Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Oct 6;16(10):e0245822. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245822

Sequence and structure comparison of ATP synthase F0 subunits 6 and 8 in notothenioid fish

Gunjan Katyal 1, Brad Ebanks 1, Magnus Lucassen 2, Chiara Papetti 3, Lisa Chakrabarti 1,4,*
Editor: Benedetta Ruzzenente5
PMCID: PMC8494342  PMID: 34613983

Abstract

Mitochondrial changes such as tight coupling of the mitochondria have facilitated sustained oxygen and respiratory activity in haemoglobin-less icefish of the Channichthyidae family. We aimed to characterise features in the sequence and structure of the proteins directly involved in proton transport, which have potential physiological implications. ATP synthase subunit a (ATP6) and subunit 8 (ATP8) are proteins that function as part of the F0 component (proton pump) of the F0F1complex. Both proteins are encoded by the mitochondrial genome and involved in oxidative phosphorylation. To explore mitochondrial sequence variation for ATP6 and ATP8 we analysed sequences from C. gunnari and C. rastrospinosus and compared them with their closely related red-blooded species and eight other vertebrate species. Our comparison of the amino acid sequence of these proteins reveals important differences that could underlie aspects of the unique physiology of the icefish. In this study we find that changes in the sequence of subunit a of the icefish C. gunnari at position 35 where there is a hydrophobic alanine which is not seen in the other notothenioids we analysed. An amino acid change of this type is significant since it may have a structural impact. The biology of the haemoglobin-less icefish is necessarily unique and any insights about these animals will help to generate a better overall understanding of important physiological pathways.

Introduction

The oceans which surround Antarctica, and their sub-zero temperatures provide a home to fish of the suborder Notothenioidei—a prime example of a marine species flock.

Notothenioids are renowned for their physiological adaptations to cold temperatures. This includes the ability to synthesise antifreeze glycoproteins (AFGP) and antifreeze-potentiating proteins (AFPP) [1]. The capacity to synthesise antifreeze glycopeptides (AFGPs) is a biochemical adaptation that enabled the Notothenioidei to colonize and thrive in the extreme polar environment [2]. These proteins are largely composed of a Thr-Ala-Ala repeat with a conjugated disaccharide via the hydroxyl group of the Thr residue and reduce the freezing point of the animals internal fluids [3,4].

Channichthyidae, contained within the Notothenioid suborder, are remarkable due to the absence of haemoglobin and, in some species, myoglobin too [57]. The sub-zero temperatures of the water they inhabit allow the highest levels of oxygen solubility, which is suggested to facilitate their survival despite the loss of globin proteins [7].

Myoglobin is absent in the oxidative skeletal muscle in all icefish, but the absence of myoglobin in cardiac muscle has been reported in only six of the species of the Channichthyinae [8,9]. While the molecular genetics of how myoglobin expression has been lost have been studied, the physiological differences between those that express and those that do not express myoglobin are not fully understood. Small intracellular diffusion distances to mitochondria and a greater percentage of cell volume occupied by mitochondria are two evolutionary adaptations that might compensate for the absence of myoglobin [10,11]. In the particular case of Champsocephalus gunnari, the mRNA transcript of myoglobin is present in the cardiac tissue but a 5-bp frameshift insertion hinders the synthesis of protein from the mRNA transcript [8,12].

Notothenioidei have high densities of mitochondria in muscle cells, versatility in mitochondrial biogenesis and a unique lipidomic profile [1315]. These features have also been hypothesised to facilitate sustained oxygen consumption and respiratory activity in the absence of haemoglobin and myoglobin.

Complex V of the electron transport chain, ATP synthase, is responsible for the production of intracellular ATP from ADP and inorganic phosphate. Composed of an F0 and F1 component, the F0 component is responsible for channelling protons from the intermembrane space across the inner mitochondrial membrane and into the mitochondrial matrix [1618]. The rotation of the c-ring in F0, and with this the γ-subunit of the central stalk, facilitates the translocation of protons across the inner mitochondrial membrane that ultimately drives the catalytic mechanism of the F1 component [19,20].

The motor unit F0, embedded in the inner membrane of mitochondria, is composed of subunits b, OSCP (oligomycin sensitivity conferring protein), d, e, f, g, h, i/j, k which are encoded by nuclear genes and subunits a (ATP6) and 8 (ATP8), which are encoded by mitochondrial genes [21]. Despite the structure of the complex having been first resolved decades ago, and hypotheses of the chemical mechanism were developed over half a century ago, significant breakthroughs continue to be made in our understanding of both the structure and function of the enzyme and its F0 component [2225].

Both ATP synthase subunit a (ATP6) and subunit 8 (ATP8) are proteins that function as part of the F0 component of ATP synthase, encoded by genes that overlap within the mitochondrial genome [26]. This overlap is over a short, but variable between species, base pair sequence where the translation initiation site of subunit 8 is contained within the coding region of subunit 6.

The peripheral stalk is a crucial component of the F0 component forming a physical connection between the membrane sector of the complex and the catalytic core. It provides flexibility, aids in the assembly and stability of the complex, and forms the dimerization interface between ATP synthase pairs [27]. ATP8 is an integral transmembrane component of the peripheral stalk, serving an important role in the assembly of the complex [28]. The C-terminus of ATP8 extends 70 Å from the surface of the makes contacts with subunits b, d and F6, while the N-terminus has been reported to make connections with subunits b, f and 6 in the intermembrane space [29,30]. Subunit 8 is also known to play a role in the activity of the enzyme complex [31].

ATP6 is an α-helical protein embedded within the inner mitochondrial membrane and it interacts closely with the c-ring of F0, providing aqueous half-channels that shuttle protons to and from the rotating c-ring [17,32]. It has previously been reported that ATP6 has at least five hydrophobic transmembrane spanning α helices domain, where two of the helices h4 and h5 are well conserved across many species [33].

Proteins coded by mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) are involved in oxidative phosphorylation and can directly influence the metabolic performance of this pathway. Evaluating the selective pressures acting on these proteins can provide insights in their evolution, where mutations in the mtDNA can be favourable, neutral, or harmful. The amino acid changes can cause inefficiencies in the electron transfer chain, causing oxidative damage by excess production of reactive oxygen species and eventually interrupting the production of mitochondrial energy. Due to the tight coupling of icefish mitochondria relative to their red-blooded relatives, any changes in the structure of ATP Synthase subunits, particularly those directly involved in the transport of protons across the membrane, could result in significant physiological outcomes [34].

In this work, we combine sequence analyses and secondary structure prediction analyses to explore mitochondrial genetic variation for ATP6 and ATP8 in the Notothenioidei suborder species as well as other vertebrate species. The species considered include Champsocephalus gunnari, Chionodraco rastrospinosus and Chaenocephalus aceratus from the Channichthyidae family, Notothenia coriiceps and Trematomus bernacchii from the Nototheniidae family and the sub-Antarctic Eleginops maclovinus from family Eleginopsidae, all the broader Notothenioidei suborder. The species of suborder Notothenioidei are further compared with the following eight vertebrates: Homo sapiens (family: Hominidae), Nothobranchius furzeri (family: Nothobranchiidae), Danio rerio (family: Cyprinidae), Anolis carolinensis (family: Dactyloidae), Cavia porcellus (family: Caviidae), Balaena mysticetus (family: Balaenidae), Heterocephalus glaber (family: Heterocephalidae), and Lasiurus borealis (family: Vespertilionidae) to shed light on the changes of these proteins in the notothenioid species by comparing them to better characterised diverse vertebrate species. These species choices help us decipher amino acid changes specific to notothenioids and those that are potentially species specific (S1 Fig).

Methodology

Extraction of gene and protein sequences of ATP8 and ATP6 suborder Notothenioidei and other vertebrates

The list of complete coding sequences (CDS) and protein sequences of the proteins were obtained from the National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) protein database search, we chose only the Refseq (provides a comprehensive, integrated, non-redundant, well-annotated set of sequences, including genomic DNA, transcripts, and proteins) sequence queries (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ lMSast searched:17th August 2020). Though these sequences have been taken from highly reliable Refseq database [35] validated by different sources it is important to recognise they could still be prone to error.

Multiple protein sequence alignment (MSA)

(-/-) indicates absence of both haemoglobin and myoglobin genes, whereas (-/+) indicate absence of haemoglobin but presence of myoglobin. The sequences for the Notothenioidei suborder species C. gunnari (-/-), C. rastrospinosus (-/+), C. aceratus (-/-), N. coriiceps (+/+), T. bernacchii, E. maclovinus (+/+), and eight other vertebrate species, N. furzeri, D. rerio, A. carolinensis, C. porcellus, B. mysticetus, H. glaber, L. borealis, H. sapiens were aligned using Clustal omega [36] to prepare the initial alignment of ATP6 protein under the criteria of the presence and the absence of haemoglobin and myoglobin proteins in the species, the alignments were also verified using the other two progressive methods, MAFFT [37] and MUSCLE [36]. The same method was applied for protein ATP8. The MSA was visualised and edited using JALVIEW [38]. The eight vertebrate species were selected as well known and sequenced representative of different groups under vertebrate: fish (N. furzeri and D. rerio), reptiles (A. carolinesis), mammals (C. porcellus, H. glaber, L. borealis, H. sapiens, B. mysticetus). H.sapiens sequences have been included in our analyses since much of what is known about these proteins has previously been characterised in humans. The selection of these different species shows the conservation of these mitochondrial proteins across vertebrate species, including H. sapiens.

Codon alignment

Complete nucleotide coding sequences for genes ATP6 and ATP8 from the fourteen vertebrate species were retrieved from NCBI GenBank database (see Table 1). The sequences were aligned using Clustal omega [36] and were manually edited and visualised as codons using MATLAB version R2018b (9.5.0).

Table 1. Features of nucleotide and protein sequences for ATP synthase F0 subunit 6 and 8.

Species/Features C. gunnari C. rastrospinosus C. aceratus N. corriceps T. bernacchii E. maclovinus N. furzeri D. rerio A. carolinensis L. borealis H. glaber C. porcellus B. mysticetus H. sapiens
Common Name Mackerel Icefish Ocellated icefish Blackfin Icefish Marbled rockcod Emerald rockcod Rockcod Killifish Zebra fish Lizard Eastern red bat Naked mole rat Guinea Pig Bowhead Whale Humans
Accession No. ATP6 (protein) YP_006575887.1 YP_009519992.1 AEH05456.1 BBC27483.1 ANN44664.1 YP_009340798.1 YP_002456261.1 NP_059336.1 ACD81888.2 YP_005255233.1 YP_004222617.1 QIQ22938.1 AWM99473.1 YP_003024031.1
Accession No. ATP6 (nucleotide) NC_018340.1 NC_039543.1 NC_015654.1 NC_015653.1 KU166863 NC_033386.1 NC_011814.1 NC_002333.2 NC_016873.1 NC_001573.1 NC_015112.1 NC_000884.1 NC_005268.1 NC_012920.1
Accession No. ATP8 (protein) YP_006575886.1 YP_009519991.1 YP_004581501.1 YP_004581488.1 ANN44663.1 YP_009340797.1 YP_002456260.1 NP_059335.1 ACD81887.2 YP_005255232.1 YP_004222616.1 NP_008755.1 NP_944611.1 NC_012920.1
Haemoglobin - - - + + + + + + + + + + +
Myoglobin - + - + + + + + + + + + + +
Length of nucleotide ATP6 683 695 695 695 695 695 682 683 680 683 680 680 680 680
5’ flanking region ATP8 74 nt 75nt 75nt 75nt 75nt 75nt 74nt 73nt 67nt-trn-Lysine 71nt 73nt 68nt 71nt 71nt
ATP6-Start codon atg gtg gtg gtg atg gtg atg atg atg atg atg atg atg atg
4_nucleotides at 5’end - + GTG-AAC-CTG-ACC + GTG-AAC-CTG-ACC + GTG-GTC-CTG-ACC + ATG-AAC-TTG-GCC + GTG-AAC-CTG-ACC - - - - - - - -
4_amino acid at 5’end - +MNLT +MNLT +MVLT +MNLA +MNLT - - - - - - - -
Codon aligning at position 35/39 (nucleotide) GCT TCT TCT TCT TCC TCT CTT ACA AAT ACC CCC CCC CCA CCA
Residue Aligning at position 35/39 (protein) Alanine Serine Serine Serine Serine Serine Leucine Threonine Asparagine - - - - -
Residues at positions 38–39 aligned to 42–43 residues Valine-Isoleucine Valine-Isoleucine Valine-Isoleucine Valine-Isoleucine Valine-Valine Valine-Valine Tryptophan-Leucine Tryptophan-Isoleucine Leucine-Valine Isoleucine-Asparagine Isoleucine-Asparagine Isoleucine-Asparagine Isoleucine-Asparagine Isoleucine-Asparagine
Properties of substitution Non-Polar Non-Polar Non-Polar Non-Polar Non-Polar Non-Polar Non-polar aromatic AA -Hydrophobic branched AA Non-polar aromatic AA -Hydrophobic branched AA Hydrophobic AA Hydrophobic AA—Polar, non-charged AA Hydrophobic AA—Polar, non-charged AA Hydrophobic AA—Polar, non-charged AA Hydrophobic AA—Polar, non-charged AA Hydrophobic AA—Polar, non-charged AA
Structural change at position 38–39 aligned to 42–43 residues strand-strand coil-coil coil-coil coil-coil strand-strand strand-strand strand-strand strand-strand strand-strand coil-coil coil-coil coil-coil coil-coil coil-coil

Comparison of properties of amino acids among the sequence from the above-mentioned species

Using the ExPASy [39] tool ProtScale [40], different amino acid properties such as the molecular weight of amino acids across the sequence, hydrophobicity trend of amino acids, α—helix forming amino acids, average flexibility trend and mutability for the protein ATP6 were compared graphically among the seven fish species (5 Antarctic, 1 sub-Antarctic, D. rerio and N. furzeri) (https://web.expasy.org/protscale/).

Structure prediction for protein sequences

The MSA was structurally validated using the structure prediction tool I-TASSER [41] (Iterative Threading ASSEmbly Refinement) a hierarchical approach to protein structure and function prediction, to generate the protein structure for AT6 from different species (https://zhanglab.ccmb.med.umich.edu/I-TASSER/). The structures were validated using SAVES v6.0 (https://saves.mbi.ucla.edu/), using ERRAT [42], PROCHECK [43,44] and ProSA-web [45]. (Figures in supplementary files).

Figures

Protein structure images were produced with PyMOL v. 2.3.2. (The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 2.0 Schrödinger, LLC.) Graphs were produced with MATLAB version R2018b (9.5.0). Sequence logos were created using the webserver WebLogo using alignment of 5947 vertebrate (NCBI:txid7742) protein sequences for the protein ATP6 (http://weblogo.threeplusone.com/). Using RefSeq sequences with custom range of sequence length of 224–231 to obtain full sequences only (searched: 3rd May 2021).

Results

Codon alignment

MSA of all the sequences of ATP8 (see Fig 1) and ATP6 (see Fig 2) from the different vertebrate species (see Table 1) for both nucleotide (codon) and proteins identified several conserved codons and amino acid residues. The sequence knowledge was gathered from curated entries in RefSeq which nevertheless could be subject to error.

Fig 1. Multiple sequence alignment for nucleotide sequences of ATP synthase subunit 8.

Fig 1

Multiple codon alignment of nucleotide sequences of ATP synthase subunit 8 was created using the Clustal omega alignment of nucleotides we screened five Antarctic and one sub-Antarctic fish species and eight vertebrate outgroups same as ATP6 MSA (See Fig 1 for colour key). The highlighted boxes show the overlap of the ATP8 and ATP6 sequences for different species where different colour of the boxes correspond to the different lengths of overlap.

Fig 2. (a-d) Multiple sequence alignment for nucleotide sequences of ATP synthase subunit 6.

Fig 2

Multiple codon alignment of nucleotide sequences of ATP synthase subunit 6 was created using the Clustal omega alignment of nucleotides for five Antarctic and one sub-Antarctic fish species and eight vertebrate outgroups and visualised) using MATLAB. The colour of the codon boxes corresponds to the respective amino acid (See colour key).

Five of the six Antarctic fish species have twelve nucleotides (four codons) at the 5’ end of the gene sequence which are not found in the other eight vertebrate species. The codon alignment ATP6 for species E. maclovinus, N. coriiceps, C. rastrospinosus and C. aceratus show that GTG codes for methionine, as the start codon for the protein. GTG which is originally known for coding the amino acid valine has been accepted as a mitochondrion start codon for invertebrate mitogenomes [4648]. A common feature with the species that have GTG as a start codon is that N. coriiceps, E. maclovinus, C. rastrospinosus have genes coding for myoglobin, where the latter is devoid of haemoglobin. C. aceratus do not express myoglobin due to a 15 bp sequence insertion, other than that difference, their myoglobin gene sequence is identical to that of C. rastrospinosus [9]. The only exception to this is the red-blooded species T. bernacchii, but this may be attributed to the unverified source of its sequence submission.

Another trend that has been observed through sequence alignment is that the species that are more similar and have the same amino acid for a particular position also have codons with the same nucleotide (nt) at the third position. ‘TGA’ codons or ‘stop codons’ are found within the translated sequence, here these code for tryptophan, as seen in human and yeast mitochondria [49]. A variation in the length of the sequences was observed, with an average length for ATP6 nt sequence of 683 and 74 nt for ATP8 gene sequences. The ATP6 sequence ends with a TAA stop codon in all species except the two red blooded Antarctic fish species, N. coriiceps and E. maclovinus.

Overlapping genes

The overlap between genes is encoded on the same strand (Table 1). The length of overlap was 22 nt in ATP8-ATP6 for the five of the six species of Notothenioidei suborder, that is excluding icefish C. gunnari where the overlap was of 10nt. Species H. sapiens, H. glaber, L. borealis and C. porcellus had an overlap of 43nt between ATP6 and ATP8. The shortest overlap between the two genes were observed in the species A. carolinesis has an overlap of 10nt and N. furzeri and D. rerio, have an overlap of 7nts.

Protein alignment and structural changes in ATP6

The complete amino acid sequences for ATP8 and ATP6 were aligned separately for the fourteen vertebrate species (see Figs 3 & 4). Protein sequence alignment showed conserved residues across the species based on identity and similarity. Four Antarctic fish species, N. coriiceps, T. bernacchii, C. rastrospinosus, C. aceratus and the sub-Antarctic E. maclovinus have four amino acids at the N-terminal with a total of 231 residues. As previously mentioned, the only exception to this, is the species C. gunnari with 227 residues similar to that of other fish species, N. furzeri and D. rerio. Species H. sapiens, A. carolinesis, L. borealis, H. glaber and C. porcellus have 226 residues and B. mysticetus has 225 residues. The protein ATP6 in vertebrates is known to have 226–228 residues. In humans, four point mutations in the ATP6 gene account for 82% of disease associated with this gene, suggesting point mutations could have physiological relevance [50,51]. Common features in all fourteen species were as follows: (1) several hydrophobic amino acids (light pink) were observed to be conserved across the sequences in the species, (2) insertions and deletions of amino acids occurred more frequently near N-termini, and (3) the C-terminal of the protein sequence is hydrophilic. Dashes in the amino acid sequence represent gaps which may be an insertion or deletion of a residue. The gap in the alignment is observed for the species H. sapiens, L. borealis, C. porcellus, B. mysticetus and H. glaber at position 35, and at the C-terminal end for A. carolinesis and B. mysticetus, at position 226 and 225 respectively.

Fig 3. Multiple sequence alignment of ATP8 protein sequences.

Fig 3

The ATP8 protein sequences were aligned using Clustal omega and edited using zappo colour scheme in JalView. Notothenioidei are grouped together in blue; all species are displayed to the colour corresponding to their phylogenetic closeness. (Colours according to physio-chemical properties of amino acids; Aliphatic/hydrophobic-A, I, L, M, V- light pink; Aromatic-F, W, Y- mustard; Conformationally special- Glycine, P- magenta; C-yellow; Hydrophilic- N, Q, S, Q, T- light green; Negatively charged/D,E-Red; Positively charged/R,H,K-Blue) in jalview. The bar-graphs below represent a quantitative measure of conservation at each position. The figure was created using JalView.

Fig 4. Multiple sequence alignment for protein sequences of ATP synthase F0 subunit 6.

Fig 4

The ATP6 protein sequences were aligned using Clustal omega and edited using zappo colour scheme.

The amino acid at position 35 has predominantly hydrophilic residues except in the two species C. gunnari and N. furzeri, where it is substituted with alanine or leucine respectively. All the Antarctic species except C. gunnari, the sub-Antarctic species, E. maclovinus and surprisingly H. sapiens from the mammalian species have a serine at this position. When we look at the codon alignment of the ATP6 gene, serine is encoded by codon TCT predominantly at position 39 for all the species except T. bernacchii and H. sapiens and the alanine for the species C. gunnari is encoded by GCT (see Fig 2).

The logo (see Fig 5) displays the conserved amino acids in the protein ATP6 for a particular position for 5947 vertebrate species. The protein is overall very conserved in the vertebrates, and position 38–39 show conservation for amino acids serine and threonine as also seen in the Antarctic species (except C. gunnari) and E. maclovinus.

Fig 5. Sequence logos displaying conservation of residues created for all aligned blocks of the MSA for protein ATP synthase F0 subunit 6 for 5947 vertebrate species from NCBI using webserver WebLogo (http://weblogo.threeplusone.com/) the y axis represents probability of the residue occurring at that position from the MSA.

Fig 5

A similar pattern was found in the amino acid alignment of ATP8, where the species, H. sapiens, B. mysticetus, H. glaber, C. porcellus and L. borealis, that showed a gap in the previous alignment have hydrophilic residues whereas the other species have a gap at the position 47. This observation could be attributed to the overlapping nature of the nucleotide sequences coding for the two proteins. The protein sequence of ATP6 was observed to be more conserved than ATP8. The amino acid sequences at the N- terminal are more diverse, and the methionine residues are usually followed by amino acids with short polar side chains [52]. Alanine is a non-polar amino acid whereas serine is a polar amino acid. The hydrophobicity plot, average flexibility, mutability, and coil prediction across the sequences has shown that T. bernacchii and E. maclovinus show similar trends in their physico-chemical properties across the sequence. Notothenia coriiceps, C. aceratus and C. rastrospinosus follow this trend. Champsocephalus gunnari is the only species out of the seven fish species compared, that is different from the others (see Fig 6).

Fig 6. Primary sequence features of ATP Synthase F0 subunit 6 in species C. gunnari (red), C. rastrospinosus, C. aceratus, N. coriiceps, T. bernacchii, E. maclovinus, N. furzeri and D. rerio.

Fig 6

Red Box: N-terminal property changes, Purple Box: Changes in properties observed at 35/39 variation, blue box: Conserved regions 90–170 (Active site 160–169), Pink Box: C-terminal low hydrophobicity. A difference in the peaks have been observed for different properties (highlighted) such as molecular weight and hydrophobicity of amino acid residues across the sequence and other properties such as tendency of amino acid residues towards beta-sheet, bulkiness and flexibility.

Protein structure differences were predicted at position 38–39 for species C. gunnari (icefish), N. furzeri, D. rerio and A. carolinesis, where a strand-strand structure is found at that position. All other species have coil structures at those positions (see Fig 7). For species T. bernacchii and E. maclovinus there is also a prediction for a strand structure at positions 42–43.

Fig 7. Representative structures of ATP synthase F0 subunit 6 for the fourteen vertebrate species created using I-TASSER [41] suite and visualised and edited using PyMOL v. 2.3.2.

Fig 7

a) C. gunnari(-/-) residues 38 (valine) and 39 (isoleucine) shows strand structure b) C. aceratus(-/-) residues 42(valine) and 43 coil (isoleucine), aligning with 38/39 in MSA, show a coil structure c) C. rastrospinosus(-/+) residues 42-Valine and 43-Isoleucine has a coil structure d) T. bernacchii(+/+) residues 42-Valine and 43-Valine show a strand structure e) E. maclovinus (+/+) residues 42 -Valine and 43-Valine show a strand structure f) N. coriiceps(+/+) residues 42 (Valine) 43 (isoleucine) has a coil structure. g) A. carolinesis residues 38 (Leucine) and 39(Valine) show a strand structure h) D. rerio residues 38 (tryptophan) and 39(Isoleucine) show a strand structure i) N. furzeri residues 38 (Tryptophan) and 39 (Leucine) show a strand structure. j) C. porcellus residues 38 (Isoleucine) and 39 (Asparagine) show a coil structure k) B. mysticetus residues 38 (Isoleucine) and 39 (Asparagine) show a coil structure. l) H. glaber residues 38 (Isoleucine) and 39 (Asparagine) show a coil structure—m) L. borealis residues 38 (Isoleucine) and 39 (Asparagine) show a coil structure.

Discussion

We present our analyses highlighting differences in sequence and structure observed in the two proteins of complex V, ATP8 and ATP6, encoded by mtDNA between the red- and white blooded species of suborder Notothenioidei. Our analyses are based on the current genome annotation available which is subject to change as more information becomes available. We have only selected RefSeq sequences as these are reviewed by NCBI and represent a compilation of the current knowledge of a gene and protein products and is synthesised using information integrated from multiple sources. RefSeq is used as a reference standard for a variety of purposes such as genome annotation and reporting locations of sequence variation. It is important to acknowledge however that database information is regularly updated and may change. Currently, the RefSeq and GenBank entries available for a ATP6 sequences for the Antarctic/sub-Antarctic fish, NC_015653.1, AP006021.1 (N. coriiceps), NC_039543.1, MF622064.1 (C. rastrospinosus), NC_033386.1, KY038381.1 (E. maclovinus), NC_015654.1, YP_004581502.1 (C. aceratus), which are submitted by different authors, have the start codon as GTG for the five species of Notothenioidei suborder. The protein length of ATP6 has been consistent in all the entries, 231 amino acids.

It has previously been shown that mitochondria from icefish are more tightly coupled than those of their red-blooded counterparts [34]. Mitochondria that are tightly coupled usually have competent membranes and protons can only get into the matrix by passing through complex V. The red-blooded species N. coriiceps, E. maclovinus, T. bernacchii, the two icefish C. rastrospinosus (devoid of hb, have mb), C. aceratus (devoid of hb, do not express mb but have a nearly identical gene to that of C. rastrospinosus for mb), have an additional 12 nucleotides at the N-terminal. The only exception to this is the icefish C. gunnari which is completely devoid of both hb and mb. Since C. gunnari is the extreme of all the species of Notothenioidei suborder in question in terms of loss of globins, the change observed could be an altered variation for the gene.

GTG as an alternative start codon

The biosynthesis of proteins encoded by their respective mRNA requires an initiation codon for their translation. ATG is the usual initiation codon but GTG has been reported as initiation codon in some lower organisms, the frequency of annotated alternate codon in higher organisms is found to be less than 1% [53]. An in-vitro study of GTG-mediated translation of enhanced green fluorescent protein suggested that initiation with GTG codon regulates expression of lower levels of the protein and a similar observation was made for the protein endopin 2B-2 [54]. It has also been observed in a few human diseases that a mutation of the ATG initiation codon to a GTG are associated with diseases such as beta-thalassemia and Norrie disease, where GTG mutation leads to inactivation of the gene [55,56]. Another example is a disruption caused by GTG as the initiation codon in the gene CYP2C19, which resulted in poor metabolism of a drug, mephenytoin, when compared to the gene with an ATG initiation codon [57]. Numerous studies on bacteria and lower organisms show GTG as a start codon, where the non-methionine codon is initially coded for, however, when they act as a start codon the initial amino acid is substituted with a methionine [54,58]. There is only a single report of a vertebrate species, rat, where GTG is the start codon in mtDNA [59]. An ATG to GTG exchange in human gene FRMD7 (FERM Domain Containing 7) has been found as a first base transversion of the start codon that accounts for a mutation, causing morphological changes in the optic nerve head [60]. The level of corresponding protein expression has been shown to be lower when initiated using an alternative codon such as GTG rather than ATG [54,61]. GTG was observed as a start codon for ATP8 in fish Philomycus bilineatus, which adds onto the show GTG as an acceptable start codon [62].

A few but increasing number of mammalian genes have been found to give rise to an alternative initiation codon in regulatory proteins such as transcription factors, growth factors and a few kinases in humans and rats. The finding in all these studies have shown a similar trend of a lower level of protein production when compared to an ATG start codon [6365]. It has been shown that the fish inhabiting colder climates had undergone stronger selective constraints in order to avoid deleterious mutations [66,67]. MtDNA coding genes such as ATP6, could be placed under selective pressures by low environmental temperatures. A larger ratio of substitution for different sites could indicate proteins undergoing adaptations [68]. A decrease in ATP6 activity previously reported, shows incomplete ATPase complexes that are capable of ATP hydrolysis but not ATP synthesis. ATPase complexes completely lacking subunit a, were capable of maintaining structural interactions between F1 and F0 parts of the enzyme but the interactions were found to be weaker [69].

The GTG initiation for protein ATP6 in these fish species could suggest a common parallel evolution of the translation machinery. The favouring of GTG as a start codon could also mean a higher stability of the protein as GC base pair has higher thermal stability when compared to the AT base pair which is attributed from stronger stacking interaction between GC bases and a presence of triple bond compared to that of AT double bond [70].

Overlap of ATP8 and ATP6 genes

Protein coding genes ATP8 and ATP6 are located adjacent to each other and are overlapping on the same strand in humans and other vertebrates, with an overlap of 44 nt (NCBI: NC_012920.1) observed in the humans for the gene. It has been previously reported that ATP8-ATP6 overlap is generally of 10 nt in the fish genome [71]. Species T. bernacchii, E. maclovinus, N. coriiceps, C. rastrospinosus and C. aceratus show an overlap of 22 nts and C. gunnari has a 10 nt overlap, as reported previously in other fish genomes mentioned above. The overlap for the four out of six species of suborder Notothenioidei start from the third nucleotide for codon AAG coding for amino acid lysine whereas for the other two species, T. bernacchii and C. gunnari, it is encoded by AAA. It is hypothesised that overlaps are a mechanism for reduction of genome size and regulation of gene expression [72,73], which is seen in the species C. gunnari and the eight vertebrate outgroups.

The gene coding ATP8 ends with the stop codon TAG for all species of suborder Notothenioidei and TAA for the other vertebrate species, a single exception to this was H. glaber that ends with a TAG stop codon. It has been previously hypothesised that TAG is a sub-optimal stop codon which is less likely to be selected. A study showed that the protein encoding genes that end with TAA stop codons are, on average more abundant than those with genes ending with TGA or TAG and further shows that a switch of stop codon TAG from TGA might pass through the mutational path of TAA stop codon which could be subject to positive selection in several groups [74].

Protein alignment and structural changes in ATP6

The four Antarctic fish species, N. coriiceps, T. bernacchii, C. rastrospinosus, C. aceratus and the sub-Antarctic E. maclovinus have four amino acids at the N-terminal of ATP6 and a total of 231 residues. As previously mentioned, the only exception to this is the species C. gunnari with 227 residues similar to N. furzeri and D. rerio. N-terminal addition of amino acids can influence the properties of the protein, as it can change the molecular weight of the protein, the charge, hydrophobicity, and this has been seen in the yeast meta-caspase prion protein Mca1 [75].

Amino acid position 35 is populated with predominantly hydrophilic residues, apart for the two species C. gunnari and N. furzeri, where respectively, alanine and leucine are found. All the other Antarctic fish species and E. maclovinus have a serine at this position. When we look at the codon alignment of the ATP6 gene, serine is encoded by codon TCT at position 39 for all the species except T. bernacchii (encoded by TCC) and the alanine for the species C. gunnari is encoded by GCT. Serine is the only amino acid that is encoded by two codon sets. A common example of a missense mutation is where the single base pair can alter the corresponding codon to a different amino acid. This base substitution even though affecting a single codon can still have a significant effect on the protein production. It has been recently discovered that serine at a highly conserved position is more often encoded in TCN fashion and will tend to substitute non-synonymously to proline and alanine, which shows that codon for which serine is coded indicate different types of selection for amino acid and its acceptable substitutions [76]. This may be suggested as a reason for the presence of hydrophobic alanine observed in C. gunnari at position 35.

The weblogo for protein ATP6 shows overall conservation across the sequence for the vertebrates where the C-terminal of the protein is more conserved than the N-terminal. High conservation is observed from residues 85–112 and 165–185, as also seen in our MSA for the fourteen species. The position 35 is seen to be conserved preferably for threonine or serine as in the weblogo (Fig 5).

The hydrophobicity plot, average flexibility, mutability, and coil prediction across the sequences highlights differences in the physiochemical properties across the sequence of protein ATP6 in the species C. gunnari.

The secondary structure of a protein is the way in which protein molecules are coiled and folded in a certain way according to the primary sequence. Beta-strands give stability to the structure of a protein, its intrinsic flexibility can sometimes return it to coil configuration in order for the protein to perform other functions. Structural changes were observed at position 38–39 for species C. gunnari, N. furzeri, D. rerio and A. carolinesis, where strand-strand structure was predicted at that position. All other species are predicted to have coil structures at those positions (Figs 6 & 7). Species T. bernacchii and E. maclovinus are predicted to have strand structures at positions 42–43.

Protein structure, dynamics and function are all interlinked and it is vital to understand the structure of a protein in relation to function to comprehend molecular processes [77]. We have used the unique biology of the icefish to gain a better understanding of the variability of ATP6 and ATP8 sequence and structure which has importance for mitochondrial function.

Conclusions

In this study we suggest that mitochondrial encoded protein ATP6 has an alternative start codon GTG in the species of suborder Notothenioidei except for the hb-less C. gunnari. This could be related to a higher thermal stability with altered expression of this protein. Another striking difference observed only in C. gunnari for the protein, was a substitution of hydrophilic amino acid serine (TCT) to hydrophobic amino acid alanine (GCT). This could be a base substitution for thymine to guanine at N1 position of the codon that might have a structural impact on the protein. Our predictions based on the available curated sequence data now point to the need for targeted experimentation to understand the full physiological impact of our findings.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. A pictographic representation of the relatedness of ‘ATP6 protein’ sequence for notothenioids to other species using NJ-phylogenetic tree (Clustal omega[35]) analysed by taking alignment data that shows similarity in the amino acid composition of the protein for different vertebrate species (pictures source: Wikipedia.com, human skull: Bonesclones.com, naked mole rat: Wikiwand.com, E. maclovinus: Scanndposters.com).

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Protein structure evaluations of ATP6 for fish species C. aceratus, C. gunnari, C. rastrospinosus, E. maclovinus, N. corriceps, T. bernacchii, D. rerio and N. furzeri (A-I) using SAVES v6.0 (https://saves.mbi.ucla.edu/), using ERRAT[41], PROCHECK[42,43] and ProSA-web[44].

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

Gunjan Katyal was supported by Vice Chancellor’s International Scholarship for Research Excellence, University of Nottingham (2018-2021) https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/. Brad E Banks was supported by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council https://bbsrc.ukri.org/ [grant number BB/J014508/1. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Duman JG. Animal ice-binding (antifreeze) proteins and glycolipids: An overview with emphasis on physiological function. J Exp Biol. 2015;218: 1846–1855. doi: 10.1242/jeb.116905 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Devries AL. Role of glycopeptides and pepddes in inhibition of crystallization of water in polar fishes. Philos Trans R Soc London B, Biol Sci. 1984;304: 575–588. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1984.0048 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chen L, Devries AL, Cheng CHC. Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94: 3811–3816. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.8.3811 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Harding MM, Anderberg PI, Haymet ADJ. “Antifreeze” glycoproteins from polar fish. European Journal of Biochemistry. 2003. pp. 1381–1392. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1033.2003.03488.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ruud Johan T. Vertebrates without Erythrocytes and Blood Pigment. Nature. 1954;173: 848–850. doi: 10.1038/173848a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hamoir G. Biochemical adaptation of the muscles of the channichthyidae to their lack in hemoglobin and myoglobin. Comp Biochem Physiol—Part B Biochem. 1988;90: 557–559. doi: 10.1016/0305-0491(88)90295-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sidell BD, O’Brien KM. When bad things happen to good fish: The loss of hemoglobin and myoglobin expression in Antarctic icefishes. J Exp Biol. 2006;209: 1791–1802. doi: 10.1242/jeb.02091 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sidell BD, Vayda ME, Small DJ, Moylan TJ, Londraville RL, Yuan ML, et al. Variable expression of myoglobin among the hemoglobinless Antarctic icefishes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94: 3420–3424. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.7.3420 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Small DJ, Moylan T, Vayda ME, Sidell BD. The myoglobin gene of the Antarctic icefish, Chaenocephalus aceratus, contains a duplicated TATAAAA sequence that interferes with transcription. J Exp Biol. 2003;206: 131–139. doi: 10.1242/jeb.00067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.O’Brien KM, Xue H, Sidell BD. Quantification of diffusion distance within the spongy myocardium of hearts from antarctic fishes. Respir Physiol. 2000;122: 71–80. doi: 10.1016/s0034-5687(00)00139-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.O’Brien KM, Sidell BD. The interplay among cardiac ultrastructure, metabolism and the expression of oxygen-binding proteins in Antarctic fishes. J Exp Biol. 2000;203: 1287–1297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Small DJ, Vayda ME, Sidell BD. A novel vertebrate myoglobin gene containing three A+T-rich introns is conserved among antarctic teleost species which differ in myoglobin expression. J Mol Evol. 1998;47: 156–166. doi: 10.1007/pl00006372 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Archer SD, Johnston IA. Density of Cristae and Distribution of Mitochondria in the Slow Muscle Fibers of Antarctic Fish. Physiol Zool. 1991;64: 242–258. doi: 10.1086/physzool.64.1.30158522 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.O’Brien KM. Mitochondrial biogenesis in cold-bodied fishes. J Exp Biol. 2011;214: 275–285. doi: 10.1242/jeb.046854 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Biederman AM, Kuhn DE, O’Brien KM, Crockett EL. Mitochondrial membranes in cardiac muscle from Antarctic notothenioid fishes vary in phospholipid composition and membrane fluidity. Comp Biochem Physiol Part—B Biochem Mol Biol. 2019;235: 46–53. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpb.2019.05.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Dimroth P. Operation of the F0 motor of the ATP synthase. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta—Bioenergetics. 2000. pp. 374–386. doi: 10.1016/S0005-2728(00)00088-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Angevine CM, Fillingame RH. Aqueous access channels in subunit a of rotary ATP synthase. J Biol Chem. 2003;278: 6066–6074. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M210199200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Aksimentiev A, Balabin IA, Fillingame RH, Schulten K. Insights into the Molecular Mechanism of Rotation in the F o Sector of ATP Synthase. Biophys J. 2004;86: 1332–1344. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(04)74205-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Noji H, Yasuda R, Yoshida M, Kinosita K. Direct observation of the rotation of F1-ATPase. Nature. 1997;386: 299–302. doi: 10.1038/386299a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ma J, Flynn TC, Cui Q, Leslie AGW, Walker JE, Karplus M. A dynamic analysis of the rotation mechanism for conformational change in F1-ATPase. Structure. 2002;10: 921–931. doi: 10.1016/s0969-2126(02)00789-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Artika IM. Current understanding of structure, function and biogenesis of yeast mitochondrial ATP synthase. J Bioenerg Biomembr. 2019;51: 315–328. doi: 10.1007/s10863-019-09809-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mitchell P. Coupling of phosphorylation to electron and hydrogen transfer by a chemi-osmotic type of mechanism. Nature. 1961;191: 144–148. doi: 10.1038/191144a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Abrahams JP, Leslie AGW, Lutter R, Walker JE. Structure at 2.8 Â resolution of F1-ATPase from bovine heart mitochondria. Nature. 1994;370: 621–628. doi: 10.1038/370621a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Klusch N, Murphy BJ, Mills DJ, Yildiz Ö, Kühlbrandt W. Structural basis of proton translocation and force generation in mitochondrial ATP synthase. Elife. 2017;6: 1–16. doi: 10.7554/eLife.33274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kubo S, Niina T, Takada S. Molecular dynamics simulation of proton-transfer coupled rotations in ATP synthase FO motor. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 1–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Fearnley IM, Walker JE. Two overlapping genes in bovine mitochondrial DNA encode membrane components of ATP synthase. EMBO J. 1986;5: 2003–2008. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1986.tb04456.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Colina-Tenorio L, Dautant A, Miranda-Astudillo H, Giraud MF, González-Halphen D. The peripheral stalk of rotary ATPases. Front Physiol. 2018;9: 1–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Devenish RJ, Papakonstantinou T, Galanis M, Law RH, Linnane AW, Nagley P. Structure/function analysis of yeast mitochondrial ATP synthase subunit 8. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1992;671: 403–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb43814.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Stephens AN, Khan MA, Roucou X, Nagley P, Devenish RJ. The molecular neighborhood of subunit 8 of yeast mitochondrial F1F0-ATP synthase probed by cysteine scanning mutagenesis and chemical modification. J Biol Chem. 2003;278: 17867–17875. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M300967200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lee J, Ding SJ, Walpole TB, Holding AN, Montgomery MG, Fearnley IM, et al. Organization of subunits in the membrane domain of the bovine F-ATPase revealed by covalent cross-linking. J Biol Chem. 2015;290: 13308–13320. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M115.645283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Grandier-Vazeille X, Ouhabi R, Guérin M. Antibodies against subunits of F0 sector of ATP synthase from Saccharomyces cerevisiae Stimulation of ATP synthase by subunit-8-reactive antibodies and inhibition by subunit-9-reactive antibodies. Eur J Biochem. 1994;223: 521–528. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1994.tb19021.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Allegretti M, Klusch N, Mills DJ, Vonck J, Kühlbrandt W, Davies KM. Horizontal membrane-intrinsic α-helices in the stator a-subunit of an F-type ATP synthase. Nature. 2015;521: 237–240. doi: 10.1038/nature14185 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gu J, Zhang L, Zong S, Guo R, Liu T, Yi J, et al. Cryo-EM structure of the mammalian ATP synthase tetramer bound with inhibitory protein IF1. 2019;1075: 1068–1075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mueller IA, Grim JM, Beers JM, Crockett EL, O’Brien KM. Inter-relationship between mitochondrial function and susceptibility to oxidative stress in red-And white-blooded Antarctic notothenioid fishes. J Exp Biol. 2011;214: 3732–3741. doi: 10.1242/jeb.062042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.O’Leary NA, Wright MW, Brister JR, Ciufo S, Haddad D, McVeigh R, et al. Reference sequence (RefSeq) database at NCBI: Current status, taxonomic expansion, and functional annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44: D733–D745. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv1189 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Madeira F, Park YM, Lee J, Buso N, Gur T, Madhusoodanan N, et al. The EMBL-EBI search and sequence analysis tools APIs in 2019. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47: W636–W641. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz268 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Rozewicki J, Li S, Amada KM, Standley DM, Katoh K. MAFFT-DASH: Integrated protein sequence and structural alignment. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47: W5–W10. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Waterhouse AM, Procter JB, Martin DMA, Clamp M, Barton GJ. Jalview Version 2-A multiple sequence alignment editor and analysis workbench. Bioinformatics. 2009;25: 1189–1191. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gasteiger E, Gattiker A, Hoogland C, Ivanyi I, Appel RD, Bairoch A. ExPASy: The proteomics server for in-depth protein knowledge and analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003;31: 3784–3788. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkg563 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Gasteiger E, Hoogland C, Gattiker A, Duvaud S, Wilkins MR, Appel RD, et al. The Proteomics Protocols Handbook. Proteomics Protoc Handb. 2005; 571–608. doi: 10.1385/1592598900 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Yang J, Zhang Y. I-TASSER server: New development for protein structure and function predictions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43: W174–W181. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Colovos C, Yeates TO. Verification of protein structures: Patterns of nonbonded atomic interactions. Protein Sci. 1993;2: 1511–1519. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560020916 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Laskowski RA, MacArthur MW, Moss DS, Thornton JM. PROCHECK: a program to check the stereochemical quality of protein structures. J Appl Crystallogr. 1993;26: 283–291. doi: 10.1107/s0021889892009944 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Sippl MJ. Recognition of errors in three-dimensional structures of proteins. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinforma. 1993;17: 355–362. doi: 10.1002/prot.340170404 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Wiederstein M, Sippl MJ. ProSA-web: Interactive web service for the recognition of errors in three-dimensional structures of proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35: 407–410. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkm290 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Guo J, Yang H, Zhang C, Xue H, Xia Y, Zhang JE. Complete mitochondrial genome of the apple snail Pomacea diffusa (Gastropoda, Ampullariidae) with phylogenetic consideration. Mitochondrial DNA Part B Resour. 2017;2: 865–867. doi: 10.1080/23802359.2017.1407683 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lin GM, Xiang P, Sampurna BP, Der Hsiao C. Genome skimming yields the complete mitogenome of Chromodoris annae (Mollusca: Chromodorididae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B Resour. 2017;2: 609–610. doi: 10.1080/23802359.2017.1372715 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Yang T, Xu G, Gu B, Shi Y, Mzuka HL, Shen H. The complete mitochondrial genome sequences of the Philomycus bilineatus (Stylommatophora: Philomycidae) and phylogenetic analysis. Genes (Basel). 2019;10: 1–13. doi: 10.3390/genes10030198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Fox TD. Five TGA “stop” codons occur within the translated sequence of the yeast mitochondrial gene for cytochrome c oxidase subunit II. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979;76: 6534–6538. doi: 10.1073/pnas.76.12.6534 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Verny C, Guegen N, Desquiret V, Chevrollier A, Prundean A, Dubas F, et al. Hereditary spastic paraplegia-like disorder due to a mitochondrial ATP6 gene point mutation. Mitochondrion. 2011;11: 70–75. doi: 10.1016/j.mito.2010.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Pfeffer G, Frcpc CM, Blakely EL, Alston CL, Boggild M, Horvath R, et al. Europe PMC Funders Group Adult-onset spinocerebellar ataxia syndromes due to MTATP6 mutations. 2014;83: 883–886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Arnesen T, Van Damme P, Polevoda B, Helsens K, Evjenth R, Colaert N, et al. Proteomics analyses reveal the evolutionary conservation and divergence of N-terminal acetyltransferases from yeast and humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106: 8157–8162. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0901931106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Donath A, Jühling F, Al-Arab M, Bernhart SH, Reinhardt F, Stadler PF, et al. Improved annotation of protein-coding genes boundaries in metazoan mitochondrial genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47: 10543–10552. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz833 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hwang SR, Garza CZ, Wegrzyn JL, Hook VYH. Demonstration of GTG as an alternative initiation codon for the serpin endopin 2B-2. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2005;327: 837–844. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.12.053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Villalobos-ar AR, Casas-casta M, Guti E, Perea FJ, Thein SL, Ibarra B. Globin gene haplotypes in Mexican mestizos. 1997; 498–500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Isashiki Y, Ohba N, Yanagita T, Hokita N, Doi N, Nakagawa M, et al. Novel mutation at the initiation codon in the Norrie disease gene in two Japanese families. Hum Genet. 1995;95: 105–108. doi: 10.1007/BF00225085 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ferguson RJ, De Morais SMF, Benhamou S, Bouchardy C, Blaisdell J, Ibeanu G, et al. A new genetic defect in human CYP2C19: Mutation of the initiation codon is responsible for poor metabolism of S-mephenytoin. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1998;284: 356–361. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kitamoto T, Wang W, Salvaterra PM. Structure and organization of the Drosophila cholinergic locus. J Biol Chem. 1998;273: 2706–2713. doi: 10.1074/jbc.273.5.2706 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Gadaleta G, Pepe G, De Candia G, Quagliariellol C, Sbisa E, Saccone C, et al. Nucleic Acids Research Nucleotide sequence of rat nitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase subunit 1. GTG, a new initiator codon in vertebrate mitochondrial genome We have determined the nucleotide sequence of cloned fragments that contain with ATT. However th. 1988;22: 6233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 60.Choi JH, Shin JH, Seo JH, Jung JH, Choi KD. A start codon mutation of the FRMD7 gene in two Korean families with idiopathic infantile nystagmus. Sci Rep. 2015;5: 5–10. doi: 10.1038/srep13003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Panicker IS, Browning GF, Markham PF. The effect of an alternate start codon on heterologous expression of a PhoA fusion protein in mycoplasma gallisepticum. PLoS One. 2015;10: 1–10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127911 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Yang T, Xu G, Gu B, Shi Y, Mzuka HL, Shen H. The complete mitochondrial genome sequences of the Philomycus bilineatus (Stylommatophora: Philomycidae) and phylogenetic analysis. Genes (Basel). 2019;10: 1–14. doi: 10.3390/genes10030198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Short JD, Pfarr CM. Translational regulation of the JunD messenger RNA. J Biol Chem. 2002;277: 32697–32705. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M204553200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Claus P, Döring F, Gringel S, Müller-Ostermeyer F, Fuhlrott J, Kraft T, et al. Differential intranuclear localization of fibroblast growth factor-2 isoforms and specific interaction with the survival of motoneuron protein. J Biol Chem. 2003;278: 479–485. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M206056200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Rhee S, Yang SJ, Lee SJ, Park D. βPix-bL, a novel isoform of βPix, is generated by alternative translation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2004;318: 415–421. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.04.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Silva G, Lima FP, Martel P, Castilho R. Thermal adaptation and clinal mitochondrial DNA variation of European anchovy. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2014;281. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1093 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Sun YB, Shen YY, Irwin DM, Zhang YP. Evaluating the roles of energetic functional constraints on teleost mitochondrial-encoded protein evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 2011;28: 39–44. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msq256 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Deng Z, Wang X, Xu S, Gao T, Han Z. Population genetic structure and selective pressure on the mitochondrial ATP6 gene of the Japanese sand lance Ammodytes personatus Girard. J Mar Biol Assoc United Kingdom. 2019;99: 1409–1416. doi: 10.1017/S0025315419000225 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Ješina P, Tesařová M, Fornůsková D, Vojtíšková A, Pecina P, Kaplanová V, et al. Diminished synthesis of subunit a (ATP6) and altered function of ATP synthase and cytochrome c oxidase due to the mtDNA 2 bp microdeletion of TA at positions 9205 and 9206. Biochem J. 2004;383: 561–571. doi: 10.1042/BJ20040407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Yakovchuk P, Protozanova E, Frank-Kamenetskii MD. Base-stacking and base-pairing contributions into thermal stability of the DNA double helix. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34: 564–574. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkj454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Satoh TP, Miya M, Mabuchi K, Nishida M. Structure and variation of the mitochondrial genome of fishes. BMC Genomics. 2016;17. doi: 10.1186/s12864-016-3054-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Krakauer DC. Evolutionary Principles of Genomic Compression. Comments Theor Biol. 2002;7: 215–236. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Johnson ZI, Chisholm SW. Properties of overlapping genes are conserved across microbial genomes. Genome Res. 2004;14: 2268–2272. doi: 10.1101/gr.2433104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Belinky F, Babenko VN, Rogozin IB, Koonin EV. Purifying and positive selection in the evolution of stop codons. Sci Rep. 2018;8: 1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Erhardt M, Wegrzyn RD, Deuerling E. Extra N-terminal residues have a profound effect on the aggregation properties of the potential yeast prion protein Mca1. PLoS One. 2010;5. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009929 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Schwartz GW, Shauli T, Linial M, Hershberg U. Serine substitutions are linked to codon usage and differ for variable and conserved protein regions. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Garcia-Manero Guillermo, Yang Hui, Kuang Shao-Qing, O’Brien Susan, Thomas Deborah and K H. 基因的改变NIH Public Access. Bone. 2005;23: 1–7. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Benedetta Ruzzenente

8 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-00605

Sequence and structure comparison of ATP synthase F0 subunits 6 and 8 in notothenioid fish.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chakrabarti,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

All three Reviewers have requested major changes to the manuscript. Please address all Reviewers’ comments in the revised version of your manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 23 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Benedetta Ruzzenente

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 7 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The present study in icefish (the only vertebrate species devoid of haemoglobin) explored the mitochondrial sequence variation for ATP synthase subunit a (ATP6) and b (ATP8). The protein structures were compared with other seven vertebrate species in order to reveal important physiological differences, contributing to understand the unique biology of icefish. Therefore, the study is original and with a high potential interest, but not clear conclusions are stated in the Abstract and/or Discussion sections. This is perhaps the main criticism, and the authors should try to achieve clearer outputs, conducting some physiological validation if it is needed. In the present form, the study is too much descriptive and it is no clear how it contributes to generate new knowledge.

In previous studies in fish model species and farmed fish (including salmonids and non salmonids), the specific regulation of enzyme subunits of the mitochondrial respiratory chain has been addressed in response to changes in food availability and other stressors. These and other physiological studies in other vertebrates should be considered to improve the Discussion section.

The study is focused on ATP6 and ATP8, but why not other enzyme subunits of the respiratory chain encoded by the mitochondrial or nuclear DNA. A more ambitious study, addressing changes in enzyme subunits of the five enzyme complexes of the mitochondrial respiratory chain should be considered.

Reviewer #2: General comment

The article opens with a relatively unclear goal: “shed light on the molecular evolution of these proteins in vertebrate species,” meant ATP synthase F0 subunit components coded by mtATP6 and mtATP8. This goal doesn’t seem to correspond with the manuscript title so much. The Methods don’t lead to this goal so clearly and the goal remains reduced in Discussion to:

1. an unclear statement: “The initial difference we see is that red-blooded species N. coriiceps, E. maclovinus, T. bernacchii, and the two icefish, C. rastrospinosus that are devoid of haemoglobin but have myoglobin and C. aceratus species with a nearly identical gene to that of C. rastrospinosus, have an additional 12 nucleotides at the N-terminal. The only exception to this is the icefish C. gunnari”;

2. relatively nicely written subchapter: “GTG as an alternative start codon”;

3. relatively short, but not so clear subchapter: “Overlap of ATP8 and ATP6 genes”;

4. relatively long, but not so clear subchapter: “Protein Alignment and Structural changes in ATP6”.

Conclusion section is missing.

The authors didn’t generate their own data and they are using published data instead. The authors didn’t develop any new method of data analysis and their results were generated often by easy-to-use web-based software. Majority of the analyses were done on just 13 model vertebrate species. The authors don’t explain so clearly the reason for their model organism selection, which is questionable. The authors picked 8 teleosts, 1 lizard, 4 mammals (but not human); no cartilaginous fish, no lamprey, no hagfish; no tunicate and/or lancelet as an outgroup.

It seems that authors are unsure with their research goal and their results are reflecting that. Many of their results are not even discussed. So, I recommend the authors to articulate clearly their research goal first, then select carefully the best Materials and Methods allowing them to reach their goal, then comment all their results properly in Discussion and provide the reader with a general Conclusion at the end.

Specific comments

1. Abstract, line 27 “The Channichthyidae family “; Introduction, line 56 “Within the Nototheniidae family the subfamily Channichthyinae” and so on. The authors should select the taxonomic system they consider correct and stick to it in the whole article (I suggest following Near et al 2018). The current text is very confusing when authors are using multiple systems in parallel, without any explanation, and they aren’t even testing any hypotheses intended to correct the taxonomic system in use.

2. Introduction, lines 62,63 “sixteen species of the Channichthyinae subfamily” cited sources 1997, 2003. The Channichthyidae family (or Channichthyinae subfamily) covers 16-23 described species in 11 genera. The views of different researchers on the species composition of the taxon differ a lot, especially within the nominotypical genus Channichthys (see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS0032945219060079; https://www.zin.ru/journals/trudyzin/doc/vol_323_4/TZ_323_4_Nikolaeva.pdf). So, I suggest avoiding such explicit controversial statement, because the authors aren’t even testing any hypotheses intended to resolve the situation.

3. In the final paragraph of Introduction, the authors list the species compared and they provide the Latin name twice. I suggest providing the full scientific name just once in this paragraph, but properly instead, e.g., Champsocephalus gunnari Lönnberg, 1905; and short in the rest of their text, e.g., Ch. gunnari. Furthermore, I suggest adding the family/subfamily information there, because the authors describe the differences in notothenioid thermo-adaptation in family/subfamily levels earlier in the Introduction.

4. The information is repeated in the Methods, Results, and Fig 5 caption: “Sequence logos were created using the webserver WebLogo using 4000 vertebrate protein sequences for the protein ATP6 (http://weblogo.threeplusone.com/).” Unfortunately, the authors don’t provide any detail about the 4000 sequences selection criteria. The authors should avoid such redundant repeating of information, but they should provide all relevant information allowing a verification of their result, in the Method section. Anyway, I didn’t notice these results mentioned in the Discussion.

5. I am wondering how the authors selected the model organisms. It is not mentioned in the article and many of these organisms are not individually discussed. Especially in mammals, I would expect the comparison mainly with human, which is avoided. I suggest to clearly explain why the authors selected each of the models in the Method section and explain in Discussion how the results correspond with the mentioned reason for each model selection.

6. Only the protein based dendrogram (Fig. 3) is mentioned in the text (Method and Result sections) but not the DNA based dendrogram (Fig. 4). The protein based dendrogram (Fig. 3) suggests that zebrafish and killifish are phylogenetically related to a lizard, perhaps even more than to notothenioids, which is obviously not true. Fortunately, it’s well established that lizard is not a teleost. Phylogenetic analysis anticipates selection neutrality of the sequence analyzed, which clearly is not the case in the notothenioid ATP synthase F0 subunits. The distance-based NJ dendrograms thus don’t reconstruct the phylogeny of taxa analyzed, but they are reflecting the unique evolutionary history of these sequences under selection in notothenioids instead. It is interesting that the ATP synthase F0 subunits protein and DNA based dendrograms within the Channichthyidae family correspond with each other and the well-established RADseq based phylogenetic analysis of this clade (Near et al 2018), but it doesn’t apply on the whole notothenioid clade anymore. The sentences in Result section describe this insufficiently. Nonetheless, neither these analyses nor phylogenies are mentioned in the Discussion (and Introduction) at all, which leaves me wondering why the authors performed such analyses. The visualization of these dendrograms is also quite confusing and it deserves more polishing in iTOL so the protein based dendrogram (Fig. 3) is visualized equivalently to the DNA based dendrogram (Fig. 4) at least. These dendrograms could be also rooted, because we know the phylogeny in advance.

7. Table 1 and Table 2 are sharing 5 rows, while Table 1 contains 10 rows in total. So, I think that merging these two tables would simplify the reporting and it would be easier to follow.

Reviewer #3: 1- In the introduction it is mentioned that this work is carried out through the use of sequence analysis and secondary structures, however, the analysis carried out was based on tertiary structure, no secondary structure was determined in this work (see: 123-125); 2- The I-TASSER tool was used for the prediction of tertiary structures. However, in this work the quality of the modeled structures is not verified (Ramachandran plot, Z-score, etc.), which raises questions about the results. This is a very critical aspect.;3- Structural comparisons are made at work, however, the way to proceed is not correct. For this analysis, structural protein alignments (superimposed structure) are performed where measurements such as the TM-score and RMSD are determined, which allow establishing functional relationships even when the sequence similarity is low. If two proteins have a low percentage of identity, but have very similar structures, it is likely that they have the same function. For this analysis there are different programs, an excellent one is "RaptorX Structure Alignment Server" to calculate RMSD and TM-score, the software "PyMOL" for RMSD, and the "server TM-score" of the same authors of I-TASSER to calculate the measure with the same name, TM-score.;4- I don't understand what he meant by the fact that the Graphs were produced with MATLAB version R2018b (9.5.0). This analysis is not clear.;5- I think it is not recommended to use multiple programs for alignment because they have different algorithms and usually return discrepant results. In case of using them as was done in this work, a more rigorous discussion of the comparative result would be advisable. There is a lack of uniformity in the format of the writing (two types of letters in many parts of the text), for example, in Figure 3. Please, review all text.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Zdeněk Lajbner

Reviewer #3: Yes: Jorge G. Farias, Ph.D.

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Benedetta Ruzzenente

26 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-00605R1

Sequence and structure comparison of ATP synthase F0 subunits 6 and 8 in notothenioid fish.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chakrabarti,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I apologize for the delay in sending my decision, but we had to wait a long time for one of the reviewers, who unfortunately was not able to provide us with their comments.

As you will read below the two reviewers have different opinions regarding the acceptance of your article. For this reason, it was important to have also the comments from a third reviewer, but in their absence you should reply to all comments of reviewer 2 who recommended reconsideration of your manuscript following revision.

From my side, I understand your decision to keep the western blot for ATP6 only in the response to the reviewers, because antibodies against the 13 hydrophobic mtDNA encoded proteins are very often not specific. Only western blot with cell extracts from EtBr-treated and untreated cells could verify the specificity of the antibody. Can the authors comment if they plan to measure complex V activity or/and perform a BN-PAGE followed by in gel activity assay to investigate the function of the ATP synthase. Both these approaches could provide more physiological data.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 10 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Benedetta Ruzzenente

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This second revised version meets almost all the queries and concerns. Therefore, no addtional comments are needed from the authors.

Reviewer #2: I believe the manuscript reads better now. The authors frequently respond to reviewers’ comments that they addressed the issues within their manuscript. Nonetheless, I think their responses could be more specific and they could address many of the comments within their manuscript even better:

1. I believe that the authors didn’t address my following specific comment (5) in their revision sufficiently: “I am wondering how the authors selected the model organisms. It is not mentioned in the article and many of these organisms are not individually discussed. Especially in mammals, I would expect the comparison mainly with human, which is avoided. I suggest to clearly explain why the authors selected each of the models in the Method section and explain in Discussion how the results correspond with the mentioned reason for model selection on individual level.”

At the end of Introduction (lines 133-136), the authors write that the model organisms were selected “to shed light on the changes of these proteins in the notothenioid species by comparing them to better characterised diverse vertebrate species. These species choices help us decipher amino acid changes specific to notothenioids and those that are potentially species specific (Supplementary Fig 1.).” I believe that this goal could be equally poorly achieved with many of the 5947 ATP6 sequences that the NCBI RefSeq collection offered at the moment of search for WebLogo (I would consider it appropriate to provide also the date of the search). On the other hand, protein sequences from phylogenetically closely related fish groups would allow the authors to address this question appropriately. Hopefully, the authors have another reason for selection of exactly each of these model organisms. They should spell out their reason for each of these model organisms’ selection clearly and discuss their results. What group of animals each of these selected models represent?

I noticed the authors decided to add the human to their selection. It seems meaningful, because they already mentioned human in their manuscript repeatedly anyway. Nonetheless, the addition is not justified in their manuscript either and it is somehow confusing. For example, in Result lines 266-271, it seems the authors are treating human as a species of Antarctic fish.

2. In the specific comment (3) I write: “I suggest providing the full scientific name just once in this paragraph, but properly instead, e.g., Champsocephalus gunnari Lönnberg, 1905; and short in the rest of their text, e.g., Ch. gunnari.”

I am glad the authors don’t repeat the same information twice within the same paragraph anymore. Nonetheless, they are still randomly repeating the genus names, while mentioning the same species in other parts of their manuscript, e.g., Methods 159-163, or Results 291 (Notothenia coriiceps), 292 (Champsocephalus gunnari).

In the same comment, I suggested an addition of a family name to the list to make the species selection easier to follow. Maybe, an addition of a common name and the group of animals or a physiological trait that the model aims to represent would be even better.

3. I am glad the authors add the conclusion section (lines 458-466). Unfortunately, the initial sentence is rather weak, and the authors should consider rephrasing: “In this study we suggest that substitution of hydrophilic amino acid serine (TCT) to hydrophobic amino acid alanine (GCT) in C. gunnari could be a base substitution for thymine to guanine at N1 position of the codon which might have structural impact on the protein.”

4. The authors newly added the sentence to the Abstract: “Though these sequences have been taken from Refseq database validated by different sources it is important to recognise they could still be prone to error.” I think that such information belongs to Methods or maybe Discussion, but not Abstract. None of the reviewers suggested an addition of such information to the Abstract. RefSeq (NCBI) is a commonly used and well established publicly available database. The authors don’t provide any test or a result regarding the database reliability. In case that the authors intend to educate the readers about usefulness of the common resource, they should cite a relevant literature at least, e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4702849/

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jaume Pérez-Sánchez

Reviewer #2: Yes: Zdeněk Lajbner

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Oct 6;16(10):e0245822. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245822.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


1 Sep 2021

Dear Editor,

Thank you for sending your decision regarding our manuscript, we are submitting a revised version of the manuscript “Sequence and structure comparison of ATP synthase F0 subunits 6 and 8 in notothenioid fish”. We note that reviewer 1 is happy to accept the version already submitted and have addressed the further comments from reviewer 2.

I am quite astonished by your request for data from newly suggested laboratory experiments testing physiology parameters. I feel that at this stage of a rather delayed review process they are beyond the scope of this particular manuscript, though of course additional data are always interesting. We will duly consider these suggestions in any further work on this subject.

Comments from Reviewer 2 (line numbers are relevant for the ‘clean copy’)

• Comment 1: “I suggest to clearly explain why the authors selected each of the models in the Method section and explain in Discussion how the results correspond with the mentioned reason for model selection on individual level.”

Response: Line numbers-156-160 in methodology addresses the comment.

• Comment 2: “I noticed the authors decided to add the human to their selection. It seems meaningful because they already mentioned human in their manuscript repeatedly anyway. Nonetheless, the addition is not justified in their manuscript either and it is somehow confusing. For example, in Result lines 266-271, it seems the authors are treating human as a species of Antarctic fish.”

Response: We have now specifically addressed this point, please see Line numbers: 158-160

• Comment 2: “Nonetheless, they are still randomly repeating the genus names, while mentioning the same species in other parts of their manuscript, e.g., Methods 159-163, or Results 291 (Notothenia coriiceps), 292 (Champsocephalus gunnari).

In the same comment, I suggested an addition of a family name to the list to make the species selection easier to follow. Maybe, an addition of a common name and the group of animals or a physiological trait that the model aims to represent would be even better.”

Response: Suggested changes have been incorporated; Methodology lines- 166-171. Results, lines, 291-292.

The family name of the species has been added in the Introduction, lines 120-125. The common name of the species is already in Feature Table 1.

• Comment 3: “Unfortunately, the initial sentence is rather weak, and the authors should consider rephrasing: “In this study we suggest that substitution of hydrophilic amino acid serine (TCT) to hydrophobic amino acid alanine (GCT) in C. gunnari could be a base substitution for thymine to guanine at N1 position of the codon which might have structural impact on the protein.”

Response: We have added this suggestion into our concluding paragraph.

• Comment 4: “Though these sequences have been taken from Refseq database validated by different sources it is important to recognise they could still be prone to error.” I think that such information belongs to Methods or maybe Discussion, but not Abstract. None of the reviewers suggested an addition of such information to the Abstract. RefSeq (NCBI) is a commonly used and well established publicly available database. The authors don’t provide any test or a result regarding the database reliability. In case that the authors intend to educate the readers about usefulness of the common resource, they should cite a relevant literature.

Response: We have incorporated reviewer’s suggestion and moved this to the start of the methodology section, line 138 onwards.

We hope these changes now meet all expectations.

Sincerely,

Lisa Chakrabarti

Attachment

Submitted filename: ResponseToReview.docx

Decision Letter 2

Benedetta Ruzzenente

10 Sep 2021

Sequence and structure comparison of ATP synthase F0 subunits 6 and 8 in notothenioid fish.

PONE-D-21-00605R2

Dear Dr. Chakrabarti,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Benedetta Ruzzenente

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for answering to the questions of Reviewer 2.

I just want to point out that the authors misunderstood my comments. I did not request any additional experiments but instead I asked why the author decided to perform a western blot and not more classical physiological experiments in reply to the question of Reviewer 1 concerning the possibility to provide more physiological data. 

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Benedetta Ruzzenente

28 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-00605R2

Sequence and structure comparison of ATP synthase F0 subunits 6 and 8 in notothenioid fish.

Dear Dr. Chakrabarti:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Benedetta Ruzzenente

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. A pictographic representation of the relatedness of ‘ATP6 protein’ sequence for notothenioids to other species using NJ-phylogenetic tree (Clustal omega[35]) analysed by taking alignment data that shows similarity in the amino acid composition of the protein for different vertebrate species (pictures source: Wikipedia.com, human skull: Bonesclones.com, naked mole rat: Wikiwand.com, E. maclovinus: Scanndposters.com).

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Protein structure evaluations of ATP6 for fish species C. aceratus, C. gunnari, C. rastrospinosus, E. maclovinus, N. corriceps, T. bernacchii, D. rerio and N. furzeri (A-I) using SAVES v6.0 (https://saves.mbi.ucla.edu/), using ERRAT[41], PROCHECK[42,43] and ProSA-web[44].

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ResponseToReview.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ResponseToReview.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES