Abstract
Patterns of evolution in immune defense genes help to understand the evolutionary dynamics between hosts and pathogens. Multiple insect genomes have been sequenced, with many of them having annotated immune genes, which paves the way for a comparative genomic analysis of insect immunity. In this review, I summarize the current state of comparative and evolutionary genomics of insect innate immune defense. The focus is on the conserved and divergent components of immunity with an emphasis on gene family evolution and evolution at the sequence level; both population genetics and molecular evolution frameworks are considered.
Keywords: Toll, Imd, AMP, gene family evolution, positive selection
Introduction
In defense against pathogens, insects rely mainly on their innate immune system. In addition, many insects are better protected against a specific pathogen on recurrent encounter, even though insects do not have adaptive immunity such as the somatic recombination of antibody encoding genes used by vertebrates [e.g. 1, 2]. Functional studies in Drosophila have elucidated the details of insect immunity. The core of the inducible immune response builds on two signaling pathways, Toll and Imd [3]. The Toll pathway has a dual function, being central in developmental processes, whereas Imd functions exclusively in immunity. Toll and Imd pathways are interconnected and together work synergistically [4]. Both pathways form part of the humoral immune response that is triggered by the recognition of microbes and results, via multiphase signal transduction, in the secretion of antimicrobial peptides, lysozymes and other microbe-targeting substances. Cellular response is another component of insect immunity. Hemocytes participating in phagocytosis or encapsulation of foreign particles and activation of phenoloxidase cascade leading to melanization of macroparasites are the hallmarks of cellular response [5]. Multipurpose pathways JNK and JAK/STAT also contribute to immunity, and RNA interference is essential to viral defense [5].
A multitude of insect genomes have been sequenced and most of these genomes have annotated immune genes. The annotation has been facilitated by the development of databases such as ImmunoDB [6] and the Insect Innate Immunity Database [7]. These databases are excellent starting points for characterizing immunity genes in non-model species, but it should be noted that both databases rely on information derived from dipterans and, therefore, are to some extent restricted for immune gene identification. Studies of comparative genomics of insect immunity are rapidly accumulating. This review summarizes the current state of evolutionary genetics of insect immunity focusing on genetic components conserved across insect taxa and components that have diverged in terms of gene presence/absence, gene family evolution by copy-number changes and variation in nucleotide sequences.
The conserved pathways
Evolutionarily conserved components involved in a biological process typically are recognized by the presence of orthologous genes across wide taxonomical distribution (Tables 1 and 2). Single-copy orthologous genes have likely retained the same function even over long evolutionary timescales [6]. Newly sequenced insect genomes frequently have their immune genes annotated based on sequence homology to known genes from other species (Table 1). The fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster has long been the primary model species of insect immunity, and its immune genes have served as the principal catalog to search for homologs in other species. The first genome-level comparison of immune genes in D. melanogaster and the mosquito Anopheles gambiae indicated that both species have single-copy orthologous signal transduction genes characteristic to the central immune pathways Toll and Imd [8]. Since then, almost every insect with genome sequence accompanied by immune gene annotations has reported the presence of these two signaling pathways, and the complementary pathways JAK/STAT and JNK (Table 2). Exceptions are the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum and the body louse Pediculus humanus, which both lack most or some key genes of the Imd pathway, respectively [9, 10] (Table 2). It is noteworthy, that the homology-based approach is biased toward species that have been targets of elaborate functional studies, namely, Drosophila and Anopheles, which are both from the order Diptera. While the homology-based approach is valuable in detecting the strictly conserved components of immune response, it inevitably misses any new immune genes or pathways that a certain species might have [11]. It is also good to keep in mind that genes present in these model organisms may not exist in other species or may not share the same function.
Table 1.
Glossary of molecular evolution
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Homologous genes | Genes found in different species that have shared ancestry, includes both orthologous and paralogous genes. |
| Orthologous genes | Homologous genes in different species as a result of speciation. |
| Paralogous genes | Homologous genes that have duplicated within a genome. |
| Substitution | Mutation that has become fixed in a population, i.e. replaced all other nucleotide variants at the same position. |
| Nonsynonymous substitution | Fixed mutation in protein-coding sequence that results in amino acid change. |
| Synonymous substitution | Fixed mutation in protein-coding sequence that does not alter the amino acid. |
Table 2.
Summary of immune genes across selected insect orders. Information on immune gene contents were obtained from [6, 8–26]
| Coleoptera |
Diptera |
Hemiptera |
Hymenoptera |
Lepidoptera |
Odonata | Phthiraptera | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gene function | Pathway | Gene | T. mol | T. cas | A. gam | D. mel | A. pis | N. lug | A. mel | N. vit | L. hum | B. mor | M. sex | C. pue | P. hum |
| Recognition | C-type lectin | 12a | 16 | 25 | 34 | 5 | 9 | 10 | 31 | 12 | 21 | 4 | ? | 9 | |
| Dscam | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 1 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Eater | ? | ? | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ? | ? | ? | ||
| GNBPsb | 3 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | ||
| PGRPs | 6 | 7 | 11 | 13 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 6 | 12 | 10 | 4 | 1 | ||
| TEPs | 3 | 4 | 13 | 10 | 2 | ? | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | ||
| Signaling | Toll | Spätzle | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 2 | 9 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Toll | 2 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 9 | 6 | 14 | 1 | 3 | 6 | ||
| MyD88 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| tube | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ? | 1 | ||
| pelle | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| cactus | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| dorsal | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Signaling | Imd | imd | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| FADD | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ? | 0 | ||
| Dredd | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| IAP2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| TAK1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Tab2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| IKKβ/ird5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| IKKγ/key | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ? | ||
| Relish | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Signaling | JAK/STAT | domeless | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| hopscotch (JAK) | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Stat92E | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Signaling | JNK | JNK/basket | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| hemipterous | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Jra/Jun | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Effector | defensin | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | ? | ? | 2 | |
| other AMPs | 11 | 8 | 5 | 19 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 39 | 5 | 21 | 19 | ? | 0 | ||
| lysozyme | 4 | 4 | 8 | 17 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | ? | |||
| NOS | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ? | |||
| Modulator | cSP | 19 | 48 | 59 | 47 | 6 | 12 | 18 | 13 | 8 | 15 | 6 | ? | 6 | |
| serpin | 6 | 31 | 21 | 30 | 14 | 9 | 7 | 12 | 7 | 26 | 12 | ? | 16 | ||
| Melanization | PPO | 2 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 2 | ? | 1 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ? | 1 | |
| RNA interference | Ago-2 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | ? | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ? | |
| Dcr-2 | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | ? | ? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ? | ||
aNumbers in italics indicate they are derived from transcriptome data because genome sequence for that species is not published.
bThis category involves also genes encoding β-glucan binding proteins (βGBPs).
Question marks indicate that this gene/gene family has not been reported in the insect's genome but does not necessarily imply its absence in the genome.
The divergent components
The raw materials of evolution are mutations, such as gene gain, gene loss and single nucleotide changes that alter the protein-coding sequence. In the long term, only mutations that are fixed in a species are relevant. A fixed mutation, or in other words substitution, may occur by chance (neutral evolution) or be driven by selection (Table 1). Positive selection is the type of selection leading to fixation of advantageous mutations (directional selection), maintained polymorphism (balancing selection) or the persistence of a recently duplicated gene, whereas deleterious mutations and harmful gene duplicates are removed by purifying selection (Box 1). Evolution of immune genes is dominated by expansions and contractions of gene families and the host–pathogen arms race is driven by positive selection, including both directional and balancing selection.
Box 1. Types of selection.
Inference of natural selection is based on the neutral theory of molecular evolution [27, 28], whereby most nucleotide substitutions are assumed to be selectively neutral and random genetic drift is the major evolutionary force driving mutations to extinction or fixation. The neutral theory provides the null hypothesis against which alternative hypotheses of positive or purifying selection can be tested. Positive selection is inferred when more amino acid changes have taken place than would be expected for neutral sites; conversely, fewer changes than expected are likely the result of purifying selection. Nucleotide substitutions that lead to deleterious amino acid changes typically are pruned rapidly and thus do not contribute to polymorphism within species or divergence between species.
Gene family evolution
The prominent mode of evolution in immune gene families is birth-and-death evolution [29]. New genes are born by gene duplication, and some gene family members are lost by the accumulation of detrimental mutations. Christophides et al. (2002) put forth a hypothesis according to which immune genes adapt, are lost, or duplicate and then diversify to meet new ecological and physiological requirements. A detailed comparative study of immune genes in D. melanogaster and the mosquitoes Aedes aegypti and A. gambiae showed that gene families vary in the degree of diversification measured as the proportion of single-copy orthologs and species- or lineage-specific paralogs [6, 30] (Table 1). Signaling genes are mostly present as single-copy orthologs and evolve in concert, i.e. show similar levels of divergence, most likely to maintain functionality of the pathways [6]. Gene family expansions are extensive in the categories of recognition and modulator proteins, and the expansions may be species- or lineage-specific [6]. The observation of large gene families and family size variation due to birth–death dynamics within the recognition and modulator gene categories applies also to a wider taxonomical sample (Table 2).
Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are short cationic molecules that can be classified into families on the basis of their protein structure and/or amino acid composition [31]. AMPs have undergone extensive gene duplication and loss as well as exon duplication and exon shuffling [11, 17, 32, 33]. As a result, AMPs in insects show lineage specificity both in copy numbers within a gene family and the presence/absence of an entire gene family [6, 13]. For example, the coleoptericin family of AMPs is present only in the order Coleoptera [34] and Drosomycin family in certain Drosophila [13]; the gene family comprising defensins is the only one present in all insect orders studied thus far (Table 2). Because of lineage specificity and the potential of sequence divergence to rapidly erode signals of homology, particularly within a short sequence, the identification of novel AMPs in a newly sequenced genome is challenging. Tian et al. (2010) used an integrated computational approach to uncover 44 AMPs in the Nasonia vitripennis genome, which is the largest repertoire of AMPs reported thus far in an insect. The AMP content of N. vitripennis might be even larger, as Sackton et al. (2013) found 14 additional proteins that have the characteristics of AMPs. Moreover, the transcriptome of infected Drosophila virilis yielded five putative novel AMPs [35]. In conclusion, homology-based identification is not expected to be a fruitful method to characterize AMPs across many insect taxa but thorough computational and functional approaches are required.
Immune function has been well characterized for AMPs and pattern recognition proteins in several insect species. For other immune gene families, the comparison of gene numbers only between different insect species and drawing conclusions based on that is problematic for three reasons. First, all of the members of a gene family may not have been identified [36]. Second, it is not always known if all the gene family members have an immune function, as sequence similarity per se is not sufficient to infer conserved function [37], and there is evidence that the function of apparently homologous genes (based on their sequence) may vary between closely related species [38]. Third, similar copy numbers do not necessarily imply that there is comparable immunocompetence, as the nucleotide sequence divergence among different family members may result in different functional properties of the encoded proteins [30].
Evolution at the sequence level
Immune genes are a classic example of genes in which positive selection is expected to occur [39–41]. Microbes are capable of rapid evolution to evade the host immune system, creating a selection pressure on the host to evolve counteradaptations. Typically, some inference about the level of historic positive selection uses the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous substitution rates (dN/dS, Table 1). The most commonly used methods rely on codon substitution models that allow variation in the intensity of selection among codon sites within a gene [42, 43]. Nucleotide sequence comparisons are valid only between relatively closely related species because of saturation, the accumulation of multiple mutations in a nucleotide site that obscures true level of evolutionary divergence. This places limits on the taxonomical breadth of species that can be sampled for comparative genomic studies. Of course, caution should be exercised also when applying dN/dS as a measure of selection to closely related species, as shared and lineage-specific polymorphisms may bias the estimate [44]. Recent and/or ongoing selection regimes, as well as balancing selection, can be tested using population genetic approaches based on allele frequencies [45].
The first comprehensive genome-level molecular evolutionary study of insect immunity used genome data of six D. melanogaster group species and discovered that immune genes evolve at a faster rate (measured as the dN/dS ratio) than nonimmune genes [13]. While a faster rate of evolution does not necessarily imply positive selection, this was a likely explanation in D. melanogaster, as Sackton et al. (2007) also observed a significantly higher proportion of positively selected genes in the immunity category compared with all other nonimmunity protein-coding genes. There has been an indication of rapid evolution in a small subset of immune genes in ants and bees, but evidence for positive selection only in one ant gene [46]. Such rapid evolution could be attributed to either positive selection or relaxed purifying selection. The latter scenario was supported in a population genetic study of Toll pathway genes in honeybees [47], whereas the former scenario was supported in a recent genome-wide scan for positive selection in ants and bees [48]. The study by Roux et al. (2014) used gene ontology annotation, and several categories with immunity-related functions were enriched for positively selected genes.
Based on the Drosophila study, microbial recognition genes have been affected strongly by positive selection [13]. In all, 9 of the 10 recognition genes affected by selection participate in phagocytosis, with TepI found to be positively selected in several population genetic studies of closely related Drosophila species and in A. gambiae [49–52]. Peptidoglycan recognition proteins (PGRPs) and gram-negative bacteria-binding proteins (GNBPs) recognize microbial surface structures and some of them act upstream of the Toll and Imd signaling pathways. Positive selection on different PGRPs has been reported in ants (PGRP-S) and Drosophila (PGRP-LC and PGRP-LD), whereas selection on GNBPs has been found only in termites [13, 46, 51, 53]. It is notable that several short PGRPs (PGRP-S) have experienced purifying selection in Drosophila [54]. The inconsistent results regarding selection on PGRPs and GNBPs suggest that these groups of genes are not common targets of host–pathogen coevolution across insects, but may rather be involved in bouts of lineage-specific arms races. Moreover, the differences between the studies may result from the application of different statistical tests based on either (i) models of molecular evolution that operate on long timescale or (ii) population genetic models that consider shorter timescale.
The overall pattern of evolution in signal transduction genes does not show signs of positive selection in Drosophila [13]. Supporting this, a network analysis of immune signaling pathways in Drosophila found purifying selection as the predominant mode of evolution, and that this effect was greatest on the downstream components [55]. However, lineage-specific positive selection has been detected in several genes along the Imd pathway in certain Drosophila species [13, 51, 56]. Of these, the transcription factor Relish has been identified as under strong positive selection in termites also [53]. In both Drosophila and termites, the selected sites were located in the caspase cleavage site that is required to activate Relish [13, 53]. This is an interesting example of pathogen-driven positive selection on a protein with no direct interaction with microbes.
In Diptera, there is little evidence of positive selection in AMPs [13, 41, 51, 57, 58], with the only documented case being in gambicin of A. gambiae [59]. In other insects, positive selection has been found in ant and termite defensins [60–62]. However, in another study, three AMPs, abaecin and defensin in ants and hymenoptaecin and defensin in honeybees, did not show signs of positive selection [46]. The widespread lack of positive selection in a class of genes where it intuitively should be detected has been explained by the difficulty of microbes to evolve resistance to an arsenal of AMPs with distinct activities expressed in a single insect host [63]. Instead, selection may operate at functional level, for example, in boosting the expression of AMPs [13].
In insects, the evolution of genes involved in viral defense has been thus far studied only in Drosophila and A. aegypti. Several genes of the RNA interference pathway show strong positive selection as a signature of host–pathogen arms races [51, 64–67]. Similar to studies of viral defense genes, evolutionary studies of cellular defense genes are still scarce. Nonetheless, one interesting example in Drosophila is the rapid and adaptive evolution of a gene that is induced on parasitic wasp attack [68].
In summary, molecular evolution and population genetics of insect immunity in non-model insects remain an understudied research field. More studies are needed to better understand the evolutionary dynamics between hosts and pathogens. For example, is it a general phenomenon that microbes exert the strongest selective pressure on recognition components of the immune system, as we see in Drosophila? Moreover, it is of primary importance to validate the immune function of candidate genes and characterize new immune components in non-model organisms. RNA-seq has already been successfully used for this purpose in several insects [10, 19–22, 24, 25].
Key points.
Toll and Imd signaling pathways are well conserved across taxonomically wide distribution of insects.
AMPs are the most labile component of insect immunity showing rapid gene birth–death dynamics and lineage-specific gene families.
Immune genes and especially recognition genes arefrequently targets of positive selection driven by host–pathogen arms races.
Homology-based annotation is useful but to some extent restricted approach to find immune-related genes in a newly sequenced genome.
Novel immune genes have been found in many insects and should be looked for in future research.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Pekka Pamilo and Phillip Watts for helpful comments on the manuscript.
Biography
Lumi Viljakainen is a postdoctoral researcher at the Genetics and Physiology Unit, University of Oulu, Finland. Her research focuses on evolutionary and functional genomics of immunity in social insects, particularly ants.
Funding
This work was supported by the Academy of Finland (grant no. 260147).
References
- 1.Pham LN, Dionne MS, Shirasu-Hiza M, et al. A specific primed immune response in Drosophila is dependent on phagocytes. PLoS Pathog 2007;3:e26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mikonranta L, Mappes J, Kaukoniitty M, et al. Insect immunity: oral exposure to a bacterial pathogen elicits free radical response and protects from a recurring infection. Front Zool 2014;11:23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ferrandon D, Imler JL, Hetru C, et al. The Drosophila systemic immune response: sensing and signalling during bacterial and fungal infections. Nat Rev Immunol 2007;7:862–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Tanji T, Hu X, Weber AN, et al. Toll and IMD pathways synergistically activate an innate immune response in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Cell Biol 2007;27:4578–88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Lemaitre B, Hoffmann J. The host defense of Drosophila melanogaster. Annu Rev Immunol 2007;25:697–743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Waterhouse RM, Kriventseva EV, Meister S, et al. Evolutionary dynamics of immune-related genes and pathways in disease-vector mosquitoes. Science 2007;316:1738–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Brucker RM, Funkhouser LJ, Setia S, et al. Insect innate immunity database (IIID): An annotation tool for identifying immune genes in insect genomes. PLoS One 2012;7:e45125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Christophides GK, Zdobnov E, Barillas-Mury C, et al. Immunity-related genes and gene families in Anopheles gambiae. Science 2002;298:159–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Gerardo NM, Altincicek B, Anselme C, et al. Immunity and other defenses in pea aphids, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Genome Biol 2010;11:R21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kim JH, Min JS, Kang JS, et al. Comparison of the humoral and cellular immune responses between body and head lice following bacterial challenge. Insect Biochem Mol 2011;41:332–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Sackton TB, Werren JH, Clark AG. Characterizing the infection-induced transcriptome of Nasonia vitripennis reveals a preponderance of taxonomically-restricted immune genes. PLoS One 2013;8:e83984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Evans JD, Aronstein K, Chen YP, et al. Immune pathways and defence mechanisms in honey bees Apis mellifera. Insect Mol Biol 2006;15:645–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Sackton TB, Lazzaro BP, Schlenke TA, et al. Dynamic evolution of the innate immune system in Drosophila. Nat Genet 2007;39:1461–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Zou Z, Evans JD, Lu Z, et al. Comparative genomic analysis of the Tribolium immune system. Genome Biol 2007;8:R177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Tanaka H, Ishibashi J, Fujita K, et al. A genome-wide analysis of genes and gene families involved in innate immunity of Bombyx mori. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 2008;38:1087–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Werren JH, Richards S, Desjardins CA, et al. Functional and evolutionary insights from the genomes of three parasitoid Nasonia species. Science 2010;327:343–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Tian C, Gao B, Fang Q, et al. Antimicrobial peptide-like genes in Nasonia vitripennis: a genomic perspective. BMC Genomics 2010;11:187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Smith CD, Zimin A, Holt C, et al. Draft genome of the globally widespread and invasive Argentine ant (Linepithema humile). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;108:5673–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Zhang S, Gunaratna RT, Zhang X, et al. Pyrosequencing-based expression profiling and identification of differentially regulated genes from Manduca sexta, a lepidopteran model insect. Insect Biochem Mol 2011;41:733–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Gunaratna RT, Jiang H. A comprehensive analysis of the Manduca sexta immunotranscriptome. Dev Comp Immunol 2013;39:388–98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Altincicek B, Elashry A, Guz N, et al. Next generation sequencing based transcriptome analysis of septic-injury responsive genes in the beetle Tribolium castaneum. PLoS One 2013;8:e52004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Bao YY, Qu LY, Zhao D, et al. The genome- and transcriptome-wide analysis of innate immunity in the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens. BMC Genomics 2013;14:160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Garver LS, de Almeida Oliveira G, Barillas-Mury C. The JNK pathway is a key mediator of Anopheles gambiae antiplasmodial immunity. PLoS Pathog 2013;9:e1003622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Johnston PR, Rolff J. Immune-and wound-dependent differential gene expression in an ancient insect. Dev Comp Immunol 2013;40:320–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Johnston PR, Makarova O, Rolff J. Inducible defenses stay up late: temporal patterns of immune gene expression in Tenebrio molitor. G3 2014;4:947–55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Simola DF, Wissler L, Donahue G, et al. Social insect genomes exhibit dramatic evolution in gene composition and regulation while preserving regulatory features linked to sociality. Genome Res 2013;23:1235–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kimura M. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 1968;217:624–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.King JL, Jukes TH. Non-Darwinian evolution. Science 1969;164:788–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Nei M, Rooney AP. Concerted and birth-and-death evolution of multigene families. Annu Rev Genet 2005;39:121–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Kafatos F, Waterhouse R, Zdobnov E, et al. Comparative genomics of insect immunity. In: Rolff J, Reynolds SE. (eds). Insect Infection and Immunity: Evolution, Ecology, and Mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 86–105. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Bulet P, Hetru C, Dimarcq JL, et al. Antimicrobial peptides in insects, structure and function. Dev Comp Immunol 1999;23:329–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Tennessen J. Molecular evolution of animal antimicrobial peptides: widespread moderate positive selection. J Evol Biol 2005;18:1387–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Froy O, Gurevitz M. Arthropod and mollusk defensins—evolution by exon-shuffling. Trends Genet 2003;19:684–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Bulet P, Cociancich S, Dimarcq JL, et al. Insect immunity. Isolation from a coleopteran insect of a novel inducible antibacterial peptide and of new members of the insect defensin family. J Biol Chem 1991;266:24520–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Sackton TB, Clark AG. Comparative profiling of the transcriptional response to infection in two species of Drosophila by short-read cDNA sequencing. BMC Genomics 2009;10:259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Fawal N, Li Q, Mathé C, et al. Automatic multigenic family annotation: risks and solutions. Trends Genet 2014;30:323–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Radivojac P, Clark WT, Oron TR, et al. A large-scale evaluation of computational protein function prediction. Nat Methods 2013;10:221–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Morandin C, Havukainen H, Kulmuni J, et al. Not only for egg yolk-functional and evolutionary insights from expression, selection, and structural analyses of Formica ant vitellogenins. Mol Biol Evol 2014;31:2181–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Hughes AL, Ota T, Nei M. Positive Darwinian selection promotes charge profile diversity in the antigen-binding cleft of class I major-histocompatibility-complex molecules. Mol Biol Evol 1990;7:515–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Bishop JG, Dean AM, Mitchell-Olds T. Rapid evolution in plant chitinases: molecular targets of selection in plant-pathogen coevolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000;97:5322–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Schlenke TA, Begun DJ. Natural selection drives Drosophila immune system evolution. Genetics 2003;164:1471–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Nielsen R, Yang Z. Likelihood models for detecting positively selected amino acid sites and applications to the HIV-1 envelope gene. Genetics 1998;148:929–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Pond SK, Muse SV. Site-to-site variation of synonymous substitution rates. Mol Biol Evol 2005;22:2375–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Mugal CF, Wolf JB, Kaj I. Why time matters: codon evolution and the temporal dynamics of dN/dS. Mol Biol Evol 2014;31:212–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Nielsen R. Molecular signatures of natural selection. Annu Rev Genet 2005;39:197–218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Viljakainen L, Evans JD, Hasselmann M, et al. Rapid evolution of immune proteins in social insects. Mol Biol Evol 2009;26:1791–801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Harpur BA, Zayed A. Accelerated evolution of innate immunity proteins in social insects: adaptive evolution or relaxed constraint? Mol Biol Evol 2013;30:1665–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Roux J, Privman E, Moretti S, et al. Patterns of positive selection in seven ant genomes. Mol Biol Evol 2014;31:1661–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Jiggins FM, Kim K. Contrasting evolutionary patterns in Drosophila immune receptors. J Mol Evol 2006;63:769–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Obbard DJ, Callister DM, Jiggins FM, et al. The evolution of TEP1, an exceptionally polymorphic immunity gene in Anopheles gambiae. BMC Evol Biol 2008;8:274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Obbard DJ, Welch JJ, Kim K, et al. Quantifying adaptive evolution in the Drosophila immune system. PLoS Genet 2009;5:e1000698. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.White BJ, Lawniczak MK, Cheng C, et al. Adaptive divergence between incipient species of Anopheles gambiae increases resistance to Plasmodium. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;108:244–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Bulmer MS, Crozier RH. Variation in positive selection in termite GNBPs and Relish. Mol Biol Evol 2006;23:317–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Jiggins FM, Hurst GDD. The evolution of parasite recognition genes in the innate immune system: purifying selection on Drosophila melanogaster peptidoglycan recognition proteins. J Mol Evol 2003;57:598–605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Han M, Qin S, Song X, et al. Evolutionary rate patterns of genes involved in the Drosophila Toll and Imd signaling pathway. BMC Evol Biol 2013;13:245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Begun DJ, Whitley P. Adaptive evolution of relish, a Drosophila NF-kappaB/IkappaB protein. Genetics 2000;154:1231–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Lazzaro BP, Clark AG. Molecular population genetics of inducible antibacterial peptide genes in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Biol Evol 2003;20:914–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Jiggins FM, Kim KW. The evolution of antifungal peptides in Drosophila. Genetics 2005;171:1847–59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Lehmann T, Hume JCC, Licht M, et al. Molecular evolution of immune genes in the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae. PLoS One 2009;4:e4549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Bulmer MS, Crozier RH. Duplication and diversifying selection among termite antifungal peptides. Mol Biol Evol 2004;21:2256–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Viljakainen L, Pamilo P. Selection on an antimicrobial peptide defensin in ants. J Mol Evol 2008;67:643–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Bulmer MS, Lay F, Hamilton C. Adaptive evolution in subterranean termite antifungal peptides. Insect Mol Biol 2010;19:669–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Lazzaro BP. Natural selection on the Drosophila antimicrobial immune system. Curr Opin Microbiol 2008;11:284–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Obbard DJ, Jiggins FM, Halligan DL, et al. Natural selection drives extremely rapid evolution in antiviral RNAi genes. Curr Biol 2006;16:580–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Obbard DJ, Gordon KH, Buck AH, et al. The evolution of RNAi as a defence against viruses and transposable elements. Philos Trans R Soc B 2009;364:99–115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Obbard DJ, Jiggins FM, Bradshaw NJ, et al. Recent and recurrent selective sweeps of the antiviral RNAi gene Argonaute-2 in three species of Drosophila. Mol Biol Evol 2011;28:1043–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Bernhardt SA, Simmons MP, Olson KE, et al. Rapid intraspecific evolution of miRNA and siRNA genes in the mosquito Aedes aegypti. PLoS One 2012;7:e44198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Keebaugh ES, Schlenke TA. Adaptive evolution of a novel Drosophila lectin induced by parasitic wasp attack. Mol Biol Evol 2012;29:565–77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]