Koonin Eugene V
National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA.
Biol Direct. 2006 Aug 14;1:22. doi: 10.1186/1745-6150-1-22.
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.
自真核生物中发现“断裂基因”和mRNA剪接以来,剪接体内含子的起源和进化一直是在“内含子早现”与“内含子晚现”之争的概念框架内进行探讨。“内含子早现”假说与所谓的基因进化外显子理论紧密相连,该假说认为,即使在生命进化的最初阶段,蛋白质编码基因就已被众多内含子打断,并且内含子通过促进编码小蛋白质/肽模块的序列重组,在蛋白质起源过程中发挥了主要作用。在这种情况下,原核生物中不存在剪接体内含子被认为是“基因组精简”的结果。“内含子晚现”假说则反驳称,剪接体内含子仅出现在真核生物中,而且在真核生物的整个进化过程中不断插入到蛋白质编码基因中。除了形式上的困境之外,这场争论更重要的方面涉及内含子在真核生物进化中的可能作用。
我认为,目前有几条证据表明对“内含子早现”与“内含子晚现”之争有一个连贯的解决方案,内含子进化的新图景整合了两种观点的各个方面,尽管从形式上看,似乎没有证据支持原始版本的“内含子早现”。首先,越来越多的证据表明,剪接体内含子是从II类自我剪接内含子进化而来的,II类自我剪接内含子通常少量存在于许多细菌中,并且可能从线粒体的α-变形菌祖先转移到正在进化的真核生物基因组中。其次,“类病毒”遗传元件原始库的概念意味着自我剪接内含子是最古老的遗传实体之一。第三,对真核生物基因祖先状态的重建表明,现存真核生物的最后一个共同祖先拥有一个富含内含子的基因组。因此,似乎剪接体内含子的祖先确实自生命进化的最早阶段就已存在,这在形式上与“内含子早现”的情况一致。然而,没有证据表明这些古老的内含子在真核生物出现之前曾经广泛存在,因此,“内含子早现”的核心原则,即内含子在蛋白质早期进化中的作用,没有得到支持。然而,有证据表明,在真核生物进化开始时,大量内含子侵入真核生物基因,并且在许多真核生物谱系中,随后的内含子获得是有限的,这意味着内含子是真核生物基因组的一个祖先特征,并反驳了极端版本的“内含子晚现”。也许,最重要的是,我认为内含子的侵入引发了真核生物起源的其他关键事件,包括剪接体、细胞核、线性染色体、端粒酶和泛素信号系统的出现。从某种意义上说,这种真核生物起源的概念通过赋予内含子在真核生物进化创新中的关键作用,复兴了外显子假说的一些原则。
与比较基因组学结果和理论考量最相符的内含子起源和进化情况如下:自生命进化的最早阶段就存在自我剪接内含子——在真核生物起源过程中,大量剪接体内含子侵入新兴真核生物的基因——随后是谱系特异性的内含子丢失和获得。可能由线粒体共生体引发的内含子侵入,可能对真核细胞主要特征的出现起到了关键作用。这种情况结合了“内含子早现”和“内含子晚现”观点的各个方面。
本文由W. Ford Doolittle、James Darnell(由W. Ford Doolittle提名)、William Martin和Anthony Poole审阅。