-78, 2010, doi: S0168-6445(97)00055-7 [pii].
[202]A. Toussaint and P. A. Rice,
"Transposable phages, DNA reorganization and transfer," (in
eng), Curr Opin
Microbiol, vol. 38, pp. 88-94,
May 25 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2017.04.009.
[203]A. Lwoff,
"Lysogeny," (in eng), Bacteriol
Rev,
vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 269-337, Dec 1953.
[204]H. Brussow, C. Canchaya, and
W. D. Hardt, "Phages and the evolution of bacterial
pathogens: from
genomic rearrangements to lysogenic conversion," Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, vol. 68, no. 3, pp.
560-602, Sep 2004.
[205]L. C. Fortier and O.
Sekulovic, "Importance of prophages to evolution and
virulence of
bacterial pathogens," (in eng), Virulence,
vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 354-65, Jul 1 2013.
[206]T. H. Silver-Mysliwiec and M.
G. Bramucci, "Bacteriophage-enhanced sporulation: comparison
of
spore-converting bacteriophages PMB12 and SP10," (in eng), J Bacteriol, vol.
172, no. 4, pp.
1948-53, Apr 1990.
[207]S. A. Rice et
al., "The biofilm life cycle
and virulence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are dependent on a
filamentous
prophage," (in eng), ISME
J, vol.
3, no. 3, pp. 271-82, Mar 2009.
[208]J. A. Grasis et
al., "Species-specific viromes
in the ancestral holobiont Hydra," (in eng), PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 10, p. e109952, 2014,
doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0109952.
[209]C. B. Silveira and F. L.
Rohwer, "Piggyback-the-Winner in host-associated microbial
communities," (in eng), NPJ Biofilms
Microbiomes, vol. 2, p. 16010, 2016.
[210]F. P. Ryan, "Viral
symbiosis and the holobiontic nature of the human genome,"
(in eng), APMIS, vol.
124, no. 1-2, pp. 11-9,
Jan-Feb 2016, doi: 10.1111/apm.12488.
[211]V. A. Belyi, A. J. Levine,
and A. M. Skalka, "Unexpected inheritance: multiple
integrations of
ancient bornavirus and ebolavirus/marburgvirus sequences in
vertebrate
genomes," (in eng), PLoS
Pathog, vol.
6, no. 7, p. e1001030, 2010, doi:
10.1371/journal.ppat.1001030.
[212]M. Krupovic and P. Forterre,
"Single-stranded DNA viruses employ a variety of mechanisms
for
integration into host genomes," (in Eng), Ann N Y Acad Sci, Feb 11 2015, doi:
10.1111/nyas.12675.
[213]S. N. Pantry and P. G.
Medveczky, "Latency, Integration, and Reactivation of Human
Herpesvirus-6," (in eng), Viruses, vol.
9, no. 7, Jul 24 2017.
[214]J. L. Hurwitz, B. G. Jones,
E. Charpentier, and D. L. Woodland, "Hypothesis: RNA and DNA
Viral
Sequence Integration into the Mammalian Host Genome Supports
Long-Term B Cell
and T Cell Adaptive Immunity," (in eng), Viral Immunol, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 628-632,
Nov 2017, doi:
10.1089/vim.2017.0099.
[215]N. Wallaschek
et al., "The Telomeric Repeats of
Human Herpesvirus 6A (HHV-6A) Are Required for Efficient
Virus
Integration," (in eng), PLoS Pathog,
vol. 12, no. 5, p. e1005666, May 2016.
[216]M. G. Fischer and T. Hackl,
"Host genome integration and giant virus-induced
reactivation of the
virophage mavirus," (in eng), Nature,
vol. 540, no. 7632, pp. 288-291, Dec 07 2016, doi:
10.1038/nature20593.
[217]U. Palatini et
al., "Comparative genomics
shows that viral integrations are abundant and express
piRNAs in the arboviral
vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus," (in eng), BMC Genomics, vol.
18, no. 1, p. 512,
Jul 5 2017.
[218]Y. Suzuki et al., "Uncovering the Repertoire of
Endogenous Flaviviral
Elements in Aedes Mosquito Genomes," (in eng), J Virol, vol. 91, no. 15, Aug 1 2017.
[219]M. Krupovic and P. Forterre,
"Single-stranded DNA viruses employ a variety of mechanisms
for
integration into host genomes," (in eng), Ann N Y Acad Sci, vol. 1341, pp. 41-53, Apr
2015, doi:
10.1111/nyas.12675.
[220]J. M. Coffin, S. H. Hughes,
and H. E. Varmus, Retroviruses
Cold
Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press,
1997.
[221]D. L. Mager and J. P. Stoye,
"Mammalian Endogenous Retroviruses," (in eng), Microbiol Spectr, vol. 3, no. 1, pp.
MDNA3-0009-2014, Feb 2015,
doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.MDNA3-0009-2014.
[222]J. Goke et al., "Dynamic transcription of distinct
classes of
endogenous retroviral elements marks specific populations of
early human
embryonic cells," (in eng), Cell
Stem Cell, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 135-41, Feb 5 2015,
doi:
10.1016/j.stem.2015.01.005.
[223]E. J. Grow et
al., "Intrinsic retroviral
reactivation in human preimplantation embryos and
pluripotent cells," (in
eng), Nature, vol.
522, no. 7555, pp.
221-5, Jun 11 2015, doi: 10.1038/nature14308.
[224]J. Ito et al., "Systematic identification and
characterization of
regulatory elements derived from human endogenous
retroviruses," (in eng),
PLoS Genet, vol.
13, no. 7, p.
e1006883, Jul 2017.
[225]G. Glinsky et
al., "Single cell expression
analysis of primate-specific retroviruses-derived HPAT
lincRNAs in viable human
blastocysts identifies embryonic cells co-expressing genetic
markers of
multiple lineages," (in eng), Heliyon,
vol. 4, no. 6, p. e00667, Jun 2018.
[226]E. B. Chuong, N. C. Elde, and
C. Feschotte, "Regulatory evolution of innate immunity
through co-option
of endogenous retroviruses," (in eng), Science,
vol. 351, no. 6277, pp. 1083-7, Mar 4 2016, doi:
10.1126/science.aad5497.
[227]E. B. Chuong, M. A. Rumi, M.
J. Soares, and J. C. Baker, "Endogenous retroviruses
function as
species-specific enhancer elements in the placenta," (in
eng), Nat Genet, vol.
45, no. 3, pp. 325-9,
Mar 2013, doi: 10.1038/ng.2553.
[228]E. B. Chuong,
"Retroviruses facilitate the rapid evolution of the
mammalian
placenta," (in eng), Bioessays,
vol.
35, no. 10, pp. 853-61, Oct 2013, doi:
10.1002/bies.201300059.
[229]C. E. Dunn-Fletcher et al.,
"Anthropoid
primate-specific retroviral element THE1B controls
expression of CRH in
placenta and alters gestation length," (in eng), PLoS Biol, vol. 16, no. 9, p. e2006337, Sep
2018.
[230]E. B. Chuong, "The
placenta goes viral: Retroviruses control gene expression in
pregnancy,"
(in eng), PLoS Biol,
vol. 16, no. 10,
p. e3000028, Oct 2018.
[231]C. Lavialle et
al., "Paleovirology of
'syncytins', retroviral env genes exapted for a role in
placentation," (in
eng), Philos Trans R
Soc Lond B Biol Sci,
vol. 368, no. 1626, p. 20120507, Sep 19 2013, doi:
10.1098/rstb.2012.0507.
[232]J. Denner, "Expression
and function of endogenous retroviruses in the placenta,"
(in eng), APMIS, vol.
124, no. 1-2, pp. 31-43,
Jan-Feb 2016, doi: 10.1111/apm.12474.
[233]C. V. Harding, J. E. Heuser,
and P. D. Stahl, "Exosomes: looking back three decades and
into the
future," (in eng), J
Cell Biol, vol.
200, no. 4, pp. 367-71, Feb 18 2013.
[234]M. Yanez-Mo et
al., "Biological properties of
extracellular vesicles and their physiological functions,"
(in eng), J Extracell
Vesicles, vol. 4, p. 27066,
2015.
[235]M. Gaudin et al., "Hyperthermophilic archaea produce
membrane vesicles
that can transfer DNA," (in eng), Environ
Microbiol Rep, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 109-16, Feb 2013,
doi:
10.1111/j.1758-2229.2012.00348.x.
[236]S. Fischer et
al., "Indication of Horizontal
DNA Gene Transfer by Extracellular Vesicles," (in eng), PLoS One, vol. 11,
no. 9, p. e0163665,
2016, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163665.
[237]J. Cai, G. Wu, P. A. Jose,
and C. Zeng, "Functional transferred DNA within
extracellular
vesicles," (in eng), Exp
Cell Res, vol.
349, no. 1, pp. 179-183, Nov 15 2016, doi:
10.1016/j.yexcr.2016.10.012.
[238]F. Tran and J. Q. Boedicker,
"Genetic cargo and bacterial species set the rate of
vesicle-mediated
horizontal gene transfer," (in eng), Sci
Rep, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 8813, Aug 18 2017.
[239]N. J. Bitto et
al., "Bacterial membrane
vesicles transport their DNA cargo into host cells," (in
eng), Sci Rep, vol.
7, no. 1, p. 7072, Aug 1
2017.
[240]M. Toyofuku, N. Nomura, and
L. Eberl, "Types and origins of bacterial membrane
vesicles," (in
eng), Nat Rev
Microbiol, vol. 17, no.
1, pp. 13-24, Jan 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41579-018-0112-2.
[241]K. S. Makarova, N. Yutin, S.
D. Bell, and E. V. Koonin, "Evolution of diverse cell
division and vesicle
formation systems in Archaea," (in eng), Nat Rev Microbiol, vol. 8, no. 10, pp.
731-41, Oct 2010, doi:
10.1038/nrmicro2406.
[242]D. H. Choi et
al., "Extracellular Vesicles of
the Hyperthermophilic Archaeon "Thermococcus onnurineus"
NA1T,"
(in eng), Appl
Environ Microbiol, vol.
81, no. 14, pp. 4591-9, Jul 2015.
[243]E. Marguet et
al., "Membrane vesicles,
nanopods and/or nanotubes produced by hyperthermophilic
archaea of the genus
Thermococcus," (in eng), Biochem Soc
Trans, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 436-42, Feb 01 2013, doi:
10.1042/bst20120293.
[244]B. L. Deatherage and B. T. Cookson,
"Membrane vesicle release in bacteria, eukaryotes, and
archaea: a
conserved yet underappreciated aspect of microbial life,"
(in eng), Infect
Immun, vol. 80, no. 6, pp.
1948-57, Jun 2012.
[245]S. Rayner, S. Bruhn, H.
Vallhov, A. Andersson, R. B. Billmyre, and A. Scheynius,
"Identification
of small RNAs in extracellular vesicles from the commensal
yeast Malassezia
sympodialis," (in eng), Sci Rep, vol.
7, p. 39742, Jan 4 2017.
[246]X. Sisquella et
al., "Malaria parasite
DNA-harbouring vesicles activate cytosolic immune sensors,"
(in eng), Nat Commun,
vol. 8, no. 1, p. 1985, Dec
7 2017.
[247]D. S. Goncalves
et al., "Extracellular vesicles
and vesicle-free secretome of the protozoa Acanthamoeba
castellanii under
homeostasis and nutritional stress and their damaging
potential to host
cells," (in eng), Virulence,
vol.
9, no. 1, pp. 818-836, Dec 31 2018.
[248]S. Robatzek, "Vesicle
trafficking in plant immune responses," (in eng), Cell Microbiol, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1-8, Jan
2007, doi:
10.1111/j.1462-5822.2006.00829.x.
[249]I. A. Macdonald and M. J.
Kuehn, "Stress-induced outer membrane vesicle production by
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa," (in eng), J Bacteriol, vol.
195, no. 13, pp. 2971-81, Jul 2013.
[250]N. Orench-Rivera and M. J.
Kuehn, "Environmentally controlled bacterial
vesicle-mediated
export," (in eng), Cell
Microbiol, vol.
18, no. 11, pp. 1525-1536, Nov 2016.
[251]S. Shibata and K. L. Visick,
"Sensor kinase RscS induces the production of antigenically
distinct outer
membrane vesicles that depend on the symbiosis
polysaccharide locus in Vibrio
fischeri," (in eng), J
Bacteriol, vol.
194, no. 1, pp. 185-94, Jan 2012.
[252]U. Resch et al., "A Two-Component Regulatory System
Impacts
Extracellular Membrane-Derived Vesicle Production in Group A
Streptococcus," (in eng), MBio, vol.
7, no. 6, Nov 1 2016.
[253]K. J. McMahon, M. E.
Castelli, E. Garcia Vescovi, and M. F. Feldman, "Biogenesis
of outer
membrane vesicles in Serratia marcescens is thermoregulated
and can be induced
by activation of the Rcs phosphorelay system," (in eng), J Bacteriol, vol.
194, no. 12, pp.
3241-9, Jun 2012.
[254]C. Florez, J. E. Raab, A. C.
Cooke, and J. W. Schertzer, "Membrane Distribution of the
Pseudomonas
Quinolone Signal Modulates Outer Membrane Vesicle Production
in Pseudomonas aeruginosa,"
(in eng), MBio, vol.
8, no. 4, Aug 8
2017.
[255]Y. Kang, E. Goo, J. Kim, and
I. Hwang, "Critical role of quorum sensing-dependent
glutamate metabolism
in homeostatic osmolality and outer membrane vesiculation in
Burkholderia
glumae," (in eng), Sci
Rep, vol.
7, p. 44195, Mar 8 2017.
[256]I. Polakovicova, S. Jerez, I.
A. Wichmann, A. Sandoval-Borquez, N. Carrasco-Veliz, and A.
H. Corvalan,
"Role of microRNAs and Exosomes in Helicobacter pylori and
Epstein-Barr
Virus Associated Gastric Cancers," (in eng), Front Microbiol, vol. 9, p. 636, 2018.
[257]N. S. Barteneva
et al., "Extracellular vesicles in
gastrointestinal cancer in conjunction with microbiota: On
the border of
Kingdoms," (in eng), Biochim
Biophys
Acta Rev Cancer, vol. 1868, no. 2, pp. 372-393, Dec
2017, doi:
10.1016/j.bbcan.2017.06.005.
[258]K. Chitcholtan, M. B.
Hampton, and J. I. Keenan, "Outer membrane vesicles enhance
the
carcinogenic potential of Helicobacter pylori," (in eng), Carcinogenesis, vol.
29, no. 12, pp.
2400-5, Dec 2008, doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgn218.
[259]Y. Liu, K. A. Y. Defourny, E.
J. Smid, and T. Abee, "Gram-Positive Bacterial Extracellular
Vesicles and
Their Impact on Health and Disease," (in eng), Front Microbiol, vol. 9, p. 1502, 2018.
[260]F. Askarian et
al., "Staphylococcus aureus
Membrane-Derived Vesicles Promote Bacterial Virulence and
Confer Protective
Immunity in Murine Infection Models," (in eng), Front Microbiol, vol. 9, p. 262, 2018.
[261]Y. J. Yu, X. H. Wang, and G.
C. Fan, "Versatile effects of bacterium-released membrane
vesicles on
mammalian cells and infectious/inflammatory diseases," (in
eng), Acta Pharmacol
Sin, vol. 39, no. 4, pp.
514-533, Apr 2018.
[262]M. Ionescu, P. A. Zaini, C.
Baccari, S. Tran, A. M. da Silva, and S. E. Lindow, "Xylella
fastidiosa
outer membrane vesicles modulate plant colonization by
blocking attachment to
surfaces," (in eng), Proc
Natl Acad
Sci U S A, vol. 111, no. 37, pp. E3910-8, Sep 16
2014.
[263]L. Katsir and O. Bahar,
"Bacterial outer membrane vesicles at the plant-pathogen
interface,"
(in eng), PLoS
Pathog, vol. 13, no.
6, p. e1006306, Jun 2017.
[264]L. Mashburn-Warren et al.,
"Interaction of quorum
signals with outer membrane lipids: insights into
prokaryotic membrane vesicle
formation," (in eng), Mol
Microbiol,
vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 491-502, Jul 2008.
[265]L. M. Mashburn and M.
Whiteley, "Membrane vesicles traffic signals and facilitate
group
activities in a prokaryote," (in eng), Nature,
vol. 437, no. 7057, pp. 422-5, Sep 15 2005, doi:
10.1038/nature03925.
[266]M. Toyofuku et
al., "Membrane vesicle-mediated
bacterial communication," (in eng), ISME
J, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1504-1509, Jun 2017.
[267]S. Brameyer, L. Plener, A.
Muller, A. Klingl, G. Wanner, and K. Jung, "Outer membrane
vesicles
facilitate trafficking of the hydrophobic signaling molecule
CAI-1 between
Vibrio harveyi cells," (in eng), J
Bacteriol, Mar 19 2018.
[268]R. Grande et al., "Helicobacter pylori ATCC 43629/NCTC
11639 Outer
Membrane Vesicles (OMVs) from Biofilm and Planktonic Phase
Associated with Extracellular
DNA (eDNA)," (in eng), Front
Microbiol, vol. 6, p. 1369, 2015, doi:
10.3389/fmicb.2015.01369.
[269]S. Liao et al., "Streptococcus mutans extracellular
DNA is
upregulated during growth in biofilms, actively released via
membrane vesicles,
and influenced by components of the protein secretion
machinery," (in
eng), J Bacteriol, vol.
196, no. 13,
pp. 2355-66, Jul 2014, doi: 10.1128/jb.01493-14.
[270]Y. Zhu, S. G. Dashper, Y. Y.
Chen, S. Crawford, N. Slakeski, and E. C. Reynolds,
"Porphyromonas gingivalis
and Treponema denticola synergistic polymicrobial biofilm
development,"
(in eng), PLoS One, vol.
8, no. 8, p.
e71727, 2013.
[271]C. Ciardiello
et al., "Focus on Extracellular
Vesicles: New Frontiers of Cell-to-Cell Communication in
Cancer," (in eng),
Int J Mol Sci, vol.
17, no. 2, p.
175, Feb 6 2016.
[272]V. R. Minciacchi, M. R.
Freeman, and D. Di Vizio, "Extracellular vesicles in cancer:
exosomes,
microvesicles and the emerging role of large oncosomes," (in
eng), Semin Cell Dev
Biol, vol. 40, pp. 41-51,
Apr 2015.
[273]P. Fonseca, I. Vardaki, A.
Occhionero, and T. Panaretakis, "Metabolic and Signaling
Functions of
Cancer Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicles," (in eng), Int Rev Cell Mol Biol,
vol. 326, pp.
175-99, 2016, doi: 10.1016/bs.ircmb.2016.04.004.
[274]T. Reyes-Robles
et al., "Vibrio cholerae Outer
Membrane Vesicles Inhibit Bacteriophage Infection," (in
eng), J Bacteriol, vol.
200, no. 15, Aug 1
2018, doi: 10.1128/jb.00792-17.
[275]L. S. Joffe, L. Nimrichter,
M. L. Rodrigues, and M. Del Poeta, "Potential Roles of
Fungal
Extracellular Vesicles during Infection," (in eng), mSphere, vol. 1, no. 4, Jul-Aug 2016.
[276]I. Samuelson and A. J.
Vidal-Puig, "Fed-EXosome: extracellular vesicles and
cell-cell
communication in metabolic regulation," (in eng), Essays Biochem, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 165-175,
May 15 2018, doi:
10.1042/ebc20170087.
[277]A. G. Evans et
al., "Predatory activity of
Myxococcus xanthus outer-membrane vesicles and properties of
their hydrolase
cargo," (in eng), Microbiology,
vol.
158, no. Pt 11, pp. 2742-52, Nov 2012, doi:
10.1099/mic.0.060343-0.
[278]Q. Cai et al., "Plants send small RNAs in
extracellular vesicles to
fungal pathogen to silence virulence genes," (in eng), Science, vol. 360,
no. 6393, pp.
1126-1129, Jun 8 2018, doi: 10.1126/science.aar4142.
[279]M. Regente, M. Pinedo, H. San
Clemente, T. Balliau, E. Jamet, and L. de la Canal, "Plant
extracellular vesicles
are incorporated by a fungal pathogen and inhibit its
growth," (in eng), J
Exp Bot, vol. 68, no. 20, pp.
5485-5495, Nov 28 2017, doi: 10.1093/jxb/erx355.
[280]T. Szatmari et
al., "Extracellular Vesicles
Mediate Radiation-Induced Systemic Bystander Signals in the
Bone Marrow and
Spleen," (in eng), Front
Immunol, vol.
8, p. 347, 2017.
[281]S. Vdovikova, S. Gilfillan, S.
Wang, M. Dongre, S. N. Wai, and A. Hurtado, "Modulation of
gene
transcription and epigenetics of colon carcinoma cells by
bacterial membrane
vesicles," (in eng), Sci
Rep, vol.
8, no. 1, p. 7434, May 9 2018.
[282]M. S. Aschtgen, K. Wetzel, W.
Goldman, M. McFall-Ngai, and E. Ruby, "Vibrio
fischeri-derived outer
membrane vesicles trigger host development," (in eng), Cell Microbiol, vol.
18, no. 4, pp.
488-99, Apr 2016.
[283]M. S. Aschtgen, J. B. Lynch,
E. Koch, J. Schwartzman, M. McFall-Ngai, and E. Ruby,
"Rotation of Vibrio
fischeri Flagella Produces Outer Membrane Vesicles That
Induce Host
Development," (in eng), J Bacteriol,
vol. 198, no. 16, pp. 2156-65, Aug 15 2016.
[284]G. van Niel, G. D'Angelo, and
G. Raposo, "Shedding light on the cell biology of
extracellular
vesicles," (in eng), Nat
Rev Mol
Cell Biol, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 213-228, Apr 2018,
doi:
10.1038/nrm.2017.125.
[285]U. Sharma et al., "Small RNAs Are Trafficked from the
Epididymis to
Developing Mammalian Sperm," (in eng), Dev
Cell, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 481-494 e6, Aug 20 2018.
[286]C. C. Conine, F. Sun, L.
Song, J. A. Rivera-Perez, and O. J. Rando, "Small RNAs
Gained during
Epididymal Transit of Sperm Are Essential for Embryonic
Development in
Mice," (in eng), Dev
Cell, vol.
46, no. 4, pp. 470-480 e3, Aug 20 2018.
[287]C. Spadafora,
"Sperm-Mediated Transgenerational Inheritance," (in eng), Front Microbiol, vol.
8, p. 2401, 2017.
[288]C. Spadafora, "Soma to
germline inheritance of extrachromosomal genetic information
via a LINE-1
reverse transcriptase-based mechanism," (in eng), Bioessays, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 726-33, Aug
2016, doi:
10.1002/bies.201500197.
[289]I. Sciamanna, C. De Luca, and
C. Spadafora, "The Reverse Transcriptase Encoded by LINE-1
Retrotransposons in the Genesis, Progression, and Therapy of
Cancer," (in
eng), Front Chem, vol.
4, p. 6, 2016,
doi: 10.3389/fchem.2016.00006.
[290]M. Rassoulzadegan, V.
Grandjean, P. Gounon, and F. Cuzin, "Inheritance of an
epigenetic change
in the mouse: a new role for RNA," (in eng), Biochem Soc Trans, vol. 35, no. Pt 3, pp.
623-5, Jun 2007, doi:
10.1042/bst0350623.
[291]M. Rassoulzadegan, V.
Grandjean, P. Gounon, S. Vincent, I. Gillot, and F. Cuzin,
"RNA-mediated
non-mendelian inheritance of an epigenetic change in the
mouse," (in eng),
Nature, vol. 441,
no. 7092, pp.
469-74, May 25 2006, doi: 10.1038/nature04674.
[292]M. Rassoulzadegan and F.
Cuzin, "Epigenetic heredity: RNA-mediated modes of
phenotypic
variation," (in Eng), Ann
N Y Acad
Sci, vol. 1341, pp. 172-5, Feb 27 2015, doi:
10.1111/nyas.12694.
[293]S. A. Eaton, N. Jayasooriah,
M. E. Buckland, D. I. Martin, J. E. Cropley, and C. M.
Suter, "Roll over
Weismann: extracellular vesicles in the transgenerational
transmission of
environmental effects," (in eng), Epigenomics,
vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 1165-71, Oct 2015, doi:
10.2217/epi.15.58.
[294]T. H. Morgan, A. H.
Sturtevant, H. J. Muller, and C. B. Bridges, The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. New York:
Henry Holt, 1915.
[295]W. L. Johannsen, Arvelighedslærens
elementer (The Elements of
Heredity). Copenhagen, 1905.
[296]W. Johannsen, "The Genotype
Conception of Heredity," The
American Naturalist, vol. 45, no. 531, pp. 129-159,
1911, doi:
doi:10.1086/279202.
[297]A. H. Sturtevant,
"Linkage Variation and Chromosome Maps," (in eng), Proc Natl Acad Sci U S
A, vol. 7, no. 7,
pp. 181-3, Jul 1921.
[298]A. H. Sturtevant, C. B.
Bridges, and T. H. Morgan, "The Spatial Relations of Genes,"
(in
eng), Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A, vol.
5, no. 5, pp. 168-73, May 1919.
[299]H. B. Creighton and B.
McClintock, "The Correlation of Cytological and Genetical
Crossing-Over in
Zea Mays. A Corroboration," Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 148-50, Mar
1935.
[300]G. W. Beadle and E. L. Tatum,
"Genetic Control of Biochemical Reactions in Neurospora,"
(in eng), Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A, vol. 27, no.
11, pp. 499-506, Nov 15 1941.
[301]O. T. Avery, C.M. MacLeod, M.
McCarty, "Studies on the chemical nature of the substance
inducing
transformation of Pneumococcal types: Induction of
transformation by a
desoxyribonucleic acid fraction isolated prom Pneumococcus
Type III," J. Exp.
Med., vol. 79, pp. 137–158,
1944.
[302]A. D. Hershey and M. Chase,
"Independent functions of viral protein and nucleic acid in
growth of
bacteriophage," (in eng), J Gen
Physiol, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 39-56, May 1952.
[303]J. D. Watson and F. H. Crick,
"Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for
deoxyribose nucleic
acid," (in eng), Nature,
vol.
171, no. 4356, pp. 737-8, Apr 25 1953.
[304]J. D. Watson and F. H. Crick,
"Genetical implications of the structure of deoxyribonucleic
acid," Nature, vol.
171, pp. 964-967, 1953.
[305]E. B. Wilson, The
Cell in Development and Inheritance, 3rd
ed., revised and enlarged. New York: MacMillan, 1928.
[306]B. McClintock, "The
relation of a particular chromosomal element to the
development of the nucleoli
in Zea mays," Zeitschrift
fur
Zellforschung und mikroskopische Anatomie, vol. 21,
no. 2, pp. 294–328,
1934, doi: doi:10.1007/BF00374060.
[307]F. Jacob, Monod, J,
"Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of
proteins," J Mol
Biol, vol. 3, pp. 318– 356, 1961.
[308]S. Schoenfelder
et al., "Preferential associations
between co-regulated genes reveal a transcriptional
interactome in erythroid
cells," (in eng\), Nat
Genet, vol.
42, no. 1, pp. 53-61, Jan 2010, doi: 10.1038/ng.496.
[309]C. H. Eskiw, N. F. Cope, I.
Clay, S. Schoenfelder, T. Nagano, and P. Fraser,
"Transcription factories
and nuclear organization of the genome," (in eng), Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol, vol. 75,
pp. 501-6, 2010, doi: 10.1101/sqb.2010.75.046.
[310]S. Schoenfelder
et al., "The pluripotent
regulatory circuitry connecting promoters to their
long-range interacting
elements," (in eng), Genome
Res, vol.
25, no. 4, pp. 582-97, Apr 2015, doi: 10.1101/gr.185272.114.
[311]J. R. Dixon, D. U. Gorkin,
and B. Ren, "Chromatin Domains: The Unit of Chromosome
Organization,"
(in eng), Mol Cell, vol.
62, no. 5,
pp. 668-80, Jun 02 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.05.018.
[312]K. Lee and G. A. Blobel,
"Chromatin architecture underpinning transcription
elongation," (in
eng), Nucleus, vol.
7, no. 4, pp.
1-8, Jul 03 2016, doi: 10.1080/19491034.2016.1200770.
[313]R. C. Allshire and H. D.
Madhani, "Ten principles of heterochromatin formation and
function,"
(in eng), Nat Rev Mol
Cell Biol, vol.
19, no. 4, pp. 229-244, Apr 2018, doi: 10.1038/nrm.2017.119.
[314]S. H. Schwartz, J. Silva, D.
Burstein, T. Pupko, E. Eyras, and G. Ast, "Large-scale
comparative
analysis of splicing signals and their corresponding
splicing factors in
eukaryotes," Genome
Res, vol.
18, no. 1, pp. 88-103, Jan 2008.
[315]R. Britten, Kohne, DE,
"Repeated sequences in DNA. Hundreds of thousands of copies
of DNA
sequences have been incorporated into the genomes of higher
organisms," Science,
vol. 161, pp. 529-540, 1968.
[316]B. McClintock,
"Controlling elements and the gene," Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol, vol. 21,
pp. 197-216, 1952.
[317]R. J. Britten and E. H.
Davidson, "Repetitive and non-repetitive DNA sequences and a
speculation
on the origins of evolutionary novelty," Q Rev Biol, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 111-38, Jun
1971.
[318]E. H. Davidson and D. H.
Erwin, "Gene regulatory networks and the evolution of animal
body
plans," Science, vol.
311, no.
5762, pp. 796-800, Feb 10 2006.
[319]E. H. Davidson, The Regulatory Genome San
Diego:
Academic Press, 2006.
[320]J. A. Shapiro and R. v.
Sternberg, "Why repetitive DNA is essential to genome
function," Biol.
Revs. (Camb.), vol. 80, pp.
227-50, 2005.
[322]G. Liu, J. S. Mattick, and R.
J. Taft, "A meta-analysis of the genomic and transcriptomic
composition of
complex life," (in eng), Cell Cycle,
vol. 12, no. 13, pp. 2061-72, Jul 1 2013, doi:
10.4161/cc.25134.
[323]A. K. Eggleston, A.
Eccleston, B. Marte, and C. Lupp, "Regulatory RNA," (in
eng), Nature, vol.
482, no. 7385, p. 321, Feb
16 2012, doi: 10.1038/482321a.
[324]K. V. Morris and J. S.
Mattick, "The rise of regulatory RNA," (in eng), Nat Rev Genet, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 423-37,
Jun 2014, doi:
10.1038/nrg3722.
[325]J. Brate, M. Adamski, R. S.
Neumann, K. Shalchian-Tabrizi, and M. Adamska, "Regulatory
RNA at the root
of animals: dynamic expression of developmental lincRNAs in
the calcisponge
Sycon ciliatum," (in eng), Proc Biol
Sci, vol. 282, no. 1821, Dec 22 2015, doi:
10.1098/rspb.2015.1746.
[326]J. A. Shapiro, "How life
changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome," (in eng), Phys Life Rev, vol.
10, no. 3, pp. 287-323,
Sep 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2013.07.001.
[327]E. Nevo, "Molecular
evolution and ecological stress at global, regional and
local scales: the
Israeli perspective.," J. Exp.
Zool., vol. 282, pp. 95-119, 1998.
[328]T. J. Kawecki, R. E. Lenski,
D. Ebert, B. Hollis, I. Olivieri, and M. C. Whitlock,
"Experimental
evolution," (in eng), Trends
Ecol
Evol, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 547-60, Oct 2012, doi:
10.1016/j.tree.2012.06.001.