...
首页> 外文期刊>MBio >Reply to Forni et al., “Multiple Selected Changes May Modulate the Molecular Interaction between Laverania RH5 and Primate Basigin”
【24h】

Reply to Forni et al., “Multiple Selected Changes May Modulate the Molecular Interaction between Laverania RH5 and Primate Basigin”

机译:回复Forni等人,“多项选定的变化可能会调节 Laverania RH5与灵长类动物Basigin之间的分子相互作用”

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

REPLY We have previously shown that the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum resulted from the cross-species transmission of a parasite (which we have termed Plasmodium?praefalciparum ) that infects wild-living gorillas ( 1 ). In a recent paper ( 2 ), we took issue with claims made by Forni et al. in 2015 ( 3 ) regarding the origin of P.?falciparum . This paper was entitled “Positive selection underlies the species-specific binding of Plasmodium falciparum RH5 to human basigin,” with the final sentence of their abstract stating “Data herein provide an evolutionary explanation for species-specific binding of the PfRH5-BSG ligand receptor pair and support the hypothesis that positive selection at these genes drove the host shift leading to the emergence of P.?falciparum as a human pathogen.” These claims were the focus of our criticism, which is why we did not discuss their application of a “phylogenetics-population genetics method to search for sites that were positively selected” in BSG (basigin) genes: from that analysis, the authors reported that “no positively selected sites were found in the human lineage” ( 3 ), and so these analyses provided no evidence relevant to their claims. The data analyzed by Forni and colleagues ( 3 ) were insufficient to support the claim that positive selection at BSG and RH5 contributed to the emergence of the human parasite. For BSG, they presented (Table?1 in reference 3 ) evidence for two positively selected sites. However, the signal of selection was due to the inclusion of many monkey and prosimian sequences in their analysis. These species are irrelevant to our understanding of the recent evolution of P.?falciparum , because Laverania (the subgenus comprised of P.?falciparum and seven other described species [ 1 , 4 ]) has only been found infecting African apes in the wild. One of the sites (codon 102) identified by Forni and colleagues is conserved among all apes analyzed and so is not pertinent to their claims. The other (codon 27) is conserved in humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos but differs in gorillas ( 2 ); again, it is hard to see how this site is relevant to the emergence of P.?falciparum following a host jump from gorillas to humans. For RH5, Forni and colleagues ( 3 ) analyzed 13 sequences. However, 11 of these were near-identical alleles from strains of P.?falciparum , one was the ortholog from Plasmodium?reichenowi (a chimpanzee parasite), and the last was the sequence of a highly divergent paralog (RH2b) from P.?falciparum . The relationship among these sequences is shown in Fig.?1A , which illustrates that Forni et al. were considering, in effect, only two sequences (those of P.?falciparum and P.?reichenowi ), with no power to determine whether any differences between those two sequences arose on the branch leading to one species or the other from their common ancestor; given the relationships among P.?falciparum , P.?praefalciparum , and P.?reichenowi ( 1 ), only changes that occurred near the tip of the P.?falciparum branch could be relevant to the emergence of the human parasite. Strangely, Forni et al. ( 3 ) depicted the relationships among these sequences very differently ( Fig.?1B ). They now suggest ( 5 ) that the branch lengths in their tree “were simply not reported,” although a tree with undefined (unit length) branches would look somewhat different ( Fig.?1C ). Clearly, the branch lengths in Fig.?1B are extremely distorted compared to those in Fig.?1A . We still find it very difficult to explain why Forni et al. chose to depict the tree as they did, because it could mislead readers into thinking there was more information in the data set than was the case. FIG?1? Relationships among the RH5 sequences used by Forni et al. ( 3 ), adapted from reference 2 . (A) Relationships among the RH5 sequences with branch lengths drawn to scale; the bar denotes 0.2 amino acid replacements per site ( 2 ). (B) Relationships among the RH5 sequences as depicted by Forni et al. ( 3 ). (C) Relationships among the RH5 sequences without specified branch lengths; branches have unit lengths. P.?falciparum strains are shown in black in panels A to C. Forni et al. ( 5 ) now state that a paralog (such as RH2b) can be informative in such analyses. This is only true if the paralog is closely related, and indeed one of the papers they cite ( 6 ) specifically makes this point. The RH2b protein sequence is only ~27% identical to the RH5 sequences, and therefore is far too distant to be useful. In fact, alignment of RH2b and RH5 requires the insertion of many gaps. Forni et al. identified two sites in RH5, codons 190 and 447, as being positively selected (Table?2 in reference 3 ), but in their alignment, both are opposite gaps in RH2b. Obviously, for these two sites, the RH2b sequence must be useless in assessing whether the differences between the two species occurred on the lineage leading to P.?falciparum or that leading to P.?reichenowi . The difficulty in determin
机译:答复我们之前已经证明,人类疟疾寄生虫恶性疟原虫是由感染野生生物大猩猩的寄生虫(我们称其为疟原虫praefalciparum)的跨物种传播引起的(1)。在最近的一篇论文中(2),我们对Forni等人的主张提出了质疑。在2015年(3)关于恶性疟原虫的起源。本文标题为“阳性选择是恶性疟原虫RH5与人basisin的物种特异性结合的基础”,其摘要的最后一句话是“本文中的数据为PfRH5-BSG配体受体对的物种特异性结合提供了进化解释。并支持这样的假说,即在这些基因上的正选择驱动宿主转移,导致恶性疟原虫成为人类病原体。”这些主张是我们批评的重点,这就是为什么我们没有讨论他们在BSG(basigin)基因中应用“系统发育-种群遗传学方法搜索被积极选择的位点”的原因:从该分析中,作者报告说“在人类谱系中未发现任何明确选择的位点”(3),因此这些分析没有提供与其主张相关的证据。 Forni及其同事(3)分析的数据不足以支持BSG和RH5处的阳性选择导致人寄生虫出现的说法。对于BSG,他们提供了两个正选位点的证据(参考文献3中的表1)。但是,选择的信号是由于在分析中包括了许多猴子和猿猴序列。这些物种与我们对恶性疟原虫近期进化的了解无关,因为仅发现了拉弗拉尼亚(由恶性疟原虫和其他七个已描述物种组成的亚属[1,4]),它们感染了野生非洲猿。 Forni及其同事确定的一个位点(102号密码子)在所有被分析的猿猴中都是保守的,因此与他们的主张无关。另一个(密码子27)在人类,黑猩猩和bo黑猩猩中是保守的,但在大猩猩中却有所不同(2)。再次,很难看到在宿主从大猩猩跃向人类后,该位点与恶性疟原虫的出现有何关系。对于RH5,Forni及其同事(3)分析了13个序列。然而,其中的11个是恶性疟原虫菌株的近等位基因,一个是疟原虫疟原虫的直系同源物(一种黑猩猩寄生虫),最后一个是恶性疟原虫的高度趋异性同源物(RH2b)的序列。恶性肿瘤。这些序列之间的关系在图1A中示出,它说明了Forni等人的研究。正在考虑实际上仅考虑两个序列(恶性疟原虫和雷氏疟原虫),而无权确定这两个序列之间是否有任何差异出现在导致它们共同祖先的一个物种或另一个物种的分支上;考虑到恶性疟原虫,恶性疟原虫和reichenowi(1)之间的关系,只有在恶性疟原虫分支尖端附近发生的变化可能与人类寄生虫的出现有关。奇怪的是,Forni等人。 (3)以非常不同的方式描绘了这些序列之间的关系(图?1B)。他们现在建议(5),尽管没有定义(单位长度)分支的树看起来有些不同(图1C),但“根本没有报告”树中的分支长度。显然,与图1A中的那些相比,图1B中的分支长度极大地失真。我们仍然发现很难解释为什么Forni等人。选择像他们那样描述树,因为它可能会误导读者以为数据集中的信息比实际情况多。图。1? Forni等人使用的RH5序列之间的关系。 (3),改编自参考文献2。 (A)RH5序列与按比例绘制的分支长度之间的关系;横条表示每个位点有0.2个氨基酸置换(2)。 (B)如Forni等所述,RH5序列之间的关系。 (3)。 (C)没有指定分支长度的RH5序列之间的关系;分支具有单位长度。恶性疟原虫菌株在黑色的A至C中显示。 (5)现在指出,旁系同源物(如RH2b)在此类分析中可以提供很多信息。只有当旁系同源性密切相关时,这才是正确的,并且确实是他们引用的一篇论文(6)明确指出了这一点。 RH2b蛋白序列与RH5序列仅约27%相同,因此相距太远而无法使用。实际上,RH2b和RH5的对齐需要插入许多间隙。 Forni等。虽然在RH5b中确定了RH5中的两个位点,即密码子190和447,它们被肯定选择(参考文献3中的表2),但在它们的排列中,两个位点在RH2b中是相对的。显然,对于这两个位点,RH2b序列对于评估两个物种之间的差异是发生在导致恶性疟原虫的谱系还是导致恶性疟原虫的谱系中必须是无用的。确定的困难

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号