Why Genes Evolve Faster on Secondary Chromosomes in Bacteria

In bacterial genomes composed of more than one chromosome, one replicon is typically larger, harbors more essential genes than the others, and is considered primary. The greater variability of secondary chromosomes among related taxa has led to the theory that they serve as an accessory genome for specific niches or conditions. By this rationale, purifying selection should be weaker on genes on secondary chromosomes because of their reduced necessity or usage. To test this hypothesis we selected bacterial genomes composed of multiple chromosomes from two genera, Burkholderia and Vibrio, and quantified the evolutionary rates (dN and dS) of all orthologs within each genus. Both evolutionary rate parameters were faster among orthologs found on secondary chromosomes than those on the primary chromosome. Further, in every bacterial genome with multiple chromosomes that we studied, genes on secondary chromosomes exhibited significantly weaker codon usage bias than those on primary chromosomes. Faster evolution and reduced codon bias could in turn result from global effects of chromosome position, as genes on secondary chromosomes experience reduced dosage and expression due to their delayed replication, or selection on specific gene attributes. These alternatives were evaluated using orthologs common to genomes with multiple chromosomes and genomes with single chromosomes. Analysis of these ortholog sets suggested that inherently fast-evolving genes tend to be sorted to secondary chromosomes when they arise; however, prolonged evolution on a secondary chromosome further accelerated substitution rates. In summary, secondary chromosomes in bacteria are evolutionary test beds where genes are weakly preserved and evolve more rapidly, likely because they are used less frequently.

[1]  A. Eyre-Walker,et al.  Synonymous codon usage in Escherichia coli: selection for translational accuracy. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[2]  Claus O. Wilke,et al.  Mistranslation-Induced Protein Misfolding as a Dominant Constraint on Coding-Sequence Evolution , 2008, Cell.

[3]  R. Lenski,et al.  The population genetics of ecological specialization in evolving Escherichia coli populations , 2000, Nature.

[4]  Eduardo P C Rocha,et al.  An analysis of determinants of amino acids substitution rates in bacterial proteins. , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.

[5]  Alison K. Hottes,et al.  Codon usage between genomes is constrained by genome-wide mutational processes. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  P. Vandamme,et al.  DNA-DNA hybridization values and their relationship to whole-genome sequence similarities. , 2007, International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology.

[7]  Karen Schmidt,et al.  The effect of promoter strength, supercoiling and secondary structure on mutation rates in Escherichia coli , 2006, Molecular microbiology.

[8]  Nicholas H. Barton,et al.  The Relative Rates of Evolution of Sex Chromosomes and Autosomes , 1987, The American Naturalist.

[9]  M. Lynch,et al.  The Origins of Genome Complexity , 2003, Science.

[10]  J. Kaper,et al.  The Vibrio cholerae genome contains two unique circular chromosomes. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Rodrigo Lopez,et al.  Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0 , 2007, Bioinform..

[12]  A. E. Hirsh,et al.  Functional genomic analysis of the rates of protein evolution. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  R. B. Jensen,et al.  The two chromosomes of Vibrio cholerae are initiated at different time points in the cell cycle , 2007, The EMBO journal.

[14]  N. Moran,et al.  Evolutionary Origins of Genomic Repertoires in Bacteria , 2005, PLoS biology.

[15]  H. Ochman.  Bacterial Evolution: Chromosome Arithmetic and Geometry , 2002, Current Biology.

[16]  Kim Rutherford,et al.  Genomic plasticity of the causative agent of melioidosis, Burkholderia pseudomallei. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  T. Honda,et al.  Differential replication dynamics for large and small Vibrio chromosomes affect gene dosage, expression and location , 2008, BMC Genomics.

[18]  Guorong Chen,et al.  CodonO: codon usage bias analysis within and across genomes , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[19]  C. Wilke,et al.  Thermodynamics of Neutral Protein Evolution , 2006, Genetics.

[20]  M. P. Cummings.  PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package) , 2004 .

[21]  C. Wilke,et al.  Why highly expressed proteins evolve slowly. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  K. Konstantinidis,et al.  The bacterial species definition in the genomic era , 2006, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[23]  C. Mathews,et al.  Natural DNA Precursor Pool Asymmetry and Base Sequence Context as Determinants of Replication Fidelity (*) , 1995, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[24]  M. Waldor,et al.  MicroReview: Divided genomes: negotiating the cell cycle in prokaryotes with multiple chromosomes , 2005, Molecular microbiology.

[25]  C. Pál,et al.  An integrated view of protein evolution , 2006, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[26]  S. Salzberg,et al.  DNA sequence of both chromosomes of the cholera pathogen Vibrio cholerae , 2000, Nature.

[27]  F. Neidhardt,et al.  Escherichia Coli and Salmonella: Typhimurium Cellular and Molecular Biology , 1987 .

[28]  P. Srivastava,et al.  Selective chromosome amplification in Vibrio cholerae , 2007, Molecular microbiology.

[29]  D C Shields,et al.  Chromosomal location and evolutionary rate variation in enterobacterial genes. , 1989, Science.

[30]  E. Greenberg,et al.  Complete genome sequence of Vibrio fischeri: a symbiotic bacterium with pathogenic congeners. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  Kristian Vlahovicek,et al.  INCA: synonymous codon usage analysis and clustering by means of self-organizing map , 2004, Bioinform..

[32]  Eduardo P C Rocha,et al.  Replication‐associated gene dosage effects shape the genomes of fast‐growing bacteria but only for transcription and translation genes , 2006, Molecular microbiology.

[33]  F. Arnold,et al.  Protein stability promotes evolvability. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  D. Petrov,et al.  General Rules for Optimal Codon Choice , 2009, PLoS genetics.

[35]  I. Beacham,et al.  Whole genome analysis reveals a high incidence of non-optimal codons in secretory signal sequences of Escherichia coli. , 2004, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[36]  Dong Xu,et al.  Quantitative relationship between synonymous codon usage bias and GC composition across unicellular genomes , 2004, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[37]  M. Nei,et al.  MEGA4: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. , 2007, Molecular biology and evolution.

[38]  Howard Ochman,et al.  Gene location and bacterial sequence divergence. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

[39]  K. Konstantinidis,et al.  Genomic insights that advance the species definition for prokaryotes. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[40]  Ziheng Yang.  PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. , 2007, Molecular biology and evolution.

[41]  Wen-Hsiung Li,et al.  The rate of synonymous substitution in enterobacterial genes is inversely related to codon usage bias. , 1987, Molecular biology and evolution.

[42]  N. Moran,et al.  From Gene Trees to Organismal Phylogeny in Prokaryotes:The Case of the γ-Proteobacteria , 2003, PLoS biology.

[43]  J. Plotkin,et al.  The Population Genetics of dN/dS , 2008, PLoS genetics.

[44]  P. Sharp,et al.  Variation in the strength of selected codon usage bias among bacteria , 2005, Nucleic acids research.