1887

Abstract

Gene transfer agents (GTAs) are phage-like particles that transfer pieces of cellular genomic DNA to other cells. Homologues of the GTA (RcGTA) structural genes are widely distributed in the Alphaproteobacteria and particularly well conserved in the order Rhodobacterales. Possible reasons for their widespread conservation are still being discussed. It has been suggested that these alphaproteobacterial elements originate from a prophage that was present in an ancestral bacterium and subsequently evolved into a GTA that is now widely maintained in extant descendant lineages. Here, we analysed genomic properties that might relate to the conservation of these alphaproteobacterial GTAs. This revealed that the chromosomal locations of the GTA gene clusters are biased. They primarily occur on the leading strand of DNA replication, at large distances from long repetitive elements, and thus are in regions of lower plasticity, and in areas of extreme GC skew, which also accumulate core genes. These extreme GC skew regions arise from the preferential use of codons with an excess of G over C, a distinct phenomenon from the elevated GC content that has previously been found to be associated with GTA genes. The observed properties, along with their high level of conservation, show that GTA genes share multiple features with core genes in the examined lineages of the Alphaproteobacteria.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Memorial University of Newfoundland (Award SGS Baseline)
    • Principle Award Recipient: SonjaKoppenhöfer
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Award RGPIN-2017-04636)
    • Principle Award Recipient: AndrewS. Lang
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000890
2022-11-09
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/mgen/8/11/mgen000890.html?itemId=/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000890&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Lang AS, Westbye AB, Beatty JT. The distribution, evolution, and roles of gene transfer agents in prokaryotic genetic exchange. Annu Rev Virol 2017; 4:87–104 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Lang AS, Beatty JT. Importance of widespread gene transfer agent genes in α-proteobacteria. Trends Microbiol 2007; 15:54–62 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Shakya M, Soucy SM, Zhaxybayeva O. Insights into origin and evolution of α-proteobacterial gene transfer agents. Virus Evol 2017; 3:vex036 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Tomasch J, Wang H, Hall ATK, Patzelt D, Preusse M et al. Packaging of Dinoroseobacter shibae DNA into gene transfer agent particles is not random. Genome Biol Evol 2018; 10:359–369 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Biers EJ, Wang K, Pennington C, Belas R, Chen F et al. Occurrence and expression of gene transfer agent genes in marine bacterioplankton. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008; 74:2933–2939 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Nagao N, Yamamoto J, Komatsu H, Suzuki H, Hirose Y et al. The gene transfer agent-like particle of the marine phototrophic bacterium Rhodovulum sulfidophilum. Biochem Biophys Rep 2015; 4:369–374 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Lang AS, Beatty JT. Genetic analysis of a bacterial genetic exchange element: the gene transfer agent of Rhodobacter capsulatus. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2000; 97:859–864 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Redfield RJ. Do bacteria have sex?. Microbes Evol 2014; 2:139–144 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Marrs B, Wall JD, Gest H. Emergence of the biochemical genetics and molecular biology of photosynthetic bacteria. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 1977; 2:105–108 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Québatte M, Christen M, Harms A, Körner J, Christen B et al. Gene transfer agent promotes evolvability within the fittest subpopulation of a bacterial pathogen. Cell Syst 2017; 4:611–621 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Redfield RJ, Soucy SM. Evolution of bacterial gene transfer agents. Front Microbiol 2018; 9:2527 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hynes AP, Mercer RG, Watton DE, Buckley CB, Lang AS. DNA packaging bias and differential expression of gene transfer agent genes within a population during production and release of the Rhodobacter capsulatus gene transfer agent, RcGTA. Mol Microbiol 2012; 85:314–325 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fogg PCM, Westbye AB, Beatty JT. One for all or all for one: heterogeneous expression and host cell lysis are key to gene transfer agent activity in Rhodobacter capsulatus. PLoS One 2012; 7:e43772 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Lang AS, Zhaxybayeva O, Beatty JT. Gene transfer agents: phage-like elements of genetic exchange. Nat Rev Microbiol 2012; 10:472–482 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Westbye AB, Beatty JT, Lang AS. Guaranteeing a captive audience: coordinated regulation of gene transfer agent (GTA) production and recipient capability by cellular regulators. Curr Opin Microbiol 2017; 38:122–129 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kogay R, Wolf YI, Koonin EV, Zhaxybayeva O. Selection for reducing energy cost of protein production drives the GC content and amino acid composition bias in gene transfer agents. mBio 2020; 11:e01206-20 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Westbye AB, O’Neill Z, Schellenberg-Beaver T, Beatty JT. The Rhodobacter capsulatus gene transfer agent is induced by nutrient depletion and the RNAP omega subunit. Microbiology 2017; 163:1355–1363 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Koppenhöfer S, Wang H, Scharfe M, Kaever V, Wagner-Döbler I et al. Integrated transcriptional regulatory network of quorum sensing, replication control, and SOS response in Dinoroseobacter shibae. Front Microbiol 2019; 10:803 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lobry JR. Asymmetric substitution patterns in the two DNA strands of bacteria. Mol Biol Evol 1996; 13:660–665 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Freeman JM, Plasterer TN, Smith TF, Mohr SC. Patterns of genome organization in bacteria. Science 1998; 279:1827 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Rocha EPC. Order and disorder in bacterial genomes. Curr Opin Microbiol 2004; 7:519–527 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Rocha EPC. The replication-related organization of bacterial genomes. Microbiology 2004; 150:1609–1627 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Bhagwat AS, Hao W, Townes JP, Lee H, Tang H et al. Strand-biased cytosine deamination at the replication fork causes cytosine to thymine mutations in Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2016; 113:2176–2181 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kono N, Tomita M, Arakawa K. Accelerated laboratory evolution reveals the influence of replication on the GC skew in Escherichia coli. Genome Biol Evol 2018; 10:3110–3117 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhao HL, Xia ZK, Zhang FZ, Ye YN, Guo FB. Multiple factors drive replicating strand composition bias in bacterial genomes. Int J Mol Sci 2015; 16:23111–23126 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Achaz G, Coissac E, Netter P, Rocha EPC. Associations between inverted repeats and the structural evolution of bacterial genomes. Genetics 2003; 164:1279–1289 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Vandecraen J, Chandler M, Aertsen A, Van Houdt R. The impact of insertion sequences on bacterial genome plasticity and adaptability. Crit Rev Microbiol 2017; 43:709–730 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sela I, Wolf YI, Koonin EV. Selection and genome plasticity as the key factors in the evolution of bacteria. Phys Rev X 2019; 9: [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rocha EPC, Blanchard A. Genomic repeats, genome plasticity and the dynamics of Mycoplasma evolution. Nucleic Acids Res 2002; 30:2031–2042 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gao F, Zhang C-T. Ori-Finder: a web-based system for finding oriCs in unannotated bacterial genomes. BMC Bioinformatics 2008; 9:79 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lechner M, Findeiss S, Steiner L, Marz M, Stadler PF et al. Proteinortho: detection of (co-)orthologs in large-scale analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 2011; 12:124 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Arndt D, Grant JR, Marcu A, Sajed T, Pon A et al. PHASTER: a better, faster version of the PHAST phage search tool. Nucleic Acids Res 2016; 44:W16–21 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Achaz G, Boyer F, Rocha EPC, Viari A, Coissac E. Repseek, a tool to retrieve approximate repeats from large DNA sequences. Bioinformatics 2007; 23:119–121 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kung SH, Retchless AC, Kwan JY, Almeida RPP. Effects of DNA size on transformation and recombination efficiencies in Xylella fastidiosa. Appl Environ Microbiol 2013; 79:1712–1717 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Darling ACE, Mau B, Blattner FR, Perna NT. Mauve: multiple alignment of conserved genomic sequence with rearrangements. Genome Res 2004; 14:1394–1403 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol 2018; 35:1547–1549 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hawkey J, Hamidian M, Wick RR, Edwards DJ, Billman-Jacobe H et al. ISMapper: identifying transposase insertion sites in bacterial genomes from short read sequence data. BMC Genomics 2015; 16:667 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Mangiameli SM, Merrikh CN, Wiggins PA, Merrikh H. Transcription leads to pervasive replisome instability in bacteria. Elife 2017; 6:1–27 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lin Y-L, Pasero P. Interference between DNA replication and transcription as a cause of genomic instability. Curr Genomics 2012; 13:65–73 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Rocha EPC, Danchin A. Gene essentiality determines chromosome organisation in bacteria. Nucleic Acids Res 2003; 31:6570–6577 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Merrikh CN, Merrikh H. Gene inversion potentiates bacterial evolvability and virulence. Nat Commun 2018; 9:4662 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Lu J, Salzberg SL. SkewIT: The Skew Index Test for large-scale GC Skew analysis of bacterial genomes. PLoS Comput Biol 2020; 16:1–16 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu H, Zhang J. Testing the adaptive hypothesis of lagging-strand encoding in bacterial genomes. Nat Commun 2022; 13:2628 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Dewey CN, Pachter L. Evolution at the nucleotide level: the problem of multiple whole-genome alignment. Hum Mol Genet 2006; 15 Spec No 1:R51–6 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Bobay LM, Rocha EPC, Touchon M. The adaptation of temperate bacteriophages to their host genomes. Mol Biol Evol 2013; 30:737–751 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Duncan BK, Miller JH. Mutagenic deamination of cytosine residues in DNA. Nature 1980; 287:560–561 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Daubin V, Gouy M, Perrière G. A phylogenomic approach to bacterial phylogeny: evidence of a core of genes sharing a common history. Genome Res 2002; 12:1080–1090 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Hartono SR, Korf IF, Chédin F. GC skew is a conserved property of unmethylated CpG island promoters across vertebrates. Nucleic Acids Res 2015; 43:9729–9741 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Ginno PA, Lim YW, Lott PL, Korf I, Chédin F. GC skew at the 5’ and 3’ ends of human genes links R-loop formation to epigenetic regulation and transcription termination. Genome Res 2013; 23:1590–1600 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Dai Y, Holland PWH. The interaction of natural selection and GC skew may drive the fast evolution of a sand rat homeobox gene. Mol Biol Evol 2019; 36:1473–1480 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Fischer W, Windhager L, Rohrer S, Zeiller M, Karnholz A et al. Strain-specific genes of Helicobacter pylori: genome evolution driven by a novel type IV secretion system and genomic island transfer. Nucleic Acids Res 2010; 38:6089–6101 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Han H, Wong H-C, Kan B, Guo Z, Zeng X et al. Genome plasticity of Vibrio parahaemolyticus: microevolution of the “pandemic group.”. BMC Genomics 2008; 9:1–12 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Brilli M, Fondi M, Fani R, Mengoni A, Ferri L et al. The diversity and evolution of cell cycle regulation in alpha-proteobacteria: a comparative genomic analysis. BMC Syst Biol 2010; 4:52 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Fioravanti A, Fumeaux C, Mohapatra SS, Bompard C, Brilli M et al. DNA binding of the cell cycle transcriptional regulator GcrA depends on N6-adenosine methylation in Caulobacter crescentus and other Alphaproteobacteria. PLoS Genet 2013; 9:e1003541 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Haakonsen DL, Yuan AH, Laub MT. The bacterial cell cycle regulator GcrA is a σ70 cofactor that drives gene expression from a subset of methylated promoters. Genes Dev 2015; 29:2272–2286 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Tomasch J, Koppenhöfer S, Lang AS. Connection between chromosomal location and function of CtrA phosphorelay genes in Alphaproteobacteria. Front Microbiol 2021; 12:1–8 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Mohapatra SS, Fioravanti A, Vandame P, Spriet C, Pini F et al. Methylation-dependent transcriptional regulation of crescentin gene (creS) by GcrA in Caulobacter crescentus. Mol Microbiol 2020; 114:127–139 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Samson JE, Magadán AH, Sabri M, Moineau S. Revenge of the phages: defeating bacterial defences. Nat Rev Microbiol 2013; 11:675–687 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Yin T, Cook D, Lawrence M. ggbio: an R package for extending the grammar of graphics for genomic data. Genome Biol 2012; 13:R77 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Toedling J, Skylar O, Sklyar O, Krueger T, Fischer JJ et al. Ringo--an R/Bioconductor package for analyzing ChIP-chip readouts. BMC Bioinformatics 2007; 8:1–4 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Elek A, Kuzman M, Vlahovicek K. CoRdon: codon usage analysis and prediction of gene expressivity. R package version 140 2019
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000890
Loading
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000890
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Supplementary material 2

EXCEL

Supplementary material 3

EXCEL

Supplementary material 4

EXCEL
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error