Article

The Origin of Introns and Their Role in Eukaryogenesis: A Compromise Solution to the Introns-Early Versus Introns-Late Debate?

National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA.
Biology Direct (Impact Factor: 4.04). 02/2006; 1:22. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6150-1-22
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Ever since the discovery of 'genes in pieces' and mRNA splicing in eukaryotes, origin and evolution of spliceosomal introns have been considered within the conceptual framework of the 'introns early' versus 'introns late' debate. The 'introns early' hypothesis, which is closely linked to the so-called exon theory of gene evolution, posits that protein-coding genes were interrupted by numerous introns even at the earliest stages of life's evolution and that introns played a major role in the origin of proteins by facilitating recombination of sequences coding for small protein/peptide modules. Under this scenario, the absence of spliceosomal introns in prokaryotes is considered to be a result of "genome streamlining". The 'introns late' hypothesis counters that spliceosomal introns emerged only in eukaryotes, and moreover, have been inserted into protein-coding genes continuously throughout the evolution of eukaryotes. Beyond the formal dilemma, the more substantial side of this debate has to do with possible roles of introns in the evolution of eukaryotes.
I argue that several lines of evidence now suggest a coherent solution to the introns-early versus introns-late debate, and the emerging picture of intron evolution integrates aspects of both views although, formally, there seems to be no support for the original version of introns-early. Firstly, there is growing evidence that spliceosomal introns evolved from group II self-splicing introns which are present, usually, in small numbers, in many bacteria, and probably, moved into the evolving eukaryotic genome from the alpha-proteobacterial progenitor of the mitochondria. Secondly, the concept of a primordial pool of 'virus-like' genetic elements implies that self-splicing introns are among the most ancient genetic entities. Thirdly, reconstructions of the ancestral state of eukaryotic genes suggest that the last common ancestor of extant eukaryotes had an intron-rich genome. Thus, it appears that ancestors of spliceosomal introns, indeed, have existed since the earliest stages of life's evolution, in a formal agreement with the introns-early scenario. However, there is no evidence that these ancient introns ever became widespread before the emergence of eukaryotes, hence, the central tenet of introns-early, the role of introns in early evolution of proteins, has no support. However, the demonstration that numerous introns invaded eukaryotic genes at the outset of eukaryotic evolution and that subsequent intron gain has been limited in many eukaryotic lineages implicates introns as an ancestral feature of eukaryotic genomes and refutes radical versions of introns-late. Perhaps, most importantly, I argue that the intron invasion triggered other pivotal events of eukaryogenesis, including the emergence of the spliceosome, the nucleus, the linear chromosomes, the telomerase, and the ubiquitin signaling system. This concept of eukaryogenesis, in a sense, revives some tenets of the exon hypothesis, by assigning to introns crucial roles in eukaryotic evolutionary innovation.
The scenario of the origin and evolution of introns that is best compatible with the results of comparative genomics and theoretical considerations goes as follows: self-splicing introns since the earliest stages of life's evolution--numerous spliceosomal introns invading genes of the emerging eukaryote during eukaryogenesis--subsequent lineage-specific loss and gain of introns. The intron invasion, probably, spawned by the mitochondrial endosymbiont, might have critically contributed to the emergence of the principal features of the eukaryotic cell. This scenario combines aspects of the introns-early and introns-late views.
this article was reviewed by W. Ford Doolittle, James Darnell (nominated by W. Ford Doolittle), William Martin, and Anthony Poole.

0 Followers
 · 
175 Views
  • Source
    • "dulates the specificity of integration ( Novikova et al . , 2010 ) . The aspartic protease of the LTR retroelements is homologous to the pan - eukaryotic protein DDI1 , an essential , ubiquitin - dependent regulator of the cell cycle whereas DDI1 itself appears to have been derived from a distinct group of bacterial aspartyl proteases ( Krylov and Koonin , 2001 ; Sirkis et al . , 2006 ) . Thus , strikingly , the ancestral Pol polyprotein of the LTR retroelements seems to have evolved through assembly from 4 distinct compo - nents only one of which , the RT , derives from a pre - existing retroelement . Apart from the Pol polyprotein , the relationships between genes in different groups of reverse - transcribing virus"
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Viruses and other selfish genetic elements are dominant entities in the biosphere, with respect to both physical abundance and genetic diversity. Various selfish elements parasitize on all cellular life forms. The relative abundances of different classes of viruses are dramatically different between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. In prokaryotes, the great majority of viruses possess double-stranded (ds) DNA genomes, with a substantial minority of single-stranded (ss) DNA viruses and only limited presence of RNA viruses. In contrast, in eukaryotes, RNA viruses account for the majority of the virome diversity although ssDNA and dsDNA viruses are common as well. Phylogenomic analysis yields tangible clues for the origins of major classes of eukaryotic viruses and in particular their likely roots in prokaryotes. Specifically, the ancestral genome of positive-strand RNA viruses of eukaryotes might have been assembled de novo from genes derived from prokaryotic retroelements and bacteria although a primordial origin of this class of viruses cannot be ruled out. Different groups of double-stranded RNA viruses derive either from dsRNA bacteriophages or from positive-strand RNA viruses. The eukaryotic ssDNA viruses apparently evolved via a fusion of genes from prokaryotic rolling circle-replicating plasmids and positive-strand RNA viruses. Different families of eukaryotic dsDNA viruses appear to have originated from specific groups of bacteriophages on at least two independent occasions. Polintons, the largest known eukaryotic transposons, predicted to also form virus particles, most likely, were the evolutionary intermediates between bacterial tectiviruses and several groups of eukaryotic dsDNA viruses including the proposed order "Megavirales" that unites diverse families of large and giant viruses. Strikingly, evolution of all classes of eukaryotic viruses appears to have involved fusion between structural and replicative gene modules derived from different sources along with additional acquisitions of diverse genes. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Virology 03/2015; 479–480:2-25. DOI:10.1016/j.virol.2015.02.039 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Their importance for gene expression is obvious, but their evolutionary origin was and still is a contested field of research. A widely accepted scenario posits that introns invaded the eukaryotic genome early, likely upon emergence of the eukaryotic cell itself [65]. Key players in this invasion were group II introns, which have been suggested to have entered the nucleus from mitochondria: the " mitochondrial seed " hypothesis (Fig. 1; [76]). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: During the evolution of eukaryotic genomes, many genes have been interrupted by intervening sequences (introns) that must be removed post-transcriptionally from RNA precursors to form mRNAs ready for translation. The origin of nuclear introns is still under debate, but one hypothesis is that the spliceosome and the intron-exon structure of genes have evolved from bacterial-type group II introns that invaded the eukaryotic genomes. The group II introns were most likely introduced into the eukaryotic genome from a α-proteobacterial predecessor of mitochondria early during the endosymbiosis event. These self-splicing and mobile introns spread through the eukaryotic genome and later degenerated. Pieces of introns became part of the general splicing machinery we know today as the spliceosome. In addition, group II introns likely brought intron maturases with them to the nucleus. Maturases are found in most bacterial introns, where they act as highly specific splicing factors for group II introns. In the spliceosome, the core protein Prp8 shows homology to group II intron-encoded maturases. While maturases are entirely intron specific, their descendant of the spliceosomal machinery, the Prp8 protein, is an extremely versatile splicing factor with multiple interacting proteins and RNAs. How could such a general player in spliceosomal splicing evolve from the monospecific bacterial maturases? Analysis of the organellar splicing machinery in plants may give clues on the evolution of nuclear splicing.
    Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics 01/2015; 1847(9). DOI:10.1016/j.bbabio.2015.01.009 · 4.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Although none of the analyzed bacterial genomes contained a complete Ub toolkit, many bacteria were found to possess signaling systems that employ JAB peptidases, and E1 and E2 enzymes akin to the ones acting in ubiquitination (Iyer et al. 2006; Hochstrasser 2009; Humbard et al. 2010). These bacterial homologs act in functional contexts unrelated to protein labeling, such as molybdopterin and thyamin biosynthesis (ThiF E1) and siderophora biosynthesis (JAB) (Iyer et al. 2006; Koonin 2006). We also found F-box, U-box, and DUB enzymes in a few genomes of obligate intracellular parasitic bacteria, such as Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Legionella pneumophila, Candidatus Amoebophilus asiaticus, or various Chlamydiae, probably as a result of independent horizontal gene transfer (HGT) events (Koonin et al. 2001; Spallek et al. 2009; Schmitz- Esser et al. 2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The origin of the eukaryotic cell is one of the most important transitions in the history of life. However, the emergence and early evolution of eukaryotes remains poorly understood. Recent data have shown that the last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA) was much more complex than previously thought. The LECA already had the genetic machinery encoding the endomembrane apparatus, spliceosome, nuclear pore, and myosin and kinesin cytoskeletal motors. It is unclear, however, when the functional regulation of these cellular components evolved. Here, we address this question by analysing the origin and evolution of the ubiquitin signalling system, one of the most important regulatory layers in eukaryotes. We delineated the evolution of the whole ubiquitin, SUMO and Ufm1 signalling networks by analysing representatives from all major eukaryotic, bacterial and archaeal lineages. We found that the ubiquitin toolkit had a pre-eukaryotic origin and is present in three extant archaeal groups. The pre-eukaryotic ubiquitin toolkit greatly expanded during eukaryogenesis, through massive gene innovation and diversification of protein domain architectures. This resulted in a LECA with essentially all of the ubiquitin-related genes, including the SUMO and Ufm1 ubiquitin-like systems. Ubiquitin and SUMO signalling further expanded during eukaryotic evolution, especially labelling and de-labelling enzymes responsible for substrate selection. Additionally, we analysed protein domain architecture evolution and found that multicellular lineages have the most complex ubiquitin systems in terms of domain architectures. Together, we demonstrate that the ubiquitin system predates the origin of eukaryotes and that a burst of innovation during eukaryogenesis led to a LECA with complex post-translational regulation. © The Author(s) 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution.
    Molecular Biology and Evolution 11/2014; DOI:10.1093/molbev/msu334 · 14.31 Impact Factor
Show more

Preview (2 Sources)

Download
4 Downloads
Available from