Abstract
MicroRNAs are small (∼22 nt) noncoding RNAs that repress translation and therefore regulate the production of proteins from specific target mRNAs. microRNAs have been found to function in diverse aspects of gene regulation within animal development and many other processes. Among invertebrates, both conserved and novel, lineage specific, microRNAs have been extensively studied predominantly in holometabolous insects such as Drosophila melanogaster . However little is known about microRNA repertoires in other arthropod lineages such as the chelicerates. To understand the evolution of microRNAs in this poorly sampled subphylum, we characterized the microRNA repertoire expressed during embryogenesis of the common house spider Parasteatoda tepidariorum . We identified a total of 148 microRNAs in P. tepidariorum representing 66 families. Approximately half of these microRNA families are conserved in other metazoans, while the remainder are specific to this spider. Of the 35 conserved microRNAs families 15 had at least two copies in the P. tepidariorum genome. A BLAST-based approach revealed a similar pattern of duplication in other spiders and a scorpion, but not among other chelicerates and arthropods, with the exception of a horseshoe crab. Among the duplicated microRNAs we found examples of lineage-specific tandem duplications, and the duplication of entire microRNA clusters in three spiders, a scorpion, and in a horseshoe crab. Furthermore, we found that paralogs of many P. tepidariorum microRNA families exhibit arm switching, which suggests that duplication was often followed by sub- or neofunctionalization. Our work shows that understanding the evolution of microRNAs in the chelicerates has great potential to provide insights into the process of microRNA duplication and divergence and the evolution of animal development.
Keywords: Parasteatoda tepidariorum, spiders, Cheliceratal, microRNA, gene duplication, arm usage
Introduction
MicroRNAs are a class of small noncoding RNAs that fine-tune gene expression by repressing translation of targeted mRNAs ( Bartel 2004 ; Eichhorn et al. 2014 ). Perturbed microRNA function in metazoans has been shown to disrupt diverse developmental processes such as embryonic survival and viability ( Chen et al. 2014 ), stem cell proliferation ( Hatfield et al. 2005 ), metamorphosis in insects ( Sokol et al. 2008 ; Ambros 2011 ), organ development ( Chen et al. 2014 ), and vertebral number and identity ( Wong et al. 2015 ). Moreover, variation in microRNA function has become increasingly associated with the evolution of cellular differentiation, morphological complexity, and even multicellularity ( Heimberg et al. 2008 ; Peterson et al. 2009 ; Wheeler et al. 2009 ; Campo-Paysaa et al. 2011 ; Chen et al. 2012 ; Guerra-Assunção and Enright 2012 ; Arif et al. 2013 ; Fromm et al. 2013 ; Tarver et al. 2015 ).
The current understanding of canonical microRNA biogenesis in metazoans is that the microRNA primary transcript folds into a hairpin structure that is cleaved by the endonuclease Drosha forming the so-called precursor microRNA hairpin (pre-microRNA). Pre-microRNAs are then exported to the cytoplasm, where they are further cleaved by Dicer to produce a double stranded RNA molecule ( Bartel 2004 ; Chendrimada et al. 2005 ). One of the two RNA strands is subsequently loaded into the RNA-Induced Silencing Complex (RISC) ( Gong et al. 2014 ; Guennewig et al. 2014 ). The mature microRNA guides the RISC to specific mRNAs through complementary binding to regions in their 3′-UTRs. Once bound, the miRISC represses translation by destabilizing the mRNA, repressing binding of translation initiation factors, and can lead to the degradation of transcripts ( Bartel 2004 ; Chendrimada et al. 2005 ; Kawamata et al. 2011 ; Juvvuna et al. 2012 ; Eichhorn et al. 2014 : Fukaya et al. 2014 ).
Normally, one of the two arms of a microRNA hairpin is preferentially incorporated into the RISC. However, some pre-microRNAs can generate two functional products, one from each arm, which normally target different mRNA repertoires ( Marco, Macpherson, et al 2012 ; Gong et al. 2014 ; Guennewig et al. 2014 ). This mode of processing has been found to play a role in cell differentiation ( Zhou et al. 2010 ) and disease progression ( Pink et al. 2015 ). Moreover, for several microRNAs, it has been observed that differences have evolved between insects with respect to which arm of a conserved pre-microRNA is dominantly loaded into the RISC ( Marco et al. 2010 ; Griffiths-Jones et al. 2011 ). This evolutionary change is likely to have altered the target repertoires of these microRNAs between species, which is predicted to lead to different functional consequences because the two mature products from the precursor microRNA have different sequences and are therefore expected bind to distinct recognition sites and different mRNA targets ( Marco, Macpherson, et al. 2012 ).
Comparative studies in animals such as vertebrates ( Heimberg et al. 2010 ; Field et al. 2014 ; Fromm et al. 2015 ), arthropods ( Campbell et al. 2011 ; Rota-Stabelli et al. 2011 ; Wiegmann et al. 2011 ), flatworms ( Fromm et al. 2013 ), and annelids ( Helm et al. 2012 ) have contributed greatly to our knowledge of microRNA function and evolution ( Hatfield et al. 2005 ; Okamura et al. 2008 ; Marco et al. 2010 , 2013 ; Griffiths-Jones et al. 2011 ; Chen et al. 2014 ; Marco, 2014 ; Mohammed, Bortolamiol-Becet, et al. 2014 ; Mohammed, Siepel, et al. 2014 ; Yang et al. 2014 ). However, our current understanding of microRNA evolution in arthropods is generally limited to hexapod lineages.
The Chelicerata subphylum, which diverged from the Mandibulata approximately 500 MYA, and includes morphologically diverse animals such as spiders, scorpions, mites, ticks, and horseshoe crabs, could provide new insights into the evolution of microRNAs in arthropods ( Dunlop 2010 ; Rota-Stabelli et al. 2011 , 2013 ; Sharma, Gupta, et al. 2014 ; Sharma, Kaluziak, et al. 2014 ; Schwager et al. 2015 ) ( supplementary fig. S1 , Supplementary Material online). However, to date, the characterization of microRNAs in chelicerates has been limited primarily to mites and ticks, representing a rather narrow sampling of this subphylum ( Barrero et al. 2011 ; Rota-Stabelli et al. 2011 ; Zhou et al. 2013,Liu et al. 2014 ; Luo et al. 2015 ). Therefore, we chose to survey microRNAs in the common house spider Parasteatoda tepidariorum (formerly Achaearanea tepidariorum ), which has emerged as the main model spider for evolutionary developmental biology ( Hilbrant et al. 2012 ) and thus offers the potential for future functional investigations. Studies in this spider have already made important contributions to understanding the regulation and evolution of axis formation, segmentation, and nervous system development ( McGregor et al. 2008 , Hilbrant et al. 2012 , Schwager et al. 2015 ). Moreover, sequencing of the transcriptome ( Posnien et al. 2014 ) and genome of P. tepidariorum (i5k Consortium, unpublished data) now facilitates genomic approaches to understanding gene regulation in this spider in comparison to other chelicerates and other arthropods.
Surveying the evolution of microRNAs in spiders is of a particular interest because, intriguingly, there is evidence of extensive gene duplications in spider genomes ( Schwager et al. 2007 ; Janssen et al. 2010 , 2015 ; Clarke et al. 2015 ; Turetzek et al. 2015 ). Furthermore, duplication of coding genes has also been found in other chelicerate species such as scorpions and horseshoe crabs ( Nossa et al. 2014 ; Sharma, Schwager, et al. 2014 ; Kenny et al. 2016 ; Sharma et al. 2015 ). It is therefore important to estimate copy numbers of microRNA families within P. tepidariorum and other chelicerates to determine if the patterns of protein-coding and microRNA gene duplication are similar.
In this study, we have used deep sequencing and informatics approaches to characterize the embryonic microRNA repertoire of P. tepidariorum , and used this resource to identify novel microRNAs as well as to determine putative paralogy and orthology relationships of the microRNAs of this spider with those of other chelicerates. We found that conserved microRNA orthologues show a signature of duplication in P. tepidariorum . We also found this pattern of duplication in two other spiders and a scorpion but not in the other arachnids (mites and ticks) surveyed. Interestingly, the horseshoe crab Limulus polyphemus also contains many duplicated microRNAs, but based on previous studies of the chelicerate phylogeny, these expansions are possibly independent of those we find in arachnids (discussed in Schwager et al. 2016 ). Interestingly, the paralogous P. tepidariorum microRNAs exhibit divergence in arm usage suggesting that they may have diversified in target gene repertoire and function, perhaps reflecting specific roles in the regulation of spider development.
Materials and Methods
Parasteatoda t epidariorum Culture and RNA Sequencing
Parasteatoda tepidariorum (from a strain collected in Göttingen, Germany) were raised at 25 °C and fed on a diet of Drosophila and Gryllodes sigillatus . Total RNA was extracted from the embryos of ten healthy cocoons, corresponding to stages 1–10 of embryogenesis in this spider ( Mittmann and Wolff 2012 ), using QIAzol (Qiagen) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Small RNA (∼15–30 nt) libraries were prepared with the Illumina TruSeq® Small RNA Sample Prep Kit according to the manufacturer’s instructions, and library quality was assessed on the 2200 TapeStation instrument. Size selection between 18 and 30 bp was performed by excision of RNA from a 6% DNA PAGE gel, 1 mm (Invitrogen). Sequencing was performed on the Illumina HiSeq 2000 platform at the University of Manchester Genomic Technologies facility, and yielded a total of 177,789,607 reads (100 bp). The raw read data have been deposited in the Sequence Read Archive, with accession PRJEB13119.
Analysis of Small RNA Sequencing Data and Identification of P. tepidariorum microRNAs
The raw read quality was confirmed using FastQC v0.11.2 ( Andrews, 2010 ), after which adapter sequences were trimmed using the Cutadapt v1.4.1 tool ( Martin 2011 ), and reads longer than 17 bp were retained. Reads were then mapped against the P. tepidariorum genome (GCA_000365465.1) using Bowtie v1.0.0 ( Langmead et al. 2009 ) with the parameters -n 0 -m 5 -a –best –strata, to best discern among reads from paralogous microRNAs. All mapped reads were analyzed using miRDeep2 v0.0.5 ( Friedländer et al. 2008 ) to predict microRNAs. To preliminarily identify orthologs, the predicted P. tepidariorum microRNAs hairpins were then compared against metazoan microRNA precursor sequences from miRBase v21 ( Kozomara and Griffiths-Jones 2014 ) using BLAST v2.2.28+ (BLASTn; -word_size 4; -reward 2; -penalty -3; -evalue 0.01; -perc_identity 70) ( Altschul et al. 1990 ). Predicted microRNAs that did not have significant sequence similarity to any other microRNA in miRBase were then manually inspected. Those that met the following criteria were discarded from the study: fewer than ten reads mapping to the locus; poorly defined Dicer processing sites, defined as less than 50% of reads for a given mature microRNA having the same five end; the predicted mature microRNA sequence had a BLAST hit to more than ten loci in the P. tepidariorum genome with two or fewer mismatches. Predicted paralogous microRNAs were aligned using Clustal-Omega ( Sievers et al. 2011 ) and then manually inspected in RALEE v0.8 ( Griffiths-Jones 2005 ).
Identification of P. tepidariorum microRNA Orthologs in Other Species
We searched for orthologs of all P. tepidariorum pre-microRNAs in the genomes of two other spiders ( Acanthoscurria geniculata —GCA_000661875.1 [ Sanggaard et al. 2014 ], Stegodyphus mimosarum —GCA_000611955.2 [ Sanggaard et al. 2014 ]), a scorpion ( Centruroides sculpturatus —GCA_000671375.1), four parasitiforms ( Ixodes scapularis —GCA_000208615.1 [ Lawson et al. 2009 ], Metaseiulus occidentalis —GCA_000255335.1 [ Hoy 2009 ], Rhipicephalus microplus —GCA_000181235.2, Varroa destructor —GCA_000181155.1 [ Cornman et al. 2010 ]), an acariform ( Tetranychus urticae —GCA_000239435.1 [ Grbić et al 2011 ]), the horseshoe crab ( L. polyphemus —GCA_000517525.1 [ Nossa et al. 2014 ]), five mandibulates ( Strigamia maritima —GCA_000239455.1 [ Chipman et al. 2014 ], Daphnia pulex —GCA_000187875.1, Tribolium castaneum —GCA_000002335.2 [ Tribolium Genome Sequencing Consortium et al. 2008 ], Apis mellifera —GCA_000002195.1, Drosophila melanogaster —GCA_000001215.4), and a nematode ( Caenorhabditis elegans —GCA_000002985.3s) using a combination of BLAST (BLASTn; -word_size 4; -reward 2; -penalty -3; -evalue 0.1) ( Altschul et al. 1990 ) and INFERNAL v1.1.1 (E-value cut-off of 1) ( Nawrocki et al. 2009 ). For each species, the predicted microRNA repertoire was supplemented with known microRNAs from miRBase v21 ( Kozomara and Griffiths-Jones 2014 ) and for R. microplus from Barrero et al. (2011) . For each microRNA, all BLAST and INFERNAL hits were aligned using Clustalw2 ( Larkin et al. 2007 ) in RALEE ( Griffiths-Jones 2005 ). Putative orthologs were confirmed by manual inspection of the multiple sequence alignment using RALEE v0.8 ( Griffiths-Jones 2005 ), looking for high similarity of one or both mature arms of the hairpin precursor. To determine the structure and minimum free energy of all chelicerate microRNAs detected by BLAST and INFERNAL searches, precursor microRNA sequences were analyzed with RNAfold v1.8.4 using default settings ( Gruber et al. 2008 ). All predictions retained had greater than −0.2 kcal/mol/nt ( Kozomara and Griffiths-Jones 2014 ).
Comparisons of Relative Arm Usage
To compare the relative arm usage of P. tepidariorum microRNAs to those of other species we used a similar approach to Marco et al. (2010) . The average number of reads per experiment catalogued in miRBase for each microRNA arm for D. melanogaster and T. castaneum were obtained from miRBase v21 ( Kozomara and Griffiths-Jones 2014 ). For the multicopy microRNA families in D. melanogaster and T. castaneum the average arm usage across the family was used. Arm usage of P. tepidariorum microRNAs with unique 5’ and 3’ mature sequences was also quantified. P. tepidariorum microRNAs with one unique mature sequence were also analyzed, with the caveat that the expression of the other arm was possibly over or under estimated. Note that arm usage of P. tepidariorum microRNAs that have nonunique sequences for both mature products could not be reliably assessed because reads could not be unambiguously mapped to one location.
Results
Sequencing of Small RNAs and Prediction of microRNAs in P. tepidariorum
Small RNAs were sequenced to determine the repertoire of microRNAs expressed during P. tepidariorum embryogenesis. This yielded a total of 177,789,607 raw reads of which 159,258,789 (95.5%) processed reads were mapped to the genome of P. tepidariorum . The distribution of these mapped read sizes contain two peaks at 22 and 29 bp, indicating the presence of mature microRNAs and a presumptive pool of piRNAs, respectively ( fig. 1 A ) ( Saito et al. 2006 ). From these mapped reads miRDeep2 analysis initially predicted 278 microRNAs, which constituted 14,942,552 (9.4%) of the total mapped reads. Of these predicted microRNAs, 130 had either less than 50% of reads that had the same 5’ end, low read numbers, or were found repeatedly in the P. tepidariorum genome (see Materials and Methods). While these discarded candidates could potentially be functional microRNAs, they were removed to give a conservative final prediction of 148 microRNAs ( supplementary files S1 and S2 , Supplementary Material online) that are expressed during embryogenesis in P. tepidariorum .
We then used BLAST and metazoan pre-microRNAs from miRBase v21 ( Kozomara and Griffiths-Jones 2014 ) to annotate orthologs of the 148 predicated microRNAs. This approach identified 101 conserved microRNAs, with similarity to at least one previously annotated metazoan microRNA in miRBase. The remaining 47 were therefore classified as “novel” P. tepidariorum microRNAs ( fig. 1 B ) despite some having putative orthologs in other chelicerate species ( fig. 2 ). Note that we cannot rule out the possibility that our novel microRNA set includes some genes conserved in other species but diverged in sequence beyond our ability to recognize them as homologs, even using state-of-the-art structure-aware RNA homology search tools.
We also grouped microRNAs based on whether they were found as a single copy or if the microRNA family had been duplicated and therefore contained multiple microRNAs (multicopy microRNAs). Of the conserved microRNAs, there were 22 single-copy microRNAs, and 79 multicopy microRNAs belonging to 15 families ( fig. 1 B ). For the novel microRNAs, there were 22 single-copy microRNAs, and 25 multicopy microRNAs belonging to nine families ( fig. 1 B ). Our prediction and annotation process therefore suggests that at least 36% of P. tepidariorum microRNA families have been duplicated at least once.
Identification of Conserved P. tepidariorum microRNA Families in Other Chelicerates
We next searched for all of the 148 predicted P. tepidariorum microRNAs in the genomes of other chelicerates ( supplementary file S3 , Supplementary Material online) and also compared the results to the repertoire of microRNAs present in other selected ecdysozoans ( fig. 2 ). We identified 32 conserved microRNA families from P. tepidariorum in two other spiders and a scorpion. The conserved families of mir-14, mir-3477, and mir-3791 were present in S. mimosarum , but absent in A. genticulata and C. sculpturatus ( fig. 2 ). The mir-3791 family appears to be absent from the genomes of all the other chelicerates, except S. mimosarum and L. polyphemus , but is present in some insects ( T. castaneum and A. mellifera ) that we surveyed, and also shares sequence similarity with the mir-35-41 cluster in Ca. elegans ( Massirer et al. 2012 ; Fromm et al. 2013 ; McJunkin and Ambros 2014 ).
The other arachnids showed variable patterns of retention and loss of the 35 conserved microRNA families found in P. tepidariorum . There were nine microRNA families that were present in all of these animals. The lowest number of families in any chelicerate surveyed was 17 in V. destructor ( fig. 2 ). Apart from the spiders and scorpion, mir-193 is likely to have been lost from the genomes of other chelicerates including L. polyphemus ( fig. 2 ). Note that this microRNA is commonly lost in metazoan lineages ( Tarver et al. 2013 ). Other potential losses in chelicerates include mir-14 and mir-3477, which was only present in P. tepidariorum and S. mimosarum . Limulus polyphemus has also lost mir-981 and mir-279, but has retained the other 31 conserved P. tepidariorum microRNA families ( fig. 2 ).
Comparing the conserved microRNA families found in P. tepidariorum to other nonchelicerate arthropods reveals that 23 out of 35 are found in the genomes of all the insects, the myriapod and the crustacean in our survey ( fig. 2 ). Interestingly, mir-96 may have been lost in insects but retained in the crustacean, Da. pulex , as well as most chelicerates, while mir-3931 appears to have evolved in chelicerates as previously reported ( Tarver et al. 2013 ; Wheeler et al. 2009 ), although it may also have been lost in the common ancestor of the other arthropod subphyla ( fig. 2 ).
Novel P. tepidariorum microRNAs Are Largely Species-Specific
Of the 22 novel single-copy microRNA families we identified in P. tepidariorum , two were identified in the genome of A. geniculata and three in S. mimosarum , whereas only one (mir-11960) was found in C. sculpturatus , and none was found in any other chelicerate ( fig. 2 ). As described above, we also identified nine novel multicopy microRNA families in P. tepidariorum . However of these nine families, we were only able to identify mir-11951 in S. mimosarum and mir-11942 in A. geniculata. Though interestingly, both of these microRNA families contained duplicates ( fig. 2 ). Taken together our analysis suggests that most of the novel microRNAs identified in P. tepidariorum are likely to be young and to have recently evolved in the lineage leading to this spider.
Incidence of Multicopy P. tepidariorum microRNA Families in Other Chelicerates and Ecdysozoans
As mentioned above, we found that 15 out of the 35 conserved microRNA families in P. tepidariorum were represented by two or more paralogs. There were also many multicopy families in the other spiders ( S. mimosarum and A. geniculata ) and the scorpion ( C. sculpturatus ) with 16, 17, and 16 out of 35 conserved families represented by two or more paralogs, respectively ( fig. 2 ). There was considerable overlap of multicopy families between these species ( S. mimosarum , A. geniculate , and C. sculpturatus ) and P. tepidariorum with 12, 11, and 10 families represented by at least two paralogs in the respective species and P. tepidariorum ( fig. 2 ). Moreover, eight families are multicopy among all four of these species ( fig. 2 ). In contrast, only up to five (in the parasitiforms M. occidentalis and I. scapularis ) multicopy microRNA families were observed in any other chelicerate, or ecdysozoan, we surveyed with the notable exception of L. polyphemus ( fig. 2 ). In the horseshoe crab, 26 out of the 30 microRNAs found (with respect to the conserved P. tepidariorum microRNAs) were present as multiple copies, with 21 present as three or more copies. These included mir-8 and mir-10, which were not duplicated in any of the other ecdysozoans that we surveyed ( fig. 2 ).
In the manidibulates, parasitiformes and acariformes analyzed, approximately 75–90% of microRNA are represented by a single microRNA ( supplementary fig. S2 , Supplementary Material online). In contrast, only approximately 40–55% of microRNAs were present as single copy in the spiders and scorpion, whereas approximately 35–40% contain two copies in these species ( supplementary fig. S2 , Supplementary Material online). In the horseshoe crab microRNAs were represented by one up to 17 copies; however most contained five copies ( supplementary fig. S2 , Supplementary Material online).
Small- and Large-Scale Duplications of microRNAs in Chelicerates
These observations strongly suggest that both small-scale tandem duplications as well as larger scale duplications contributed to the pattern of duplicated microRNAs in spiders. In P. tepidariorum , we found that the mir-3791 family is represented by 34 copies, but in contrast only single copies of this family were identified in S. mimosarum and L. polyphemus ( fig. 2 ). Interestingly, 13 of the P. tepidariorum mir-3791 paralogs are located within a 50 kb locus on a single 671 kb scaffold ( supplementary fig. S3 , Supplementary Material online). Therefore it is clear that tandem duplications have at least in part contributed to the expansion of this microRNA family in the lineage leading to this spider.
We also found evidence that larger scale duplications have contributed to the expansion of microRNA repertoires in P. tepidariorum and other chelicerates. The mir-71 / mir-2 cluster is an invertebrate-specific microRNA cluster that has expanded in arthropods probably due to tandem duplications of mir-2 ( Marco et al. 2010 ; Marco, Hooks, et al. 2012 ). In the acariform and parasitiform lineages, the copy numbers of mir-71 and mir-2 are variable, though usually there is one copy of mir-71 and two copies of mir-2 ( fig. 2 ). In the spiders, the scorpion and the horseshoe crab, we consistently found at least two copies of mir-71 and more than two copies of mir-2 ( fig. 2 ). In the spiders and the scorpion, these microRNAs were generally found as two separate clusters on different scaffolds ( fig. 3 ). Parasteatoda tepidariorum contains one cluster containing a single copy of mir-71 and three copies of mir-2 , and a second cluster, on a different scaffold, also with one copy of mir-71 , but with six copies of mir-2 ( fig. 3 ).
In the S. mimosarum and C. sculpturatus genomes we found one scaffold containing one copy of mir-71 and four copies of mir-2 ( fig. 3 ), and a second scaffold with one copy of mir-71 and three copies of mir-2 ( fig. 3 ). In A. geniculata there is one complete cluster with one mir-71 and four mir-2 copies, all on one scaffold ( fig. 3 ). There is another scaffold with one copy of mir-71 and one copy of mir-2 located approximately 6 kb from the end of the scaffold. There are also two other copies of mir-2 , each on approximately 1 kb scaffolds. The arrangement of L. polyphemus mir-71 / mir-2 genes is much more fragmented ( fig. 3 ). In this horseshoe crab we found eight copies of mir-71 located on seven scaffolds, of which six also contain at least one copy of mir-2 ( fig. 3 ). The seven copies of mir-2 that are located on six different scaffolds are all found close to the ends of the scaffolds, and may therefore possibly be fragments of larger mir-71 / mir-2 clusters ( fig. 3 ).
A second microRNA cluster that we observed to be duplicated in some species is the mir-100 / let-7 / mir-125 cluster ( supplementary fig. S4 , Supplementary Material online). However, in all lineages there appeared to be possible loss or rearrangement of at least one cluster, although we cannot exclude the possibility that this is an artifact of the genome assembly.
In P. tepidariorum we found one complete cluster ( supplementary fig. S4 , Supplementary Material online), and additional copies of mir-100 and mir-125 on separate scaffolds but no paralog of let-7 ( supplementary fig. S4 , Supplementary Material online). The arrangement of these microRNAs in S. mimosarum is similar to P. tepidariorum ( supplementary fig. S4 , Supplementary Material online) although the two mir-100 paralogs are on separate scaffolds ( supplementary fig. S4 , Supplementary Material online). Acanthoscurria geniculata has a complete mir-100 / let-7 / mir-125 cluster and two additional copies of mir-125 are found on separate scaffolds ( supplementary fig. S4 , Supplementary Material online). In C. sculpturatus , we found a single cluster, which appears to have been rearranged, similar to one of the three L. polyphemus clusters ( supplementary fig. S4 , Supplementary Material online).
Therefore the mir-71 / mir-2 and mir-100 / let-7 / mir-125 clusters appear to have been duplicated in spiders and scorpions (Arachnopulmonata) and L. polyphemus but not other chelicerates or mandibulates that we surveyed. Taken together, our results show that both tandem duplications and larger scale duplications of entire clusters, followed by subsequent lineage-specific expansion or loss of microRNAs, have contributed to the evolution of chelicerate microRNA repertoires.
Divergence in microRNA Arm Usage in Multicopy microRNAs
Duplicate microRNAs have the potential to diversify their functions by a number of evolutionary mechanisms, including arm usage ( Okamura et al. 2008 ; de Wit et al. 2009 ; Marco et al. 2010 ; Griffiths-Jones et al. 2011 ). Inspection of microRNA arm usage in P. tepidariorum suggests that there is a bias toward the mature sequence deriving from the 3’ arm of the hairpin ( supplementary fig. S5 , Supplementary Material online). The distribution was statistically different from that in both T. castaneum ( D = 0.2124; P = 0.002) and D. melanogaster ( D = 0.2955; P = 5.4 × 10 −7 ), but was not different between T. castaneum and D. melanogaster ( D = 0.1343; P = 0.08) (Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests).
We then compared relative arm usage for individual microRNAs between P. tepidariorum , T. castaneum , and D. melanogaster and observed multiple cases of arm switching among these species ( fig. 4 ). Considering first the microRNAs that have unique mature sequences in P. tepidariorum , only mir-275 and mir-3477 exhibit differences in relative arm usage between P. tepidariorum and T. castaneum , ( fig. 4 A ). Comparisons between P. tepidariorum and D. melanogaster shows that mir-10 , mir-993a , mir-278b , mir-281 , also display changes in arm use ( fig. 4 B ).
There were also occurrences of arm switching for microRNAs that contained only one unique mature sequence in P. tepidariorum . Between P. tepidariorum and T. castaneum , mir-993b-1 , mir-2b-1 all exhibit differences in relative arm usage ( fig. 4 A ). Comparing P. tepidariorum with D. melanogaster , showed that mir-993b-2 , both copies of mir-276 , and again mir-2b-1 exhibited arm switching ( fig. 4 B ).
We also identified that one P. tepidariorum mir-3791 paralog had been subject to relative arm switching, and another paralog that had similar 5’ and 3’ expression, which is in contrast with the rest of this mostly 3’ dominant family in P. tepidariorum ( supplementary fig. S6 , Supplementary Material online). Both of these microRNAs have unique mature sequences in P. tepidariorum ( supplementary file S1 , Supplementary Material online), though some of the other paralogs of this family do not have unique sequences for both mature products ( supplementary file S1 , Supplementary Material online).
It was also possible to compare the arm usage among the paralogs of the nine novel multicopy microRNA families identified in P. tepidariorum ( fig. 2 ). The mir-11942 family exhibited differential arm usage between paralogs ( supplementary fig. S7 , Supplementary Material online). Another family, mir-11961, also showed variation in arm usage between paralogs, however there was less striking differences between paralogs compared to those observed in the mir-11942 family ( supplementary fig. S7 , Supplementary Material online). Importantly, the paralogs of these two microRNA families all had unique mature sequences in P. tepidariorum ( supplementary file S1 , Supplementary Material online). The other novel multicopy families showed relatively similar arm usage between paralogs. However, these belonged to microRNA families with one nonunique mature sequence in P. tepidariorum in relation to their paralogs ( supplementary file S1 , Supplementary Material online).
Discussion
In this study, we surveyed the repertoire of microRNAs expressed during embryogenesis in P. tepidariorum and compared them with other chelicerates to examine patterns of duplication during the evolution of these genes in arthropods and other animals. From the initial 278 miRDeep2 predictions, we focused on a conservative total of 148 microRNAs representing 66 families expressed during P. tepidariorum embryogenesis ( fig. 1 ). This number is similar to the complement of 172 microRNAs expressed during D. melanogaster embryogenesis ( Ninova et al. 2014 ). However, D. melanogaster has a total of 256 microRNAs identified across all life stages ( Kozomara and Griffiths-Jones 2014 ). Therefore, it is likely that further microRNAs expressed later in development and in adults remain to be identified in P. tepidariorum . Despite this, we have characterized more microRNAs in this spider than previously identified in other arachnids ( R. microplus [87], I. scapularis [49], and T. urticae [52]) ( Wheeler et al. 2009 ; Barrero et al. 2011 ; Grbić et al. 2011 ) except the tick Hyalomma anatolicum anatolicum ( Luo et al. 2015 ). Thus P. tepidariorum possesses one of the largest chelicerate microRNA repertoires sequenced to date, and is the only one where small RNAs have been mapped against the specific corresponding genome sequence.
Approximately half of the microRNA families identified in P. tepidariorum by small RNA seq were conserved in other metazoans ( fig. 2 ). These included 21 out of 31 families that are common to most bilateral animals, and 7 out of the 12 families present in protostomes ( Tarver et al. 2013 ). The losses include mir-33, mir-219, mir-2001, and mir-1993, which have been commonly lost in metazoans ( Tarver et al. 2013 ). P. tepidariorum also contains panarthropod (mir-276 and mir-305), arthropod (iab-4/8 and mir-275), and chelicerate-specific (mir-3931) microRNAs ( Rota-Stabelli et al. 2011 ; Tarver et al. 2013 ). We did not find mir-242 and mir-216, which are also lost in other arthropods, nor mir-31, which is not found in the chelicerate family of Ixodidae, or the mandibulate-specific mir-282 or mir-965 ( Rota-Stabelli et al. 2011 ; Tarver et al. 2013 ). It is possible that due to our sampling of embryonic small RNA we may have missed microRNA families ( Tarver et al. 2013 ) that are only expressed during other life stages. Indeed, we were able to identify one copy of mir-133 , two copies of mir-137 , and three copies of mir-124 ( supplementary file S4 , Supplementary Material online) in the genome of P. tepidariorum , further increasing the number of microRNAs that we identified.
Evidence of Duplication of Both Coding and Noncoding Genes in P. tepidariorum
Over one-third of the conserved microRNA families and many of the novel microRNA families are present in multiple copies in P. tepidariorum ( fig. 1 B ). This expansion appears to have resulted from both local tandem duplications and larger scale segmental duplications ( fig. 3 , supplementary figs. S3 and S4 , Supplementary Material online). Previous reports have found that some protein-coding genes in P. tepidariorum have also been duplicated ( Posnien et al. 2014 ). Of the 8,917 P. tepidariorum transcripts identified as being orthologous to a Drosophila gene, approximately 28% are likely to be expressed from duplicated genes ( Posnien et al. 2014 ). This therefore suggests that there has possibly been greater retention of duplicated microRNAs compared to protein-coding genes in P. tepidariorum. This difference is similar to previous estimates of microRNAs and coding gene retention following large-scale duplication ( Berthelot et al. 2014 ).
Duplication and Divergence of microRNAs in Multiple Chelicerate Lineages
Evidence of gene duplication in chelicerates is not limited to P. tepidariorum . Analysis of the transcriptomes of representatives of the Mygalomorphae and Araneomorphae suggests that these spiders are likely to have shared a large-scale duplication event and that retained paralogs may have contributed to the origin and evolution of silk glands ( Clarke et al. 2015 ). Hox genes in the spider Cupiennius salei and scorpions, including C. sculpturatus and Mesobuthus martensii , have also been found to be duplicated, though it is unclear whether these are shared or independent duplication events ( Schwager et al. 2007 ; Sharma, Schwager, et al. 2014 ; Di et al. 2015 , Sharma et al. 2015 ). In the horseshoe crab, there is also evidence of two rounds of whole-genome duplication, which are may be independent of the duplication events that have occurred in spiders or scorpions ( Nossa et al. 2014 ; Sharma, Gupta, et al. 2014 ; Sharma, Kaluziak, et al. 2014 ; Kenny et al. 2016 ; Schwager et al. 2015 ). The presence of mir-193 in Arachnopulmonata and its absence in all the other chelicerates we surveyed further supports the hypothesis of independent duplication events.
We also identified many duplicate microRNA families in spiders, scorpions, and a horseshoe crab ( fig. 2 and supplementary fig. S2 , Supplementary Material online). We found that L. polyphemus has the largest estimated microRNA repertoire among chelicerates. Interestingly, many microRNA families were found to be represented by multiple genes in all three spiders and the scorpion that we surveyed ( fig. 2 ). These findings are consistent with a possible large-scale duplication event in the common ancestor of spiders and scorpions (Arachnopulmonata), and the two possibly independent rounds of whole-genome duplication in horseshoe crabs ( Nossa et al. 2014 ; Sharma, Gupta, et al. 2014 ; Sharma, Kaluziak, et al. 2014 ; Kenny et al. 2016 ; Schwager et al. 2015 ).
In contrast to the shared duplication of microRNAs among Arachnopulmonata species, there were differences in the retention of paralogs in some families ( fig. 2 ). These patterns of gain and loss may be due to genome assembly quality or a lack of small RNA sequencing from adult stages of P. tepidariorum . Alternatively, differential patterns of retention of microRNA paralogs potentially relates to differential retention of duplicate coding genes between these spider species ( Clarke et al. 2015 ). It is also possible that the paralogous microRNAs found in some species could have been produced by lineages-specific duplication events. However, further analysis of the genomes and small RNA sequencing of all of these chelicerates is required to investigate these different evolutionary scenarios.
Evolution of microRNA Function
Despite the shared retention of many duplicated genes generated by putative tandem and large-scale duplication events, it is clear from our results that there are also common lineage-specific losses ( figs. 2 and 3 , supplementary figs. S3 and S4 , Supplementary Material online). Changes in microRNA biogenesis may have also contributed to the evolution of their function among chelicerates. We identified that P. tepidariorum , like some other ecdysozoans ( de Wit et al. 2009 ), has a general 3’ arm bias with respect to preferential strand loading into the RISC. This bias is greater than that reported for 3’ arm usage compared to T. castaneum and D. melanogaster ( Marco et al. 2010 ) ( supplementary fig. S5 , Supplementary Material online). This could perhaps be caused by the many paralogs of the mir-3791 and mir-2 families, which were generally 3’ dominant, though both of these families do show instances of arm switching ( fig. 4 and supplementary fig. S6 , Supplementary Material online). However, the microRNA that switched in the mir-2 family did not contain completely unique mature sequences and relative arm switching may have been over or underestimated. Many of the microRNAs that show arm switching, relative to T. castaneum and D. melanogaster , also belong to multicopy microRNA families. These results suggest that duplication may facilitate functional change between paralogs and provides further evidence that microRNA duplication facilitates changes that can alter strand selection ( de Wit et al. 2009 ).
There were also cases of single-copy microRNAs that have been subject to arm switching between species. miR-10-5p is more abundant than miR-10-3p in both P. tepidariorum and T. castaneum , while miR-10-3p dominates in D. melanogaster ( Griffiths-Jones et al. 2011 ). In both P. tepidariorum and Drosophila , mature products from both arms are expressed at detectable levels ( Stark et al. 2007 ). The expression of both mature arms may be a feature that contributes to a microRNAs ability to switch strand usage between species.
The pervasive duplication and subsequent divergence in retention and copy number, as well as arm switching, that we have identified among chelicerate microRNAs may have led to their subfunctionalization and neofunctionalization ( Ohno 1970 ; Taylor and Raes 2004 ; Li et al. 2008 ; Amoutzias and Van de Peer 2010 ; Innan and Kondrashov 2010 ; Abrouk et al. 2012 ; Huminiecki and Conant 2012 ; Wang and Adams 2015 ). These evolutionary differences, therefore, may have contributed to the divergence in the developmental programs of chelicerates.
Conclusions
Our characterization of microRNAs expressed during P. tepidariorum embryogenesis and the identification of their orthologs in other arthropods show that there has been pervasive duplication and subsequent divergence in the sequences of these paralogous genes in spiders, scorpions, and the horseshoe crab. It is now essential to apply the tools for analysis of gene expression and function available in P. tepidariorum to test the developmental implications of these changes to provide a perspective on the evolution of microRNAs in chelicerates, arthropods, and metazoans.
Supplementary Material
Supplementary files S1–S4 and figures S1–S7 are available at Genome Biology and Evolution online http://www.gbe.oxfordjournals.org/ .
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
D.J.L. was funded by a Nigel Groome Studentship from Oxford Brookes University, and M.N. was supported by a Wellcome Trust PhD Studentship. We are also very grateful to the i5K Initiative and particularly Stephen Richards, Richard Gibbs as well as Mario Stanke, Torsten Wierschin, and Lauren Esposito for access to the genomes of P. tepidariorum and C. sculpturatus .
Contributor Information
Daniel J. Leite, Department of Biological and Medical Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Oxford, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
Maria Ninova, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, United Kingdom .
Maarten Hilbrant, Department of Biological and Medical Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Oxford, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom .
Saad Arif, Department of Biological and Medical Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Oxford, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom .
Sam Griffiths-Jones, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, United Kingdom .
Matthew Ronshaugen, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, United Kingdom .
Alistair P. McGregor, Department of Biological and Medical Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Oxford, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
Literature Cited
- Abrouk M , et al. . 2012. . Grass microRNA gene paleohistory unveils new insights into gene dosage balance in subgenome partitioning after whole-genome duplication . Plant Cell . 24 ( 5 ): 1776 – 1792 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Altschul SF Gish W Miller W Myers EW Lipman DJ. 1990. . Basic local alignment search tool . J Mol Biol. 215 : 403 – 410 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ambros V. 2011. . MicroRNAs and developmental timing . Curr Opin Genet Dev. 21 ( 4 ): 511 – 517 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Amoutzias G Van de Peer Y. 2010. . Single-gene and whole-genome duplications and the evolution of protein-protein interaction networks . In: Caetano-Anolles G , editors. Evolutionary genomics and systems biology . UK: : Wiley-Blackwell; . p. 413 – 429 . [Google Scholar]
- Andrews S. 2010. . FASTQC: A Quality Control Tool for High Throughput Sequence Data. [cited 2015 Jan 10]. Available from: http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/ .
- Arif S , et al. . 2013. . Evolution of mir-92a underlies natural morphological variation in Drosophila melanogaster. Curr Biol. 23 ( 6 ): 523 – 528 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Barrero RA , et al. . 2011. . Evolutionary conserved miRNAs are ubiquitously expressed compared to tick-specific miRNAs in the cattle tick Rhipicephalus ( Boophilus ) microplus. BMC Genomics 12 : 328.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bartel DP. 2004. . MicroRNAs: genomics, biogenesis, mechanism, and function . Cell 116 ( 2 ): 281 – 297 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Berthelot C , et al. . 2014. . The rainbow trout genome provides novel insights into evolution after whole-genome duplication in vertebrates . Nat Commun. 5 : 3657.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Campbell LI , et al. . 2011. . MicroRNAs and phylogenomics resolve the relationships of Tardigrada and suggest that velvet worms are the sister group of Arthropoda . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 108 ( 38 ): 15920 – 15924 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Campo-Paysaa F Sémon M Cameron RA Peterson KJ Schubert M. 2011. . microRNA complements in deuterostomes: origin and evolution of microRNAs . Evol Dev. 13 ( 1 ): 15 – 27 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chen CY Chen ST Juan HF Huang HC. 2012. . Lengthening of 3'UTR increases with morphological complexity in animal evolution . Bioinformatics 28 ( 24 ): 3178 – 3781 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chen YW , et al. . 2014. . Systematic study of Drosophila microRNA functions using a collection of targeted knockout mutations . Dev Cell . 31 ( 6 ): 784 – 800 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chendrimada TP , et al. . 2005. . TRBP recruits the Dicer complex to Ago2 for microRNA processing and gene silencing . Nature 436 ( 7051 ): 740 – 744 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chipman AD , et al. . 2014. . The first myriapod genome sequence reveals conservative arthropod gene content and genome organisation in the centipede Strigamia maritima. PLoS Biol. 12 ( 11 ): e1002005.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Clarke TH Garb JE Hayashi CY Arensburger P Ayoub NA. 2015. . Spider transcriptomes identify ancient large-scale gene duplication event potentially important in silk gland evolution . Genome Biol Evol. 7 ( 7 ): 1856 – 1870 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cornman SR , et al. . 2010. . Genomic survey of the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor , a major pest of the honey bee Apis mellifera. BMC Genomics 11 : 602.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- de Wit E Linsen SE Cuppen E Berezikov E. 2009. . Repertoire and evolution of miRNA genes in four divergent nematode species . Genome Res. 19 ( 11 ): 2064 – 2074 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Di Z , et al. . 2015. . Genome-wide analysis of homeobox genes from Mesobuthus martensii reveals Hox gene duplication in scorpions . Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 61 : 25 – 33 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dunlop JA. 2010. . Geological history and phylogeny of Chelicerata . Arthropod Struct Dev. 39 : 124 – 142 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Eichhorn SW , et al. . 2014. . mRNA destabilization is the dominant effect of mammalian microRNAs by the time substantial repression ensues . Mol Cell 56 ( 1 ): 104 – 115 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Field DJ , et al. . 2014. . Toward consilience in reptile phylogeny: miRNAs support an archosaur, not lepidosaur, affinity for turtles . Evol Dev. 16 ( 4 ): 189 – 196 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Friedländer MR , et al. . 2008. . Discovering miRNAs from deep sequencing data using miRDeep . Nat Biotechnol . 26 : 407 – 415 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fromm B , et al. . 2015. . A uniform system for the annotation of vertebrate microRNA genes and the evolution of the human microRNAome . Annu Rev Genet. 49 : 213 – 242 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fromm B Worren MM Hahn C Hovig E Bachmann L. 2013. . Substantial loss of conserved and gain of novel microRNA families in flatworms . Mol Biol Evol. 30 ( 12 ): 2619 – 2628 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fukaya T Iwakawa HO Tomari Y. 2014. . MicroRNAs block assembly of eIF4F translation initiation complex in Drosophila. Mol Cell 56 ( 1 ): 67 – 78 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gong J , et al. . 2014. . Comprehensive analysis of human small RNA sequencing data provides insights into expression profiles and miRNA editing . RNA Biol. 11 ( 11 ): 1375 – 1385 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grbić M , et al. . 2011. . The genome of Tetranychus urticae reveals herbivorous pest adaptations . Nature 479 ( 7374 ): 487 – 492 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Griffiths-Jones S. 2005. . RALEE–RNA alignment editor in emacs . Bioinformatics 21 : 257 – 259 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Griffiths-Jones S Hui JH Marco A Ronshaugen M. 2011. . microRNA evolution by arm switching . EMBO Rep . 12 ( 2 ): 172 – 177 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gruber AR Lorenz R Bernhart SH Neuböck R Hofacker IL. 2008. . The Vienna RNA websuite . Nucleic Acids Res. 36 ( Web Server issue ): W70 – W74 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Guennewig B , et al. . 2014. . Synthetic pre-miRNAs reveal dual-strand activity of miR-34a on TNF-α . rna 20 ( 1 ): 61 – 75 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Guerra-Assunção JA Enright AJ. 2012. . Large-scale analysis of microRNA evolution . BMC Genomics 13 : 218.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hatfield SD , et al. . 2005. . Stem cell division is regulated by the microRNA pathway . Nature 435 ( 7044 ): 974 – 978 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Heimberg AM Cowper-Sal-lari R Semon M Donoghue PC Peterson KJ. 2010. . microRNAs reveal the interrelationships of hagfish, lampreys, and gnathostomes and the nature of the ancestral vertebrate . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 107 : 19379 – 19383 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Heimberg AM Sempere LF Moy VN Donoghue PC Peterson KJ. 2008. . MicroRNAs and the advent of vertebrate morphological complexity . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 105 : 2946 – 2950 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Helm C Bernhart SH Siederdissen CHZ Nickel B Bleidorn C. 2012. . Deep sequencing of small RNAs confirms an annelid affinity of Myzostomida . Mol Phylogenet Evol. 64 ( 1 ): 198 – 203 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hilbrant M Damen WGM McGregor AP. 2012. . Evolutionary crossroads in developmental biology: the spider Parasteatoda tepidariorum. Development 139 ( 15 ): 2655 – 2662 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hoy MA. 2009. . The predatory mite Metaseiulus occidentalis : mitey small and mitey large genomes . Bioessays 31 ( 5 ): 581 – 590 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Huminiecki L Conant GC. 2012. . Polyploidy and the evolution of complex traits . Int J Evol Biol. 2012 : 292068.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Innan H Kondrashov F. 2010. . The evolution of gene duplications: classifying and distinguishing between models . Nat Rev Genet. 11 : 97 – 108 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Janssen R , et al. . 2010. . Conservation, loss, and redeployment of Wnt ligands in protostomes: implications for understanding the evolution of segment formation . BMC Evol Biol. 10 : 374.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Janssen R , et al. . 2015. . The evolution and expression of panarthropod frizzled genes . Front Ecol Evol. 3 : 96. [Google Scholar]
- Juvvuna PK Khandelia P Lee LM Makeyev EV. 2012. . Argonaute identity defines the length of mature mammalian miRNAs . Nucleic Acids Res. 40 ( 14 ): 6808 – 6820 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kawamata T Yoda M Tomari Y. 2011. . Multilayer checkpoints for miRNA authenticity during RISC assembly . EMBO Rep . 12 ( 9 ): 944 – 949 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kenny , et al. . 2016. . Ancestral whole-genome duplication in the marine chelicerate horseshoe crabs . Heredity . 116 ( 2 ): 190 – 199 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kozomara A Griffiths-Jones S. 2014. . miRBase: annotating high confidence miRNAs using deep sequencing data . Nucleic Acids Res. 42 : D68 – D73 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Langmead B Trapnell C Pop M Salzberg SL. 2009. . Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome . Genome Biol. 10 : R25.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Larkin MA , et al. . 2007. . ClustalW and ClustalX version 2 . Bioinformatics 23 ( 21 ): 2947 – 2948 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lawson D Arensburger P Atkinson P Besansky NJ Bruggner RV. 2009. . VectorBase: a data resource for invertebrate vector genomics . Nucleic Acids Res. 37 ( Database issue ): D583 – D587 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Li J Musso G Zhang Z. 2008. . Preferential regulation of duplicated genes by microRNAs in mammals . Genome Biol. 9 ( 8 ): R132.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liu B , et al. . 2014. . An analysis of the small RNA transcriptome of four developmental stages of the citrus red mite ( Panonychus citri ) . Insect Mol Biol. 23 ( 2 ): 216 – 229 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Luo J , et al. . 2015. . Identification and characterization of microRNAs by deep-sequencing in Hyalomma anatolicum anatolicum (Acari: Ixodidae) ticks . Gene 564 ( 2 ): 125 – 133 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marco A Hooks K Griffiths-Jones S. 2012. . Evolution and function of the extended miR-2 microRNA family . RNA Biol. 9 ( 3 ): 242 – 248 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marco A Hui JH Ronshaugen M Griffiths-Jones S. 2010. . Functional shifts in insect miRNA evolution . Genome Biol Evol. 2 : 686 – 696 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marco A Macpherson JI Ronshaugen M Griffiths-Jones S. 2012. . MicroRNAs from the same precursor have different targeting properties . Silence 3 ( 1 ): 8.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marco A Ninova M Ronshaugen M Griffiths-Jones S. 2013. . Clusters of microRNAs emerge by new hairpins in existing transcripts . Nucleic Acids Res. 41 ( 16 ): 7745 – 7752 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marco A. 2014. . Sex-biased expression of microRNAs in Drosophila melanogaster. Open Biol. 4 : 140024.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Martin M. 2011. . Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads . EMBnet J. 17 : 10 – 12 . [Google Scholar]
- Massirer KB Perez SG Mondol V Pasquinelli AE. 2012. . The miR-35-41 Family of MiRNAs regulates RNAi Sensitivity in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Genet. 8 ( 3 ): e1002536.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McGregor AP , et al. . 2008. . Cupiennies salei and Achaearanea tepidariorum : spider model for investigating evolution and development . Bioessays 30 ( 5 ): 487 – 498 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McJunkin K Ambros V. 2014. . The embryonic mir-35 family of miRNAs promotes multiple aspects of fecundity in Caenorhabditis elegans. G3 4 : 1747 – 1754 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mittmann B Wolff C. 2012. . Embryonic development and staging of the cobweb spider Parasteatoda tepidariorum C. L. Koch, 1841 (syn.: Achaearanea tepidariorum ; Araneomorphae; Theridiidae) . Dev Genes Evol. 222 : 189 – 216 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mohammed J Bortolamiol-Becet D , et al. . 2014. . Adaptive evolution of testis-specific, recently evolved, clustered miRNAs in Drosophila. RNA 20 ( 8 ): 1195 – 1209 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mohammed J Siepel A Lai EC. 2014. . Diverse modes of evolutionary emergence and flux of conserved microRNA clusters . RNA 20 ( 12 ): 1850 – 1863 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nawrocki EP Kolbe DL Eddy SR. 2009. . Infernal 1.0: inference of RNA alignments . Bioinformatics 25 : 1335 – 1337 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ninova M Ronshaugen M Griffiths-Jones S. 2014. . Conserved temporal patterns of microRNA expression in Drosophila support a developmental hourglass model . Genome Biol Evol. 6 ( 9 ): 2459 – 2467 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nossa CW , et al. . 2014. . Joint assembly and genetic mapping of the Atlantic Horseshoe crab genome reveals ancient whole genome duplication . Gigascience 3 : 9.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ohno S. 1970. . Evolution by gene duplication . Berlin: Springer-Verlag; . [Google Scholar]
- Okamura K , et al. . 2008. . The regulatory activity of microRNA* species has substantial influence on microRNA and 3' UTR evolution . Nat Struct Mol Biol. 15 ( 4 ): 354 – 363 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Peterson KJ Dietrich MR McPeek MA. 2009. . MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion . BioEssays 31 : 736 – 747 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pink RC , et al. . 2015. . The passenger strand, miR-21-3p, plays a role in mediating cisplatin resistance in ovarian cancer cells . Gynecol Oncol . 137 ( 1 ): 143 – 151 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Posnien N , et al. . 2014. . A Comprehensive reference transcriptome resource for the common house spider Parasteatoda tepidariorum. PLoS One 9 ( 8 ): e104885.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rota-Stabelli O , et al. . 2011. . A congruent solution to arthropod phylogeny: phylogenomics, miRNAs and morphology support monophyletic mandibulata . Proc Biol Sci R Soc . 278 ( 1703 ): 298 – 306 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rota-Stabelli O Daley AC Pisani D. 2013. . Molecular timetrees reveal a cambrian colonization of land and a new scenario for ecdysozoan evolution . Curr Biol. 23 ( 5 ): 392 – 398 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Saito K , et al. . 2006. . Specific association of Piwi with rasiRNAs derived from retrotransposon and heterochromatic regions in the Drosophila genome . Genes Dev. 20 ( 16 ): 2214 – 2222 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sanggaard KW Bechsgaard JS Fang X Duan J Dyrlund TF. 2014. . Spider genomes provide insight into composition and evolution of venom and silk . Nat Commun. 5 : 3765.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schwager EE Schönauer A Leite DJ Sharma PP McGregor AP. 2015. . Chelicerata . In: Wanninger A , editors. Evolutionary developmental biology of invertebrates . Berlin: : Spinger; . p. 99 – 139 . [Google Scholar]
- Schwager EE Schoppmeier M Pechmann M Damen WG. 2007. . Duplicated hox genes in the spider Cupiennius salei. Front Zool . 13 ( 4 ): 10.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sharma PP Gupta T Schwager EE Wheeler WC Extavour CG. 2014. . Subdivision of arthropod cap-n-collar expression domains is restricted to mandibulata . Evodevo 5 ( 1 ): 3.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sharma PP Kaluziak ST , et al. . 2014. . Phylogenomic interrogation of arachnida reveals systemic conflicts in phylogenetic signal . Mol Biol Evol. 31 ( 11 ): 2963 – 2984 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sharma PP Santiago MA González-Santillán E Monod L Wheeler WC. 2015. . Evidence of duplicated hox genes in the most recent common ancestor of extant scorpions . Evol Dev. 17 ( 6 ): 347 – 355 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sharma PP Schwager EE Extavour CG Wheeler WC. 2014. . Hox gene duplications correlate with posterior heteronomy in scorpions . Proc Biol Sci. 281 ( 1792 ):pii: 20140661.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sievers F , et al. . 2011. . Fast, scalable generation of high-quality protein multiple sequence alignments using clustal omega . Mol Syst Biol. 7 : 539.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sokol NS Xu P Jan YN Ambros V. 2008. . Drosophila let-7 microRNA is required for remodeling of the neuromusculature during metamorphosis . Genes Dev. 22 : 1591 – 1596 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stark A , et al. . 2007. . Systematic discovery and characterization of fly miRNAs using 12 Drosophila genomes . Genome Res. 17 ( 12 ): 1865 – 1879 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tarver JE , et al. . 2015. . microRNAs and the evolution of complex multicellularity: identification of a large, diverse complement of microRNAs in the brown alga Ectocarpus. Nucleic Acids Res. 43 ( 13 ): 6384 – 6398 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tarver JE , et al. . 2013. . miRNAs: small genes with big potential in metazoan phylogenetics . Mol Biol Evol. 30 ( 11 ): 2369 – 2382 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Taylor JS Raes J. 2004. . Duplication and divergence: the evolution of new genes and old genes . Ann Rev Genet. 38 : 615 – 643 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tribolium Genome Sequencing Consortium , et al. . 2008. . The genome of the model beetle and pest Tribolium castaneum. Nature 452 ( 7190 ): 949 – 955 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Turetzek N Pechmann M Schomburg C Schneider J Prpic NM. 2015. . Neofunctionalization of a duplicate dachshund gene underlies the evolution of a novel leg segment in arachnids . Mol Biol Evol. pii: msv200 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wang S Adams KL. 2015. . Duplicate gene divergence by changes in microRNA binding sites in Arabidopsis and Brassica. Genome Biol Evol. 7 ( 3 ): 646 – 655 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wheeler BM , et al. . 2009. . The deep evolution of metazoan microRNAs . Evol Dev. 11 ( 1 ): 50 – 68 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wiegmann BM , et al. . 2011. . Episodic radiations in the fly tree of life . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 108 ( 14 ): 5690 – 5695 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wong SF , et al. . 2015. . Independent regulation of vertebral number and vertebral identity by microRNA-196 paralogs . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 112 ( 35 ): E4884 – E4893 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yang JS , et al. . 2014. . Intertwined pathways for argonaute-mediated microRNA biogenesis in Drosophila. Nucleic Acids Res. 42 ( 3 ): 1987 – 2002 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhou H , et al. . 2010. . miR-155 and its star-form partner miR-155* cooperatively regulate type I interferon production by human plasmacytoid dendritic cells . Blood 116 ( 26 ): 5885 – 5894 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhou J Zhou Y Cao J Zhang H Yu Y. 2013. . Distinctive microRNA profiles in the salivary glands of Haemaphysalis longicornis related to tick blood-feeding . Exp Appl Acarol . 59 ( 3 ): 339 – 349 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.