Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Oct 15;16(10):e0257436. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257436

Spectral tuning and deactivation kinetics of marine mammal melanopsins

Jeffry I Fasick 1,*, Haya Algrain 2, Courtland Samuels 3, Padmanabhan Mahadevan 1, Lorian E Schweikert 4, Zaid J Naffaa 5, Phyllis R Robinson 2
Editor: Stephan CF Neuhauss6
PMCID: PMC8519484  PMID: 34653198

Abstract

In mammals, the photopigment melanopsin (Opn4) is found in a subset of retinal ganglion cells that serve light detection for circadian photoentrainment and pupil constriction (i.e., mydriasis). For a given species, the efficiency of photoentrainment and length of time that mydriasis occurs is determined by the spectral sensitivity and deactivation kinetics of melanopsin, respectively, and to date, neither of these properties have been described in marine mammals. Previous work has indicated that the absorbance maxima (λmax) of marine mammal rhodopsins (Rh1) have diversified to match the available light spectra at foraging depths. However, similar to the melanopsin λmax of terrestrial mammals (~480 nm), the melanopsins of marine mammals may be conserved, with λmax values tuned to the spectrum of solar irradiance at the water’s surface. Here, we investigated the Opn4 pigments of 17 marine mammal species inhabiting diverse photic environments including the Infraorder Cetacea, as well as the Orders Sirenia and Carnivora. Both genomic and cDNA sequences were used to deduce amino acid sequences to identify substitutions most likely involved in spectral tuning and deactivation kinetics of the Opn4 pigments. Our results show that there appears to be no amino acid substitutions in marine mammal Opn4 opsins that would result in any significant change in λmax values relative to their terrestrial counterparts. We also found some marine mammal species to lack several phosphorylation sites in the carboxyl terminal domain of their Opn4 pigments that result in significantly slower deactivation kinetics, and thus longer mydriasis, compared to terrestrial controls. This finding was restricted to cetacean species previously found to lack cone photoreceptor opsins, a condition known as rod monochromacy. These results suggest that the rod monochromat whales rely on extended pupillary constriction to prevent photobleaching of the highly photosensitive all-rod retina when moving between photopic and scotopic conditions.

Introduction

The vertebrate visual system evolved to detect light for both image forming vision and non-image forming processes, and emerged approximately 500 million years ago [1]. The ensuing nocturnal bottleneck in mammalian evolution influenced the evolution of mammalian vision with the loss of at least 3 classes of opsins (SWS2, Rh2 and Opn4x) [2, 3]. Today, the majority of mammals possess a long-wavelength sensitive (LWS) and short-wavelength sensitive (SWS1) cone photoreceptor class; one rod (Rh1) photoreceptor class; and one melanopsin retinal pigment (Opn4m) which is expressed in intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs). The radiation of mammals into specialized niches, however, has resulted in further diversification of the mammalian visual system including cone trichromacy occurring in humans and other primates [4, 5] as well as rod monochromacy occurring in xenarthrans and some cetacean species [68].

Marine mammals have undergone a variety of adaptations to their visual systems upon their return to the sea. These mammals, which include the orders Cetacea, Sirenia, and Carnivora which includes pinnipeds (Otariidae, Phocidae, Odobenidae), polar bears (Ursidae) and sea otters (Mustelidae), possess eyes that, for most species, have been modified to enhance image formation underwater. Likewise, many marine mammal species possess rod and cone photoreceptors that contain visual pigments that are spectrally tuned to align to the available underwater spectral radiance. Although most marine mammals possess both functional rod and LWS cone photoreceptors, only Sirenia, Ursidae and Mustelidae possess both LWS and SWS1 cone photoreceptors allowing for dichromatic color vision [9, 10]. All cetacean and pinniped species have lost functional SWS1 cone photoreceptors resulting in the loss of typical dichromatic color vision [3, 7, 8, 1117]. Almost all baleen and beaked whale species have also lost the LWS cone visual pigment resulting in rod monochromacy [7] while retaining the LWS cone soma and maintenance of rod/cone based retinal circuitry [8].

A small subset of retinal ganglion cells, ipRGCs, in the mammalian retina express the photopigment melanopsin (Opn4) and represent a third class of photoreceptor that predominantly mediates non-image forming visual functions. In terrestrial mammals, ipRGCs provide photic information for a number of light-dependent processes, including circadian photoentrainment, pupil constriction, suppression of pineal melatonin, and direct regulation of sleep, mood, and learning [1827]. Recently, it has been shown that ipRGCs are also involved in image forming vision where they contribute to contrast sensitivity [2834]. ipRGCs differ from the classical rod and cone photoreceptors in both physiology and the light-activated biochemical cascade. Since the discovery of melanopsin-expressing ipRGCs over 20 years ago [35, 36], these neurons and their expressed pigment have been the subject of intense research primarily in terrestrial dichromatic mammals, such as rodents, with significant advances being made in elucidating the anatomy and functions of ipRGCs as well as the rod/cone input to these cells [22, 24, 37, 38]. Vertebrate melanopsins exhibit a higher sequence homology to invertebrate rhabdomeric (R-type) visual pigments than to mammalian cone and rod visual pigments (C-opsins) [35, 36], while ipRGCs relay radiance information from the retina to brain regions that regulate the light-dependent processes mentioned above. Previously thought to be a functionally uniform population, ipRGCs in the mouse retina are now known to include six different subtypes (M1-M6) that can be differentiated based on morphological and electrophysiological criteria, projection targets, and function [39].

Presently, there is a major gap in our knowledge of the role of ipRGCs and their expressed pigment in mammals that have adapted to aquatic environments, including cetacean species that display rod monochromacy. Here, we address two questions pertaining to marine mammal melanopsins as well as to the functional roles of ipRGCs in aquatic rod monochromats: 1) have marine mammal melanopsins diverged from terrestrial melanopsins with regards to their spectral sensitivities? and 2) do ipRGCs and their expressed pigment from cetacean rod monochromats play a role in protecting rod photoreceptors from photobleaching by altering the kinetics of the pupillary light reflex (PLR)?

The first question is based on the observation that marine mammal visual pigments are spectrally tuned to overlap the underwater spectral radiance associated with foraging depth [9, 12, 4049]. Modulating the spectral sensitivity results in relatively large, blue-shifted absorbance spectra from visual pigments of deep-diving pelagic marine mammals, and relatively slightly red-shifted absorbance spectra from the visual pigments of near-coastal and riverine species, when compared to their terrestrial counterparts. Unlike terrestrial mammals, most marine mammal species reside in two spectrally distinct photic environments: the surface where they breathe and utilize broadband light spectra, and at foraging depth where they can utilize narrowband light spectra. The spectral irradiance at foraging depth is typically blue-shifted from the 500 nm region of the visible light spectrum where terrestrial Rh1 pigments maximally absorb [9, 4051]. Melanopsin absorbance maxima from a variety of vertebrates, including mouse and human, appear to be constant, around 480 nm [5256]. Because all marine mammals spend a significant portion of time at the surface of the water to breathe, we hypothesized that marine mammal melanopsins will be uniformly tuned to the spectrum of solar irradiance as opposed to being tuned to spectral variations found in their aquatic environments. Accordingly, we hypothesized that marine mammal melanopsins possess few if any amino acid substitutions that would result in a deviation from the absorbance maxima of typical terrestrial mammalian melanopsins (~480 nm). To test this hypothesis, we aligned deduced amino acid sequences from 17 marine mammal Opn4 gene sequences across three Orders and identified all non-conservative amino acid substitutions within the Opn4 transmembrane domains including residues forming the chromophore binding pocket. After homology modeling of the marine mammal Opn4 sequences, relative measurements were made from the functional group of each amino acid substitution to either the Schiff base lysine or the β-ionone ring of the chromophore to predict relative blue- or red-shifts of the modeled pigments based on previous studies [5759].

The second question pertains to the PLR and the role of Opn4-expressing ipRGCs in cetacean rod monochromats with regards to this function. The PLR is the constriction and recovery of the pupil in response to light and is critical in reducing photoreceptor bleaching while allowing for fast dark adaptation [60]. Rods and ipRGCs influence the PLR over a wide range of irradiance levels [6062]. Although rod photoreceptors are capable of controlling the PLR at relatively high irradiance levels with an upper limit of 10–12 log photons·cm-2·s-1 [60], when irradiance levels are above these limits, the PLR is controlled by ipRGCs expressing melanopsin [61]. Upon light activation under scotopic conditions, rod photoreceptors direct a rapid onset of ipRGC firing, and thus pupil constriction, after a delay of only 150 ms [6062]. Under photopic conditions, however, the relatively slow activation kinetics of melanopsins expressed in ipRGC’s results in maximum pupil constriction after approximately 30s [6366] which most likely would result in significant, if not complete, rod photobleaching before full pupil constriction in rod monochromats. In this instance, the rod monochromat would be rendered blind in bright light conditions until significant reconstitution of chromophore is completed. To counter photoreceptor bleaching in bright light conditions, mammalian rod monochromats may have evolved and selected for rod visual pigments that reconstitute chromophore significantly faster or a compensatory mechanism to maintain an extended PLR wherein the pupil dilates considerably slower. With regards to the latter countermeasure, we hypothesized that cetacean rod monochromats have adapted by altering the phosphorylation sites of the melanopsin carboxyl tail in a manner that results in prolonged deactivation, and thus prolonged pupil constriction. To test this hypothesis, we compared the putative phosphorylation sites found on the Opn4 carboxyl terminal domain from cetacean rod monochromats with those from marine mammals that have retained duplex retinae. Subsequently, calcium imaging assays were performed to determine and compare the deactivation rates of melanopsin from these species.

Materials and methods

Marine mammal melanopsin (Opn4) sequences

Domestic cow Opn4 (Bos Taurus, GenBank accession no. NM_001192399) was used as a query sequence in nucleotide blast analyses to identify orthologs from other Cetartiodactyla marine mammal genomes including minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata, XM_007174566), sperm whale (Physeter microcephalus, XM_007120485), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus, XM_019925814), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens, XM_027129620), killer whale (Orcinus orca, XM_004273009), beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas, XM_022562447), Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis asiaeorientalis, XM_024731433), and Yangtze river dolphin (Lipotes vexillifer, XM_007458352). B. taurus Opn4 was also used to identify orthologs from Weddell seal (Leptonychotes weddellii, XM_006740386), walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens, XM_004410203), West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris, XM_023740472), and polar bear (Ursus maritimus, XP_008694349). The mouse (Mus musculus) Opn4 long-form (EDL24885) was included for comparison. Blasts were optimized for either highly similar or somewhat similar sequences using default settings including word size (11), match/mismatch scores (2/-3) and gap costs (existence: 5; extension: 2). Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) Opn4 was identified by blast analysis using B. taurus Opn4 to search the Bowhead Whale Genome Resource database [67]. Eyes from the following species were recovered from dead stranded animals and used to PCR amplify reversed transcribed retinal cDNA using oligonucleotide primers designed to amplify partial Opn4 sequences: North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis, GenBank accession no. OK_169905), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae, OK_169906), dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima, OK_169907), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena, OK_169908) and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Maintenance of frozen tissues was approved by Kean University’s IRB. Total RNA was isolated using the RiboPure Kit (Applied Biosystems/Ambion, Austin, TX) following the manufacturer’s instructions for tissue sample preparations. First strand cDNA was generated from total RNA using an oligo dT18 primer and reverse transcriptase provided in the Reverse Transcription System kit (Promega, Madison, WI) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Coding regions of Opn4 cDNAs were PCR amplified with 1μM of respective forward and reverse primers (S1 Table) using Amplitaq Gold master mix (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA), with PCR cycle parameters being found in S2 Table. PCR products were sequenced directly using both forward and reverse primers by Eurofins Genomics (Louisville, KY). Opn4 cDNA sequences were based on a minimum consensus double stranded sequence from two independent PCR amplifications.

Sequence analysis: Structural modeling and molecular evolutionary analyses

Phylogenetic trees were generated after sequence alignments using a Bayesian Inference method with a Metropolis Markov chain Monte Carlo method using MrBayes in Geneious Prime 2019 using the following settings: HKY85 substitution model; a gamma-distributed rate of variation across all sites with a gamma category value of 4; chain length of 1,100,000 generations with subsampling frequency of 200, burn-in length of 100,000, 4 heated chains with 14,283 random seeds. The resulting trees were visualized by FigTree v1.4.4 [68].

Marine mammal Opn4 deduced amino acid sequences were used for homology-based three-dimensional structural modeling using LOMETS software [69]. Top ranked LOMETS structures were imported into PyMOL software (The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 2.0 Schrödinger, LLC) and aligned with squid Rh1 (PDB ID 2Z73; [70]) to estimate the distance from amino acid to the protonated Schiff base nitrogen and the β-ionone ring of the chromophore.

Marine mammal Opn4 nucleotide sequences were codon aligned using the RevTrans2.0b server with default options [71]. The codon alignment was then subjected to positive and negative selection analyses using the Selecton server [72]. The Mechanistic Empirical Combination (MEC) model was used in Selecton with the default JTT amino acid matrix.

Opn4 constructs

Full-length Opn4 coding sequences for West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus, XM_004386107) and bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus, bmy_16888) were obtained from GenBank and Bowhead Whale Genome Resource databases respectively. Synthetic Opn4 cassettes were designed with 5’ EcoRI and 3’ NotI restriction sites. The coding sequence of the 1D4 epitope was added to the carboxy-terminal domain (CTD) sequences immediately 5’of, and in-frame with, the stop codon. The coding sequence for the 1D4 epitope tag (last eight amino acids of bovine rhodopsin, TETSQVAPA) was added to facilitate immunodetection of all constructs synthesized. The Opn4 sequences were human codon optimized for expression in HEK293 cells (Integrated DNA Technologies, Coralville, IA). Constructs were then synthesized as gBlocks (Integrated DNA Technologies). West Indian manatee and bowhead whale Opn4 constructs were PCR amplified with 10μM of respective forward and reverse primers (S1 Table) using AccuPrime PFX DNA polymerase (Thermofisher, Waltham, MA). PCR cycle parameters for West Indian manatee and bowhead whale are found in S3 Table. PCR products were purified using NucleoSpin Gel and PCR Clean-up kit (Macherey-Negel, Bethlehem, PA) and double digested with EcoRI and NotI. Digested PCR products and vector were ligated in a 3:1 insert to vector ratio (reaction volume 40 μl) using T4 DNA Ligase (Promega, Madison, WI), incubated overnight at 4°C, and transformed into chemically competent E. coli. Ampicillin resistant colonies were picked and cultured in LBAmp broth. Plasmid DNA was purified using the Nucleobond Xtra Midi kit (Macherey-Negel, Bethlehem, PA). Coding domain sequences were confirmed in both directions (Genewiz, Inc., South Plainfield, NJ) using plasmid specific primers via sanger sequencing. Mouse Opn4 (NM_001128599.1) appended with the 1D4 epitope and subcloned into pMT3 [73] was used as a control. Cloning of the C-phosphonull mouse Opn4 construct was previously described [63].

Signaling kinetics of Opn4 constructs using a fluorescent calcium imaging assay

Transfected cells were harvested 24 h post-transfection and reseeded into a 96-well plate (Corning, Corning, NY) at a density of 1 ×105 cells per well and dark adapted for 18–24 hrs in 5% CO2 at 37°C. Forty-eight h post-transfection, cells were incubated with 20 mM 9-cis-retinal (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) in the presence of the fluorescent calcium indicator, Fluo-4 AM (Invitrogen) containing 5mM probenecid (Invitrogen) for 1 h in the dark. Fluorescence measurements were taken at an excitation of 485 nm and emission of 525 nm every second for 300 s after a flash exposure (40Hz) on a Tecan Infinite M200 microplate reader (Tecan, Männedorf, CH).

Statistical analysis of Opn4 deactivation rates

Data across four transfections (8 replicates per transfection) were normalized, averaged and the deactivation rates were calculated for 300s assay runs. The deactivation rate of signaling kinetics corresponds to data measurements taken after the peak of fluorescence from calcium imaging assay data. The deactivation rate was fitted to a one phase decay function [Y = (y0—plateau)·exp(-k·x) + plateau], where y0 is the fluorescence value at t = 0, plateau is the lowest deactivation (y) value, exp is the decay constant (2.71828), k is the rate constant and x is time in seconds. Statistical significance was calculated by an unpaired t-test of Opn4 constructs with respect to mouse Opn4 control. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. All data were analyzed and plotted using GraphPad Prism software (GraphPad Software Inc., Sand Diego, CA).

Skyward solar spectral radiance measurements at dawn

On August 6, 2015, spectral radiance measurements (μW cm-2 nm-1 sr-1) were taken from a vessel anchored in Florida Bay approximately 10 miles north of Marathon, FL (GPS Location: 24.84; -81.04) with weather conditions of 40% cloud cover and a last quarter moon (57% visible). Measurements were made with a Hyper OCR Hyperspectral Radiometer (Satlantic, Halifax, NS) using SatView and Prosoft software supplied by the manufacturer. The radiometer was oriented approximately 60° to vertical at compass point 300° to avoid direct moonlight. Measurements were taken continually, at three second intervals, beginning at astronomical twilight (05:35 EDT, solar elevation: -4.87°) and continuing through nautical twilight (06:05 EDT, solar elevation: 1.8°), civil twilight (06:33 EDT, solar elevation: 7.69°) and finishing 15 min after sunrise (06:58 EDT) or approximately 07:15 EDT (solar elevation: 16.91°). Radiance spectra were plotted at 10 nm intervals, normalized by the integral (i.e., area under the curve), and scaled from zero to one. Presenting environmental light spectra as weighted by the integral, also known as spectral form, best represents the distribution of photons in a given spectrum, making the data less sensitive to the issues of binning the data by light wavelength or frequency [74]. A hypothetical A1-chromophore-based Opn4 spectrum with absorbance maximum of 480 nm was generated by shifting the absorbance data of bovine rhodopsin (λmax = 500 nm) by -20 nm.

Results

Alignment, phylogeny, and spectral tuning of marine mammal melanopsins

Amino acid sequences spanning the transmembrane domains (TMDs) from 17 marine mammal Opn4 coding regions are shown in Fig 1 and include members from Infraorder Cetacea, as well as the Orders Sirenia and Carnivora. The overall architecture of the marine mammal melanopsins examined is similar to those of previously reported mammalian melanopsins with conserved residues including Lys337 (mouse Opn4 numbering), the site of retinal linkage [75, 76]; Glu214, proposed protonated Schiff base (PSB) counterion [7779]; as well as conserved cysteines and asparagines at sites of disulfide bridge linkage [35] and glycosylation, respectively. To determine the evolutionary relationships of marine mammal melanopsins, we inferred the phylogeny of marine mammal Opn4 sequences with other vertebrate opsin genes using a Bayesian analysis to generate the consensus tree shown in Fig 2. The phylogenetic relationships of the marine mammal Opn4 sequences shown in Fig 2 are consistent with the basic taxonomic relationships between each Order as well as within the infraorder Cetacea. Closer examination of the Opn4 sequences shows two clades containing sequences from either the mammalian-like (m) Opn4 class or the xenopus-like (x) Opn4 class, with all marine mammal Opn4 sequences being grouped in the m-like class.

Fig 1. Alignment of marine mammal melanopsins (Opn4).

Fig 1

Transmembrane domains (TMDs; boxed in black) were predicted using TMHMM Server Version 2.0 (http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/TMHMM) using the mouse Opn4 sequence. Conserved residues are boxed or circled and include: (1) glycosylation sites (asparagine-N) in the amino terminal domain and TMD I (predicted using NetGlyc Server 1.0 (www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/NetNGlyc) are marked with teal dots and are circled or boxed; (2) conserved cysteines (C) at positions 95 and 220 involved in disulfide bond formation are marked with yellow dots and are boxed; (3) proposed counterion residue, glutamate (E) at position 214, is marked with a blue dot and are boxed; (4) lysine (K) at position 337 that links to the chromophore is marked with a purple dot and is boxed; (5) potential serine (S) and threonine (T) phosphorylation sites spanning positions 372–395 in the carboxyl terminal domain are highlighted with a red bar. Mouse Opn4 was used for amino acid numbering with cow Opn4 used for comparison to a terrestrial Cetartiodactyla species.

Fig 2. Phylogeny of marine mammal melanopsins (Opn4).

Fig 2

A Bayesian inference method performed with Markov chain Monte Carlo method to estimate the posterior distribution of model parameters (represented as percentages) at the base of each node. The tree shows the relative position of vertebrate rod (Rh1), rhodopsin-like 2 (Rh2), short-wavelength sensitive (SWS1 and SWS2) cone, long-wavelength sensitive (LWS) cone, retinal pigment epithelium-derived rhodopsin (RRh), and melanopsin (Opn4). Each opsin class is colored by clade: Rh1 (green); Rh2 (blue); SWS (violet); LWS (red); RRh (orange); and Opn4 (yellow). Scale bar indicates the number of nucleotide substitutions per site. Accession numbers for the marine mammal Opn4 sequences are found in Materials and methods and S3 Table.

Potential spectral tuning positions were first identified by manual examination of amino acid alignments, as shown in Fig 1, followed by homology modeling and distance measurements from the functional group of each amino acid substitution to either the Schiff base lysine (Lys337 in mouse) or the β-ionone ring of the chromophore. Non-conserved residues occurring within the seven transmembrane domains that differed from mouse Opn4 (λmax = 480 nm; [52]) were examined in order to predict relative blue- or red-shifts of the homology modeled pigments. As shown in Fig 3, a total of ten nonconserved substitutions across all species were identified within the Opn4 transmembrane domains which could possibly influence the melanopsin absorbance spectrum for several marine mammal species. Two nonconserved substitutions were found in transmembrane domain I (TMI): Thr89Met, with walrus, manatee and polar bear all possessing methionine at this position; and Thr93Iso, with manatee possessing isoleucine at this position. Two nonconserved substitutions were found in TMII: Ala123Thr, with manatee possessing threonine at this position; and Ala128Thr with Yangtze river dolphin possessing threonine at this position. A single nonconserved substitution was found in TMIV: Ala187T with harbor porpoise, beluga whale, and Yangtze finless porpoise possessing threonine at this position. Although TMV lacked any nonconserved amino acid substitutions, a single substitution (Ala233Thr) was identified in extracellular loop (ECL) II immediately adjacent to TMV with manatee possessing threonine. Three nonconserved substitutions were found in or very near TMVI: Glu295Ala, with both manatee and mouse possessing alanine at this position in intracellular loop (ICL) III; Thr311Ala with only Weddell seal possessing alanine at this position; and Val/Met315Thr with both Weddell seal and walrus possessing threonine at this position. A single nonconserved amino acid substitution was identified in TMVII: Tyr342His with Weddell seal, walrus, manatee, polar bear, and mouse all possessing histidine at this position.

Fig 3. Nonconservative amino acid substitutions between marine mammals, cow, and mouse melanopsins (Opn4) within transmembrane domains.

Fig 3

Nonconservative amino acids substitutions (red; consensus residue: Position: Substitution) are as follows: Transmembrane region (TM) I: Thr89Met (walrus, manatee, polar bear); Thr93Iso (manatee); TMII: Ala123Thr (manatee); Ala128Thr (Yangtze river dolphin); TMIV: Ala187Thr (beluga whale, harbor porpoise, Yangtze finless porpoise,); ECL II: Ala233Thr (manatee); ICL III: Glu295Ala (manatee and mouse); TMVI: Thr311Ala (Weddell seal); Val/Met315Thr (Weddell seal, walrus); TMVII: Tyr342His (Weddell seal, walrus, manatee, polar bear and mouse). Opn4 numbering is from mouse.

Potential spectral tuning residues most likely influence the electrostatic interaction between the PSB and counterion at the site of chromophore attachment, or along the polyene chain and the β-ionone ring structure of the chromophore. Homology modeling to squid rhodopsin was used to structurally model the mammalian Opn4 amino acid sequences to predict the influence that these non-conserved amino acid substitutions have on spectral tuning. The results shown in Table 1 identify the amino acid substitutions at the ten positions shown in Fig 3 along with measurements from the amino acid functional groups to either the PSB or the β-ionone ring (or both) using squid Rh1 as template. Of the ten Opn4 amino acid positions shown in Fig 3 and listed in Table 1, only four marine mammal amino acid substitutions are positioned in such a way that the respective functional groups are proximal to the chromophore binding pocket and are within ~10 Å to the chromophore when modeled using squid Rh1 as a template (Fig 4). When the R-groups for each Opn4 transmembrane substitution described above were modeled and measured to the Schiff base lysine terminal NZ atom or the closest atom of the β-ionone ring, the only substitutions with distances < ~10Å are found in manatee (Ala123Thr, 9.5Å to PSB; predicted blue-shift); Yangtze river dolphin (Ala128Thr, 11.8Å to PSB; predicted blue-shift); and Weddell seal [(Thr311Ala, 9.3Å; predicted red-shift and Val/Met315Thr, 11.2; Å; predicted blue-shift (both to β-ionone ring)]. Interestingly, all melanopsins examined possess 126F (Fig 1) which is positioned just 5.0Å from the PSB (not shown), while the corresponding residue in vertebrate Rh1, Rh2 and LWS opsins is 94S/T and is highly conserved.

Table 1. Nonconserved amino acid substitutions in marine mammal melanopsins.

Amino Acid Position and Distance to Chromophore
Mouse 89 93 123 128 187 233 295 311 315 342
Squid 54 58 88 94 153 199 263 279 283 310
Distance (Å)1 22.8 28.4 9.5 11.8 26.5* 10.2* 18.5* 9.3* 11.2* 13.8**
Consensus Thr Thr Ala Ala Ala Ala Glu Thr Val/Met Tyr
Beluga whale - - - - Thr - - - - -
Harbor porpoise - - - - Thr - - - - -
Yangtze finless porpoise - - - - Thr - - - - -
Yangtze river dolphin - - - Thr - - - - - -
Weddell seal - - - - - - - Ala Thr His
Walrus Met - - - - - - - Thr His
Manatee Met Iso Thr - - Thr Ala - - His
Polar bear Met - - - - - - - - His
Mouse - - - - - - Ala - - His

1Shortest distance to the chromophore measured in angstroms (Å) from amino acid functional group to the Schiff base nitrogen; the β-ionone ring* of the chromophore; or equal distance to the Schiff base nitrogen and β-ionone ring**.

Fig 4. Structural modeling of marine mammal melanopsin (Opn4) spectral tuning amino acid positions.

Fig 4

3-D images of marine mammal Opn4 proteins (teal) were aligned with squid Rh1 (green) to determine relative positions of helices and residues. (A) squid rhodopsin (Protein Data Bank accession number 2Z73) showing the relative position of the ten nonconservative amino acid substitutions from Fig 3. A proposed protonated Schiff base counterion (Glu214) [7779] is shown in orange. Panels B-D highlight nonconservative amino acids potentially involved in spectral tuning and their relative predicted distance to the retinal Schiff base lysine (red) terminal NZ atom or the β-ionone ring of the chromophore (yellow): (B) manatee Thr123 (9.5 Å); (C) Yangtze river dolphin Thr128 (11.8 Å); and (D) Weddell seal Ala311 (9.3 Å); Weddell seal and walrus Thr315 (11.2 Å). Opn4 numbering is from mouse.

Skyward solar radiance at dawn overlaps with Opn4 absorbance maxima

To better understand the biological relevance of the conserved absorbance maxima of vertebrate melanopsins, spectral radiance measurements were recorded to determine the light available to activate Opn4 expressing ipRGCs in situ. Spectral radiance measurements were taken in air and recorded between astronomical twilight (06:35 EDT) and sunrise (07:00 EDT). As shown in Fig 5, across timepoints, peak radiance values from the available light were slightly longer than 450 nm. Thus, the reported absorbance maximum of melanopsins of ~480 nm reasonably coincides with the most prevalent wavelengths of light recorded here.

Fig 5. Overlay of melanopsin (Opn4) absorbance spectrum with normalized solar spectral radiance values during sunrise.

Fig 5

A hypothetical A1-chromophore-based Opn4 spectrum is plotted with absorbance maximum of 480 nm (dashed trace) with solar radiance spectra recorded at five-minute intervals from the onset of civil twilight (06:35 EDT) until just after sunrise (07:00 EDT). Spectral radiance measurements (μW cm-2 nm-1 sr-1) are normalized by the integral (i.e., area under the curve) and scaled from zero to one.

Analysis of positive selection on marine mammal melanopsins

To investigate patterns of selection in marine mammal melanopsins, we used codon-aligned models to estimate the ratio of non-synonymous (amino-acid altering; Ka or dN) to synonymous (silent; Ks or dS) substitutions (Ka/Ks or dN/dS ratio, also referred to as ω) for a data set of the 17 marine mammal Opn4 coding sequences shown in Fig 1. This was used to estimate both positive and purifying selection at each amino acid site. An alignment of melanopsin coding sequences was analyzed with Bayesian models which assume a statistical distribution to account for heterogenous ω values among sites. Rates were normalized to a value of 1 which result in a range of outcomes described as follows: neutral selection, ω = 1; negative or purifying selection, ω < 1; and positive selection, ω > 1. These values are shown in Fig 6 with a scalable selection ranging from 1 (strong positive selection) to 7 (strong purifying selection). It was hypothesized that sites resulting in positive selection result in the replacement of amino acids that were advantageous to the organism and fixed at a higher rate than that of neutral or synonymous mutations. As shown in Fig 6, the majority of sites throughout the coding sequence are shown to be under purifying selection and have been subjected to high level functional constraints during evolution. Purifying selection dominates within the seven transmembrane domains, while all putative spectral tuning positions describe above are under either weak purifying or neutral selection. In fact, the only positions that have undergone relatively strong positive selection are found in the N-terminal domain (Gln26, Arg38, Val44); the phosphorylation domain (Ser376); and in the C-terminal domain (Ser458, Pro464, Arg519).

Fig 6. Natural selection of marine mammal melanopsin (Opn4) amino acid sites.

Fig 6

Marine mammal Opn4 amino acid sequences were aligned and the ratio of non-synonymous (amino-acid altering) to synonymous (silent) substitutions (Ka/Ks ratio) was used to estimate positive (orange), purifying (purple), or neutral (white) selection at each amino-acid site. Transmembrane domains are labeled and boxed. Putative spectral tuning positions are numbered by amino acid position and boxed in green. Phosphorylation sites (red bar) undergoing either strong positive or purifying selection are circled in blue. Mouse Opn4 was used as template and for amino acid numbering (GenBank accession number NM_013887).

Twelve putative phosphorylation sites consisting of conserved serines and threonines positioned in the carboxyl terminal domain (CTD), including Ser376 (see above), were examined for nonconservative amino acid substitutions (Fig 7). These sites have been previously identified as being responsible for the deactivation of the photoactivated melanopsin pigment [63, 64] and are separated into the PI and PII clusters of putative C-terminal phosphorylation sites. Naturally occurring amino acid substitutions at these phosphorylation sites in the Opn4 CTDs from seventeen marine mammals were identified by manual examination of amino acid alignments and compared to the phosphorylation sites found in mouse Opn4. As shown in Fig 7, there were amino acid substitutions at three potential phosphorylation sites found in both P1 and P2. Within P1, both the mysticete whales and polar bear possessed nonconserved Asn and Gly residues, respectively, at phosphorylation position 376, while all marine mammals examined possessed either Tyr or His at phosphorylation position 379. The Delphinidae and Phocoenidae species possessed Phe at position 384. Within P2, the Physeteroidea species possessed Asn at position 391, while all marine mammal species examined possessed Ala at position 394. The two Balaenidae species possessed Leu at position 395.

Fig 7. Alignment of marine mammal melanopsin (Opn4) carboxyl terminal domains containing deactivating phosphorylation sites.

Fig 7

Putative phosphorylation sites identified in mouse [63, 64] are highlighted in red. Nonconservative amino acid substitutions of putative phosphorylation sites in marine mammal Opn4 opsins are highlighted in yellow. Ser382 in river dolphin is highlighted in red as a potential phosphorylation site. Bovine Opn4 amino acid substitutions are included as a reference.

There are strongly conserved serine and threonine residues across all taxa at phosphorylation sites 372, 381, 385, 388, 389, and 392, all of which have undergone weak to strong purifying selection (see Fig 6). Phosphorylation sites 384 and 391 have also undergone weak purifying selection but are not as well conserved in the marine mammals. Sites 379 and 394 have undergone either neutral or weak purifying selection and are well conserved in the marine mammals but lack either a Ser or Thr and are thus not phosphorylated. Site 395 is conserved in most marine mammals with the exceptions being the two Balaenidae species which possess Leu. All marine mammal melanopsins examined possess a Tyr at position 382, while the river dolphin possesses a Ser at this position. Interestingly, site 376 is the only putative phosphorylation site to have undergone strong positive selection with the baleen and toothed whales possessing Asn and Thr, respectively, at this position. The only other species possessing a non-phosphorable amino acid at this position is polar bear which possesses a Gly.

Opn4 activity based on fluorescent calcium imaging

The deactivation kinetics of Opn4 have been previously described in the mouse, along with the phosphorylation sites involved, and the resulting pupil light reflex (PLR) when these sites are mutated [6366]. To better understand the PLR of marine mammals, specifically the cetacean rod monochromats, we examined the deactivation kinetics of the bowhead whale Opn4 pigment and the potential effect of the Asn376 substitution when compared to manatee and the mouse control, both of which are cone dichromats. Calcium imaging assays were performed that compared the deactivation rates of the bowhead whale Opn4 pigment with the deactivation rates from wild type mouse and manatee Opn4 pigments. A mouse Opn4 mutant, where all putative serine/threonine phosphorylation sites in the CTD were replaced with alanine residues (mouse phosphonull mutant: Pnull), was also used for comparison. The deactivation kinetics of the bowhead whale Opn4 pigment is significantly slower (p<0.0001) than both manatee and the mouse Opn4 control and is more similar to the deactivation rate of the Pnull pigment (Fig 8). While the deactivation rate of the manatee Opn4 pigment is also slower than the mouse Opn4 control (p<0.005), it is considerably faster than that of the bowhead whale Opn4 pigment.

Fig 8. Deactivation kinetics of melanopsin (Opn4) constructs.

Fig 8

A. In vitro Opn4 signaling kinetics based on normalized calcium imaging data of mouse Opn4 (blue trace), West Indian manatee (green trace), bowhead whale (purple trace), and mouse Opn4 lacking CTD phosphorylation sites (mouse phosphonull mutant—red trace). Negative control of untransfected HEK293 cells (orange trace) is shown for comparison. B. Deactivation rates are significantly different between mouse Opn4 and the other three constructs. The rate of deactivation of West Indian manatee Opn4 is more similar to mouse Opn4, while the rate of deactivation of bowhead whale Opn4 is more similar to mouse phosphonull mutant. All rates were compared to the mouse Opn4 deactivation rate. *** and **** correspond to p-values of <0.0005 and <0.0001, respectively. Error bars denote standard error of the mean.

Discussion

This study addressed two principal questions pertaining to marine mammal melanopsins regarding the spectral tuning properties of the pigments and the role that melanopsin plays in the pupillary light reflex (PLR). With regards to the first question, we hypothesized that marine mammal melanopsins possess few if any amino acid substitutions that would result in a deviation from the absorbance maxima (λmax) of typical vertebrate melanopsins (~480 nm) which appear to be spectrally tuned to the dominant solar spectral irradiance. To test this hypothesis, we examined Opn4 sequences from a diverse set of marine mammal species and generated homology models from these sequences to identify amino acid substitutions that may play a role in altering the spectral tuning properties of the resulting pigments. While the results from this analysis identified a total of ten nonconserved substitutions across all species within or near the Opn4 transmembrane domains, homology modeling suggested that only five of these substitutions are within proximity to the chromophore to influence the electrostatic interaction at the protonated Schiff base (PSB) of the chromophore. Residues Thr123 in manatee and Thr128 in Yangtze river dolphin both introduce an OH-group proximal to the PSB of the chromophore when compared to the consensus sequence. These two amino acids have predicted distances of less than 12 Å to the PSB of their respective chromophores and may be close enough to influence the spectral tuning of each pigment. Applying the OH-site rule [57], we predict that both substitutions would result in slightly blue-shifted absorbance maxima when compared to the other mammalian Opn4 pigments examined. If substitutions in the extracellular loop domains are included, the Thr233 substitution in manatee Opn4, which is approximately 10 Å from the β-ionone ring of the chromophore, would most likely result in a slightly red-shifted absorbance maximum thus negating the contribution from the Thr123 substitution in this pigment. The Weddell seal Opn4 pigment possesses two amino acid substitutions (Ala311 and Thr315), while walrus Opn4 possesses a single substitution (Thr315), which are all positioned less than 12 Å from the β-ionone ring of the chromophore. The substitutions in Weddell seal are predicted to result in slight red- and blue-shifts, respectively, potentially canceling any spectral movement relative to 480 nm, while the single substitution in walrus is predicted to result in a slightly red-shifted absorbance maximum. As noted in the Results section, all vertebrate melanopsins examined possess Phe126 which is positioned very near the PSB (~5.0Å). Interestingly, the corresponding residues in vertebrate Rh1, Rh2 and LWS opsins are highly conserved and hydroxyl-bearing (e.g., Ser and Thr), while highly conserved nonpolar residues (e.g., Ala and Val) are observed in vertebrate SWS-1 and SWS-2 opsins. Fasick et al. (2002, [41]) showed dramatic spectral shifts in the SWS-1 pigments associated with amino acid position 86 (bovine Rh1 numbering) which is approximately one helical turn away from position 126 discussed here, while also sharing a similar distance to the PSB of the chromophore (~5.0Å) and similar amino acid substitutions (Phe and Tyr). Thus, position 126 may influence the spectral shift of melanopsins into the blue region of the spectrum. Due its close proximity to the PSB of the chromophore, position 126 and its associated amino acids may be of interest in future mutagenesis experiments examining the spectral tuning properties of melanopsins.

When considering the position and nature of the amino acid substitutions in marine mammal melanopsins discussed here, we predict that the absorbance spectra and maxima of marine mammal melanopsins should be similar to those described and experimentally determined from other vertebrate melanopsins (λmax ~480 nm; [5256]). This conclusion is based on the conservation of the vast majority of residues found throughout the transmembrane domains of vertebrate melanopsins and the strong purifying selection placed upon these residues as shown in Fig 6. However, functional confirmation of this claim requires suitable cell culture and purification systems to provide in vitro expression of the dark-adapted absorbance spectra of these pigments that can then be compared to the values reported from in vivo recordings from model organisms.

To date, there is no clear and simple explanation as to why melanopsins are spectrally tuned to 480 nm light. The conserved nature of melanopsin absorbance maxima across taxa is most likely the result from selection pressures on these pigments to maximally absorb the dominant short-wavelength spectral irradiance associated with dawn and dusk, illuminating both terrestrial environments and surface water in a similar fashion [80, 81]. However, the dominant wavelengths of solar spectral irradiance present in surface water environments is around 510 nm [74, 82]. Our measurements of spectral radiances at dawn, as shown in Fig 5, have peaks closer to 450 nm. One conclusion from this apparent mismatch between the absorbance maximum of the pigment and the transmittance maxima of ambient natural light is that melanopsins have undergone selection pressures that have positioned the absorbance maximum of the pigment between these two transmittance peaks at dawn (~450 nm) and during the day (~510 nm) in order to maximize photon capture throughout the day from dawn to dusk. Perhaps coincidental, the average of these two peak transmittance values is 480 nm.

The second question addressed in this study pertains to the role of melanopsin expressed in intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) and the pupillary light reflex, with attention given to the cetacean rod monochromats. Rod photoreceptors are responsible for directing the PLR under dim light (scotopic/mesopic) conditions in all mammals [61, 83]. With this understood, it could then be supposed that the ipRGCs expressing melanopsin in mammalian rod monochromats would assume the role of the missing cone photoreceptors in bright light (photopic) conditions to prevent rod photoreceptor bleaching. However, this is not likely the case as cone input to ipRGCs is relatively weak and that ipRGCs expressing melanopsin are the dominant determinant of pupil size during the day [61]. In addition to the PLR, anatomical features have evolved to reduce the amount of light entering the eyes of aquatic organisms including marine mammals. Cetaceans possess dorsal operculum pupillarae, that when fully constricted result in a double-slit pupil [84] that focuses light onto the two best vision areas of the retina [85]. In the case of an aquatic mammal, a pupil design like this may function to reduce the intensity of the brighter downwelling light, while leaving the dimmer sidewelling light less attenuated and available for visual processes [86]. We hypothesized that, in addition to a double-slit pupil, it would be advantageous in cetacean rod monochromats to extend the length of time of pupillary constriction when transitioning rapidly between photopic and scotopic light environments, as is the case during traveling behaviors, to prevent photobleaching of the all-rod retina upon returning to the surface to breathe. To test this hypothesis, we examined the deactivation kinetics of melanopsin from two marine mammal species, a rod monochromat: bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus); and a cone dichromat: West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), with mouse (Mus musculus), also a cone dichromat, as control. While the deactivation kinetics for bowhead whale melanopsin was previously reported in a comparison to that of a whale shark (Rhincodon typus)–mouse (Mus musculus) chimeric melanopsin [87], the deactivation kinetics experiments with bowhead whale melanopsin were repeated here to compare deactivation rates from a rod monochromat with those from a marine mammal possessing a duplex retina and dichromatic color vision. Our results show a slower rate of deactivation of melanopsin from bowhead whale when compared to the deactivation rates from either manatee or mouse wildtype. With regards to bowhead whale deactivation rates, this result is most likely due to the combination of four nonconservative amino acid substitutions in the phosphorylation domain at positions 376, 379, 394, and 395 with 376 and 395 being exclusive to the Balaenidae species. The deactivation rate of manatee melanopsin was also significantly slower compared to the mouse wildtype control. This result is most likely due to nonconservative amino acid substitution at phosphorylation sites 379 (Ser379Tyr) and 394 (Ser394Ala) which are shared by all of the mammals examined, including cow (Bos taurus), but not mouse. It is not entirely clear what selection pressures are exerted on positions 379 and 394 in mammalian melanopsins. When the phosphorylation domains are examined from examples of both strictly nocturnal (e.g., small-eared galago, Otolemur garnettii) and strictly diurnal (e.g., thirteen-lined ground squirrel, Ictidomys tridecemlineatus) mammals, both species possess Ala394 like the manatee (Accession numbers found in S4 Table). When these same sequences are examined at position 379, the nocturnal galago possesses Tyr379 like the marine mammals and diurnal cow, while the diurnal squirrel possesses Ser379 like the nocturnal mouse. In this study it was shown that both positions 379 and 394 are under neutral or slight purifying selection, respectively, unlike position 376 which is under strong positive selection. This suggest that positions 379 and 394 may not serve a critical role in deactivation kinetics as do the other phosphorylation sites.

In summary, the results presented here suggest that melanopsins from 17 marine mammal species that inhabit diverse spectral environments maintain a highly conserved amino acid consensus sequence with their terrestrial counterparts with regards to the protein domains responsible for the pigment’s absorbance spectrum and absorbance maximum. This level of amino acid conservation, however, is not observed in the phosphorylation domain of the carboxyl tail where all cetaceans examined possessed fewer phosphorylation sites when compared to a terrestrial control (mouse) sequence resulting in significantly slower deactivation kinetics in the two marine mammal melanopsin pigments examined by calcium imaging. To conclude, we suggest that the strongly conserved residues within the melanopsin chromophore binding pocket are maintained to absorb spectral solar radiance in the same region of the visible spectrum for both aquatic and terrestrial mammals alike. In contrast, the phosphorylation sites in marine mammal melanopsins responsible for pigment deactivation diverge when comparing species possessing duplex retinae containing both functional rod and cone photoreceptors with rod monochromats lacking functional cones, with the latter possessing significantly longer melanopsin deactivation rates relative to the former.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Oligonucleotide primers for PCR.

Forward and reverse primers for PCR amplification of full-length bowhead whale Opn4 and partial coding domain for other cetacean Opn4 sequences including North Atlantic right whale, bottlenose dolphin and harbor porpoise.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. PCR cycling parameters.

Temperatures for denaturation, annealing and extension for the amplification of Opn4 coding sequences from bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise and North Atlantic right whale retinal cDNA. Reactions contained forward and reverse primers (see above) and were carried out in a 25 μl mixture containing 1 μM of each primer, 2 μl of reverse transcribed single-stranded cDNA, and Amplitaq Gold master mix (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). Annealing Tm were from NCBI Primer-BLAST for each primer pair.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. PCR cycling parameters.

Temperatures for denaturation, annealing and extension for the amplification of West Indian manatee and bowhead whale opn4 coding sequences.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Accession numbers.

GenBank accession numbers used to generate the tree shown in Fig 2 and in commented on in the Discussion.

(DOCX)

S1 Text

(TXT)

Acknowledgments

We thank William McLellan, University of North Carolina-Wilmington for the collection of the North Atlantic right whale eye and Kristi West, Hawaii Pacific University, for the collection of the humpback and dwarf sperm whale eyes. All tissues were received by J.I.F. under a letter of authorization granted by the National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office. We thank R. Ewald, University of Tampa, and V. Ortiz and A. Caswell, Kean University, for their participation on this project. This manuscript is dedicated to the memory of our colleague and friend, Dr. Sherri Ann (Goldberg) Eldridge (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution).

Data Availability

The sequences underlying this study have been uploaded to GenBank. The accession numbers are located in the Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Funding for this work was provided by a Research Innovation and Scholarly Excellence Award/Dana Foundation Grant (J.I.F.) and a Biology Summer Research Fellowship from The University of Tampa. P.R.R. was supported by National Science Foundation grant R01 EY027202-02. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Lamb TD, Collin SP, Pugh EN Jr. Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007; 8(12): 960. 10.1038/nrn2283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gerkema MP, Davies WI, Foster RG, Menaker M, Hut RA. The nocturnal bottleneck and the evolution of activity patterns in mammals. Proc Biol Sci. 2013; 280(1765): 20130508. 10.1098/rspb.2013.0508 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jacobs GH. Losses of functional opsin genes, short-wavelength cone photopigments, and color vision-a significant trend in the evolution of mammalian vision. Vis Neurosci. 2013; 30(1–2):39–53. doi: 10.1017/S0952523812000429 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jacobs GH. Primate color vision: a comparative perspective. Vis Neurosci. 2008; 25(5–6): 619–33. doi: 10.1017/S0952523808080760 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hofmann L, Palczewski K. Advances in understanding the molecular basis of the first steps in color vision. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2015;49:46–66. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2015.07.004 ; PMCID: PMC4651776. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Emerling CA, Springer MS. Genomic evidence for rod monochromacy in sloths and armadillos suggests early subterranean history for Xenarthra. Proc Biol Sci. 2015; 282(1800): 20142192. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.2192 ; PMCID: PMC4298209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Meredith RW, Gatesy J, Emerling CA, York VM, Springer MS. Rod monochromacy and the coevolution of cetacean retinal opsins. PLoS Genet. 2013; 9(4): e1003432. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003432 ; PMCID: PMC3630094. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Schweikert LE, Fasick JI, Grace MS. Evolutionary loss of cone photoreception in balaenid whales reveals circuit stability in the mammalian retina. J Comp Neurol. 2016; 524(14): 2873–85. doi: 10.1002/cne.23996 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Levenson DH, Ponganis PJ, Crognale MA, Deegan JF II, Dizon A, Jacobs GH. Visual pigments of marine carnivores: pinnipeds, polar bear, and sea otter. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2006; 192(8): 833–43. doi: 10.1007/s00359-006-0121-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Newman LA, Robinson PR. The visual pigments of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). Vis. Res. 2006; 46(20): 3326–30. 10.1016/j.visres.2006.03.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Levenson D, Dizon A. Genetic evidence for the ancestral loss of short-wavelength-sensitive cone pigments in mysticete and odontocete cetaceans. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 2003; 270(1516): 673–9. 10.1098/rspb.2002.2278 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fasick JI, Cronin TW, Hunt DM, Robinson PR. The visual pigments of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Vis. Neuro. 1998; 15(04): 643–51. doi: 10.1017/S0952523898154056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Griebel U, Peichl L. Colour vision in aquatic mammals—facts and open questions. Aquatic Mammals. 2003; 29(1):18–30. http://doi:10.1578/016754203101024040. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Peichl L, Behrmann G, KroÈger RH. For whales and seals the ocean is not blue: a visual pigment loss in marine mammals. Eur J of Neuro. 2001;13(8):1520–8. 10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01533.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Peichl L. Diversity of mammalian photoreceptor properties: adaptations to habitat and lifestyle? Anat Rec. 2005;287(1):1001–12. 10.1002/ar.a.20262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Crognale MA, Levenson DH, Ponganis PJ, Deegan JF II, Jacobs GH. Cone spectral sensitivity in the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) and implications for color vision. Can J Zool. 1998;76(11):2114–8. 10.1139/z98-129 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Peichl L, Moutairou K. Absence of short-wavelength sensitive cones in the retinae of seals (Carnivora) and African giant rats (Rodentia). Eur J Neurosci. 1998;10(8):2586–94. 10.1046/j.1460-9568.1998.00265.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Altimus CM, Guler AD, Villa KL, McNeill DS, Legates TA, Hattar S. Rods-cones and melanopsin detect light and dark to modulate sleep independent of image formation. PNAS USA. 2008;105(50):19998–20003. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0808312105 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lupi D OH, Thompson S, Foster RG. The acute light-induction of sleep is mediated by OPN4-based photoreception. Nat Neurosci. 2008:1068–73. doi: 10.1038/nn.2179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.LeGates TA, Altimus CM, Wang H, Lee HK, Yang S, Zhao H, et al. Aberrant light directly impairs mood and learning through melanopsin-expressing neurons. Nature. 2012;491(7425):594–8. doi: 10.1038/nature11673 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tsai JW, Hannibal J, Hagiwara G, Colas D, Ruppert E, Ruby NF, et al. Melanopsin as a sleep modulator: circadian gating of the direct effects of light on sleep and altered sleep homeostasis in Opn4(-/-) mice. PLoS Bio. 2009;7(6):e1000125. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000125 . PMCID: PMC2688840. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pickard GE, Sollars PJ. Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. Rev Physiol Biochem Pharmacol. 2012;162:59–90. doi: 10.1007/112_2011_4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Schmidt TM, Chen SK, Hattar S. Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells: many subtypes, diverse functions. Trends Neurosci. 2011;34(11):572–80. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2011.07.001 ; PMCID: PMC3200463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Schmidt TM, Do MT, Dacey D, Lucas R, Hattar S, Matynia A. Melanopsin-positive intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells: from form to function. J Neurosci. 2011;31(45):16094–101. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4132-11.2011 ; PMCID: PMC3267581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rupp AC, Ren M, Altimus CM, Fernandez DC, Richardson M, Turek F, et al. Distinct ipRGC subpopulations mediate light’s acute and circadian effects on body temperature and sleep. Elife. 2019;8. doi: 10.7554/eLife.44358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Fernandez DC, Fogerson PM, Ospri LL, Thomsen MB, Layne RM, Severin D, et al. Light affects mood and learning through distinct retina-brain pathways. Cell. 2018;175(1):71–84. e18. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.08.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Do MTH. Melanopsin and the Intrinsically Photosensitive Retinal Ganglion Cells: Biophysics to Behavior. Neuron. 2019;104(2):205–26. 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.07.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Brown TM, Gias C, Hatori M, Keding SR, Coffey PJ, Gigg J, et al. Melanopsin contributions to irradiance coding in the thalamo-cortical visual system. PLoS Bio. 2010;8(12):e1000558. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000558 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Dacey DM, Liao H-W, Peterson BB, Robinson FR, Smith VC, Pokorny J, et al. Melanopsin-expressing ganglion cells in primate retina signal colour and irradiance and project to the LGN. Nature. 2005;433(7027):749–55. 10.1038/nature03387 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ecker JL, Dumitrescu ON, Wong KY, Alam NM, Chen S-K, LeGates T, et al. Melanopsin-expressing retinal ganglion-cell photoreceptors: cellular diversity and role in pattern vision. Neuron. 2010;67(1):49–60. 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.05.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Allen AE, Storchi R, Martial FP, Bedford RA, Lucas RJ. Melanopsin contributions to the representation of images in the early visual system. Curr Biol. 2017;27(11):1623–32. e4. 10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Patterson SS, Kuchenbecker JA, Anderson JR, Neitz M, Neitz J. A Color Vision Circuit for Non-Image-Forming Vision in the Primate Retina. Curr Biol. 2020. 10.1016/j.cub.2020.01.040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Schmidt TM, Alam NM, Chen S, Kofuji P, Li W, Prusky GT, et al. A role for melanopsin in alpha retinal ganglion cells and contrast detection. Neuron. 2014;82(4):781–8. 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.03.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Schroeder MM, Harrison KR, Jaeckel ER, Berger HN, Zhao X, Flannery MP, et al. The roles of rods, cones, and melanopsin in photoresponses of M4 intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) and optokinetic visual behavior. Front Cell Neurosci. 2018;12:203. 10.3389/fncel.2018.00203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Provencio I, Jiang G, De Grip WJ, Hayes WP, Rollag MD. Melanopsin: An opsin in melanophores, brain, and eye. PNAS USA. 1998;95(1):340–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.1.340 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC18217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Provencio I, Rodriguez IR, Jiang G, Hayes WP, Moreira EF, Rollag MD. A novel human opsin in the inner retina. J Neurosci. 2000;20(2):600–5. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-02-00600.2000 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sexton T, Buhr E, Van Gelder RN. Melanopsin and mechanisms of non-visual ocular photoreception. J Biol Chem. 2012;287(3):1649–56. 10.1074/jbc.R111.301226 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lucas RJ, Lall GS, Allen AE, Brown TM. How rod, cone, and melanopsin photoreceptors come together to enlighten the mammalian circadian clock. Prog Brain Res. 2012;199:1–18. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-59427-3.00001-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Quattrochi LE, Stabio ME, Kim I, Ilardi MC, Michelle Fogerson P, Leyrer ML, et al. The M6 cell: A small-field bistratified photosensitive retinal ganglion cell. J Comp Neuro. 2019;527(1):297–311. 10.1002/cne.24556 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bischoff N, Nickle B, Cronin TW, Velasquez S, Fasick JI. Deep-sea and pelagic rod visual pigments identified in the mysticete whales. Vis Neurosci. 2012;29(02):95–103. doi: 10.1017/S0952523812000107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fasick JI, Applebury ML, Oprian DD. Spectral tuning in the mammalian short-wavelength sensitive cone pigments. Biochem. 2002;41(21):6860–5. 10.1021/bi0200413 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Fasick JI, Robinson PR. Mechanism of Spectral Tuning in the Dolphin Visual Pigments. Biochem. 1998;37(2):433–8. doi: 10.1021/bi972500j [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.McFarland WN. Cetacean visual pigments. Vis Res. 1971;11(10):1065–76. 10.1016/0042-6989(71)90113-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Dartnall H. The identity and distribution of visual pigments in the animal kingdom. In: Davson H, editor. The Eye: Volume 2, The Visual Process. Academic Press, New York. 1962. pp. 367–426. 10.1016/B978-1-4832-3089-4.50027-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Dartnall HJ. Visual pigment. Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1976;33(2):147–52. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(76)90217-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lythgoe J, Dartnall H. A “deep sea rhodopsin” in a mammal. Nature. 1970;227:955–6. 10.1038/227955a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lavigne D, Ronald K. Pinniped visual pigments. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B. 1975;52(2):325–9. 10.1016/0305-0491(75)90073-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Southall K, Oliver G, Lewis J, Boeuf B, Levenson D. Visual pigment sensitivity in three deep diving marine mammals. Mar Mamm Sci. 2002;18(1):275–81. 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2002.tb01033.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Crescitelli F. The natural history of visual pigments. Ann New York Acad Sci. 1958;74(1):230–55. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1958.tb39548.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Fasick JI, Baumgartner MF, Cronin TW, Nickle B, Kezmoh LJ. Mar Mamm Sci. Visual predation during springtime foraging of the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). 2017;33(4):991–1013. 10.1111/mms.12417 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Newman LA, Robinson PR. Cone visual pigments of aquatic mammals. Vis Neurosci. 2005;22(6):873–9. doi: 10.1017/S0952523805226159 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Panda S, Nayak SK, Campo B, Walker JR, Hogenesch JB, Jegla T. Illumination of the melanopsin signaling pathway. Science. 2005;307(5709):600–4. doi: 10.1126/science.1105121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Qiu X, Kumbalasiri T, Carlson SM, Wong KY, Krishna V, Provencio I, et al. Induction of photosensitivity by heterologous expression of melanopsin. Nature. 2005;433(7027):745. 10.1038/nature03345 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Koyanagi M, Kubokawa K, Tsukamoto H, Shichida Y, Terakita A. Cephalochordate melanopsin: evolutionary linkage between invertebrate visual cells and vertebrate photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. Curr Biol. 2005;15(11):1065–9. 10.1016/j.cub.2005.04.063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Torii M, Kojima D, Okano T, Nakamura A, Terakita A, Shichida Y, et al. Two isoforms of chicken melanopsins show blue light sensitivity. FEBS Letters. 2007;581(27):5327–31. 10.1016/j.febslet.2007.10.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Bailes HJ, Lucas RJ. Human melanopsin forms a pigment maximally sensitive to blue light (λmax≈ 479 nm) supporting activation of Gq/11 and Gi/o signaling cascades. Proc. R. Soc. B.2802012298720122987. 10.1098/rspb.2012.2987 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Sekharan S, Katayama K, Kandori H, Morokuma K. Color vision:“OH-site” rule for seeing red and green. J Am Chem Soc. 2012;134(25):10706–12. 10.1021/ja304820p [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ernst OP, Lodowski DT, Elstner M, Hegemann P, Brown LS, Kandori H. Microbial and animal rhodopsins: structures, functions, and molecular mechanisms. Chem Rev. 2013;114(1):126–63. 10.1021/cr4003769 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Collette F, Renger T, Müh F, Schmidt am Busch M. Red/green color tuning of visual rhodopsins: Electrostatic theory provides a quantitative explanation. J Phys Chem B. 2018;122(18):4828–37. 10.1021/acs.jpcb.8b02702 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Markwell EL, Feigl B, Zele AJ. Intrinsically photosensitive melanopsin retinal ganglion cell contributions to the pupillary light reflex and circadian rhythm. Clinic Exp Optomet. 2010;93(3):137–49. 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2010.00479.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Keenan WT, Rupp AC, Ross RA, Somasundaram P, Hiriyanna S, Wu Z, et al. A visual circuit uses complementary mechanisms to support transient and sustained pupil constriction. eLife. 2016;5:e15392 doi: 10.7554/eLife.15392 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Lee SK, Sonoda T, Schmidt TM. M1 Intrinsically Photosensitive Retinal Ganglion Cells Integrate Rod and Melanopsin Inputs to Signal in Low Light. Cell Reports. 2019;29(11):3349–55. e2. 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.11.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Blasic JR Jr., Lane Brown R, Robinson PR. Light-dependent phosphorylation of the carboxy tail of mouse melanopsin. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2012;69(9):1551–62. doi: 10.1007/s00018-011-0891-3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4045631. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Blasic JR Jr., Matos-Cruz V, Ujla D, Cameron EG, Hattar S, Halpern ME, et al. Identification of critical phosphorylation sites on the carboxy tail of melanopsin. Biochem. 2014;53(16):2644–9. doi: 10.1021/bi401724r ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4010260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Mure LS, Hatori M, Zhu Q, Demas J, Kim IM, Nayak SK, et al. Melanopsin-encoded response properties of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. Neuron. 2016; 90: 1016–27. 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.04.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Somasundaram P, Wyrick GR, Fernandez DC, Ghahari A, Pinhal CM, Richardson MS, et al. C-terminal phosphorylation regulates the kinetics of a subset of melanopsin-mediated behaviors in mice. PNAS USA. 2017:201611893. 10.1073/pnas.1611893114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Keane M, Semeiks J, Webb AE, Li YI, Quesada V, Craig T, et al. Insights into the evolution of longevity from the bowhead whale genome. Cell Reports. 2015;10(1):112–22. 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.12.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Rambaut, A., Suchard, M.A., Xie, D. & Drummond, A.J. (2014). FigTree v1.4.4. Available at: http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree.
  • 69.Wu S, Zhang Y. LOMETS: a local meta-threading-server for protein structure prediction. Nucl Acid Res. 2007;35(10):3375–82. 10.1093/nar/gkm251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Murakami M, Kouyama T. Crystal structure of squid rhodopsin. Nature 2008;453, 363–367. 10.1038/nature06925 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Wernersson R, Pedersen AG. RevTrans: multiple alignment of coding DNA from aligned amino acid sequences. Nucl Acid Res. 2003;31(13):3537–9. 10.1093/nar/gkg609 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Stern A, Doron-Faigenboim A, Erez E, Martz E, Bacharach E, Pupko T. Selecton 2007: advanced models for detecting positive and purifying selection using a Bayesian inference approach. Nucl Acid Res. 2007;35(Suppl 2):W506–W11. 10.1093/nar/gkm382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Franke R, Sakmar T, Oprian D, Khorana H. A single amino acid substitution in rhodopsin (lysine 248—-leucine) prevents activation of transducin. J Biol Chem. 1988;263(5):2119–22. 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)69178-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Johnsen S. The Optics of Life: A Biologist’s Guide to Light in Nature: Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2012. 286 pp. ISBN 978-0-691-13991-3.
  • 75.Mullen E, Akhtar M. Topographic and active-site studies on bovine rhodopsin. FEBS Lett. 1981;132(2):261–4. doi: 10.1016/0014-5793(81)81174-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Ovchinnikov YA. Rhodopsin and bacteriorhodopsin: structure—function relationships. FEBS Lett. 1982;148(2):179–91. 10.1016/0014-5793(82)80805-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Rinaldi S, Melaccio F, Gozem S, Fanelli F, Olivucci M. Comparison of the isomerization mechanisms of human melanopsin and invertebrate and vertebrate rhodopsins. PNAS USA. 2014;111(5):1714–9. 10.1073/pnas.1309508111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Nagata T, Koyanagi M, Tsukamoto H, Mutt E, Schertler GF, Deupi X, et al. The counterion–retinylidene Schiff base interaction of an invertebrate rhodopsin rearranges upon light activation. Commun Biol. 2019;2(1):1–9. 10.1038/s42003-019-0409-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Varma N, Mutt E, Mühle J, Panneels V, Terakita A, Deupi X, et al. Crystal structure of jumping spider rhodopsin-1 as a light sensitive GPCR. PNAS USA. 2019;116(29):14547–56. 10.1073/pnas.1902192116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Johnsen S, Kelber A, Warrant E, Sweeney AM, Widder EA, Lee RL, et al. Crepuscular and nocturnal illumination and its effects on color perception by the nocturnal hawkmoth Deilephila elpenor. J Exp Biol. 2006;209(5):789–800. 10.1242/jeb.02053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Sweeney AM, Boch CA, Johnsen S, Morse DE. Twilight spectral dynamics and the coral reef invertebrate spawning response. J Exp Biol. 2011;214(5):770–7. 10.1242/jeb.043406 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Shanmugam P, Ahn Y. Reference solar irradiance spectra and consequences of their disparities in remote sensing of the ocean colour. Ann. Geophys. 2007;25, 1235–1252. 10.5194/angeo-25-1235-2007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Lucas R, Hattar S, Takao M, Berson D, Foster R, Yau K-W. Diminished pupillary light reflex at high irradiances in melanopsin-knockout mice. Science. 2003;299(5604):245–7. doi: 10.1126/science.1077293 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Dral A. Aquatic and aerial vision in the bottle-nosed dolphin. Netherl J Sea Res. 1972;5(4):510–3. 10.1016/0077-7579(72)90008-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Mass AM, Supin AY. Ganglion cell topography of the retina in the bottlenosed dolphin, Tursiops truncatus. Brain Behav Evol. 1995;45:257–265. 10.1159/000113554 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Mäthger LM, Hanlon RT, Håkansson J, Nilsson D-E. The W-shaped pupil in cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis): functions for improving horizontal vision. Vis Res. 2013;83:19–24. 10.1016/j.visres.2013.02.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Fasick J, Algrain H, Serba K, Robinson P. Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) retinal pigments and visual foraging ecology. Vis Neurosci. 2019. Nov 13; 36: E011. doi: 10.1017/S0952523819000105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Stephan CF Neuhauss

22 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-18150

Spectral tuning and deactivation kinetics of marine mammal melanopsins

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fasick,

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.

As you will see from the attached reviewer comments, the required changes are of editorial nature only.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 05 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,

Stephan C.F. Neuhauss, Ph.D.

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 you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: Fasick et al. examined melanopsin (Opn4) in marine mammals. Melanopsin is a recently discovered photopigment expressed, in mammals, in a subset of retinal ganglion cells. It renders these cells intrinsically photosensitive (ipRGCs). ipRGCs play a major role in “non-visual” responses to light, a set of functions that includes photoentrainment of the circadian clock and pupillary reflex to light (PLR).

Marine mammals’ visual system, in particular the photopigments and photoreceptors, adapted to marine habitat. Melanopsin has never been studied in marine mammals. Here, the authors question if, similarly to what was observed for other photopigments, marine mammal’s melanopsin has undergone adaptations to the marine environment. Specifically, they ask if melanopsin protein domains related to spectral sensitivity and deactivation kinetics diverged from their terrestrial counterparts.

Based on homology modeling of the marine mammal Opn4 sequences, they first look for residues that may interfere with the domains critical for the absorption spectrum of melanopsin. They detected 10 non-conserved residues in positions potentially impacting spectral tuning, of which very few were in range (in only 3/17 species) which suggests that the melanopsin peak may not be shifted in marine mammals. Consistent with this result, they found little evolutionary constraint on these residues compared to other residues of the transmembranary domains.

On the contrary, the sites of several phosphorylable residues of the C terminus tail, important for deactivation speed in the mouse, were subject to strong selection. Accordingly, responses to light from marine melanopsins (heterologously expressed in HEK cells) were slower to stop. The authors hypothesize that a longer melanopsin response, if it translates to melanopsin-dependent responses such as PLR, may be beneficial to rod regeneration in rod monochromate animals.

While some conclusions of this study rest on the assumption that the modelization and the in vitro responses translate to the physiology of these animals, this is an intriguing comparative study that will be of interest to a very large range of biologists.

I do not have any major reservations. I just listed below a few points that, I think, would deserve to be clarified.

L133. Refs?

L144. The authors do not explicitly mention the phylogenic proximity of some species with the cow used as a reference. It may not be obvious to the readership

L223. What was the irradiance of the flashes?

L373. Spectral measurements were performed “between astronomical twilight (06:35 EDT) and sunrise (07:00 EDT)”. What was the reasoning behind performing the spectral measurements only at dawn? Also, the readership would benefit from some descriptions of the marine species habitat/habits. For example: What is the amount and schedule of light sampling at the surface in the marine mammals considered? That, given the vast diversity of species considered, may be quite different. What is the underwater spectrum at the depth where these species are living?

L389. (Ka/Ks or dN/dS ratio, also referred to as ω), not clear.

L455. The authors may also want to cite Mure et al., 2016 regarding the impact of Opn4 C-terminus tail phosphorylation on the PLR.

L455. Somasundaram et al., 2017 is referenced twice (69 and 83).

L525. “functional confirmation of this claim requires suitable cell culture and purification systems to provide in vitro expression of the dark-adapted absorbance”. While I agree with that, one cannot help but wonder why the authors made no attempt of spectral measurements with the calcium assay they used to compare deactivation kinetics?

Regarding absorption peak, the authors could discuss fish melanopsins as fishes share the same habitat but do not surface. Are some fishes’ melanopsin spectra known (and shifted?)?

Reviewer #2: The study by Fasick and colleagues investigate melanopsin (encoded by Opn4) in marine mammals. This is a most interesting research question, due to the high interest that this photopigment enjoys. Melanopsin is the photopigment of intrinsically photosensitive ganglion cells. These cells play a crucial role in the vertebrate retina and are fascinating for multiple reasons, including their rhabdomer-like visual transduction.

Somewhat surprisingly, this gene has not be studied in marine mammals, despite the large attention it has enjoyed in terrestrial mammals. This study now sets out to close this gap and to analyze potential adaptations to the marine environment.

The study is based on bioinformatic and in vitro approaches, which is a great starting point.

The main findings include the (to this reviewer) surprising conclusion that there was little evidence for spectral tuning. On the other hand, residues at the C-terminal, known to be subject to phosphorylation, that triggers the deactivation cascade. This conclusion was confirmed by in vitro experiments in HEK cells, where marine mammalian melanopsin was indeed slower in their shut-off kinetics.

Overall this is an interesting study that will be of interest to a diverse group of biologists. This study should also inspire other scientists to test these properties in vivo (not easily accessible of course).

I only have a few minor points that the authors should address:

1. The connection to the pupillary light response needs more supportive references

2. In general the authors should comment more on the visual ecology of these species. This includes some information on the spectral composition of their light environment and the illumination levels.

3. The discussion would be even more interesting by a comparison of other marine life, e.g. what is known about fish melanopsins, are there difference between surface and deep sea fish … But this is of course at the discretion of the authors.

Otherwise this is a most interesting and well written manuscript that will find a wide readership.

**********

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: Jingjing Zang

[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 15;16(10):e0257436. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257436.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Aug 2021

August 27, 2021

Dear Dr. Neuhauss,

We the authors have revised our manuscript (Manuscript ID PONE-D-21-18150) entitled, Spectral Tuning and Deactivation Kinetics of Marine Mammal Melanopsins for review by you as well as by the referees who enthusiastically agreed to review the revised manuscript. We have revised the manuscript by addressing the comments and concerns of the Academic Editor, and referees #1 and #2. The comments and concerns of the Academic Editor and the referees were extremely helpful in crafting a more sophisticated and concise manuscript and we thank the Academic Editor and referees for their time and well-thought-out critiques. Please note that all line numbers (denoted L) mentioned in this rebuttal refer to the line numbers from the original manuscript (file name: Manuscript) as do the reference numbers.

Comments and Responses

Academic Editor

Comment 1. Data available upon request. When filling out the submission for review, this option was a little confusing. Our data (DNA sequences) will be available and uploaded to NCBI when the manuscript is accepted for publication. Sequence accession numbers will be provided when available.

Reviewer #1

Comment 1. L133. Refs? The sentence ending on L133 proposes two hypotheses pertaining to mechanisms that may counter photoreceptor bleaching in bright light conditions. To our knowledge, there has been no research on the selection for rod visual pigments or mutants that reconstitute chromophore significantly faster. Our current work, of course, pertains to the second hypothesis proposed on L133, a compensatory mechanism to maintain an extended PLR wherein the pupil dilates considerably slower.

Comment 2. L144. The authors do not explicitly mention the phylogenic proximity of some species with the cow used as a reference. It may not be obvious to the readership. We agree with Reviewer #1’s comment as this phylogenic proximity was buried at the end of Figure legend 2. Even-toed ungulates, like cow, and cetaceans belong to the same order, Cetartiodactyla. We have edited the Materials and Methods as follows: “Domestic cow Opn4 (Bos Taurus, GenBank accession no. NM_001192399) was used as a query sequence in nucleotide blast analyses to identify orthologs from other Cetartiodactyla marine mammal genomes including…”

Comment 3. L223. What was the irradiance of the flashes? Irradiance values from the Xenon flash lamp were not measured nor listed in the specifications of the instrument. However, a 5W Xenon flash lamp typically has irradiance values between 5-15 mWcm2.

Comment 4. L373. Spectral measurements were performed “between astronomical twilight (06:35 EDT) and sunrise (07:00 EDT)”. What was the reasoning behind performing the spectral measurements only at dawn? Also, the readership would benefit from some descriptions of the marine species habitat/habits. For example: What is the amount and schedule of light sampling at the surface in the marine mammals considered? That, given the vast diversity of species considered, may be quite different. What is the underwater spectrum at the depth where these species are living? With regards to the first question (…why sample at dawn?), this was simply the only time available to us on that day. At the time, JIF was studying photoentrainment pertaining to circadian rhythms. In retrospect, we now would have preferred to have sampled at high noon as well as at dusk to have a full account of the solar spectral measurements. With regards to the second question (What is the amount and schedule of light sampling at the surface in the marine mammals considered?), this may be found in L533-555 where we state, “However, the dominant wavelengths of solar spectral irradiance present in surface water environments is around 510 nm [77, 86]”, with radiance values near 1 Lw (found in reference 86). With regards to the third comment (What is the underwater spectrum at the depth where these species are living?), we address this along with Reviewer #2’s comment (“…some information on the spectral composition of their light environment and the illumination levels”). Readers should be able to use the references found in lines 92-102 with regards to visual foraging ecology of marine mammals: “…marine mammal visual pigments are spectrally tuned to overlap the underwater spectral radiance associated with foraging depth [9, 12, 42-51]. Modulating the spectral sensitivity results in relatively large, blue-shifted absorbance spectra from visual pigments of deep-diving pelagic marine mammals, and relatively slightly red-shifted absorbance spectra from the visual pigments of near-coastal and riverine species, when compared to their terrestrial counterparts. Unlike terrestrial mammals, most marine mammal species reside in two spectrally distinct photic environments: the surface where they breathe and utilize broadband light spectra, and at foraging depth where they can utilize narrowband light spectra. The spectral irradiance at foraging depth is typically blue-shifted from the 500 nm region of the visible light spectrum where terrestrial Rh1 pigments maximally absorb [7, 9, 44, 45, 57-60]”, with reference 58 providing radiance values as a function of depth for the North Atlantic right whale. Outside of this, describing the underwater spectral qualities of light for each species is beyond the scope of this paper.

Comment 5. L389. (Ka/Ks or dN/dS ratio, also referred to as ω), not clear. We agree with Reviewer #1’s comment and have edited this sentence as follows: “To investigate patterns of selection in marine mammal melanopsins, we used codon-aligned models to estimate the ratio of non-synonymous (amino-acid altering; Ka or dN) to synonymous (silent; Ks or dS) substitutions (Ka/Ks or dN/dS ratio, also referred to as ω)…”

Comment 6. L455. The authors may also want to cite Mure et al., 2016 regarding the impact of Opn4 C-terminus tail phosphorylation on the PLR. We agree with Reviewer #1 and have added this reference.

Comment 7. L455. Somasundaram et al., 2017 is referenced twice (69 and 83). This has been corrected.

Comment 8. L525. “why have the authors made no attempt of spectral measurements with the calcium assay they used to compare deactivation kinetics? The authors agree and this is an experiment that will be performed in the future. It requires a modification of the instrument such that single monochromatic light is flashed to a select number of samples.

Comment 9. Regarding absorption peak, the authors could discuss fish melanopsins as fishes share the same habitat but do not surface. Are some fishes’ melanopsin spectra known (and shifted?)? We agree with Reviewer #2 that this would be an interesting comparison and we hope to begin similar studies with marine fish. An article that interested us examined melatonin inhibition in damselfish in the presence of blue light as opposed to green or red light (Takeuchi et al. 2014. Gen. Comp. Endocrin. 204: 158-165) but did not examine the damselfish melanopsin gene or its expression. To our knowledge, the spectral tuning properties in association with calcium imaging assays of marine fish melanopsins have not been done.

Reviewer #2

Comment 1. The connection to the pupillary light response needs more supportive references. It is not entirely clear to us what Reviewer #2 is referring to with regards to “connection”? We can only assume that Reviewer #2 is referring to the “connection” between light, melanopsin expressing ipRGCs, as well as the innervation of rod and cone photoreceptors on these ipRGCs. The following 5 references directly examine the pupillary light response with regards to Opn4 expressing ipRGCs, while several other references in the manuscript describe the roles of rod and cone photoreceptors. We believe that we have included the appropriate references in the manuscript. We included a new reference per the request of Reviewer #1 (Mure et al., 2016).

Markwell EL, Feigl B, Zele AJ. Intrinsically photosensitive melanopsin retinal ganglion cell contributions to the pupillary light reflex and circadian rhythm. Clinic Exp Optomet. 2010;93(3):137-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2010.00479.x

Keenan WT, Rupp AC, Ross RA, Somasundaram P, Hiriyanna S, Wu Z, et al. A visual circuit uses complementary mechanisms to support transient and sustained pupil constriction. eLife 2016;5: e15392 doi: 10.7554/eLife.15392

Lee SK, Sonoda T, Schmidt TM. M1 Intrinsically Photosensitive Retinal Ganglion Cells Integrate Rod and Melanopsin Inputs to Signal in Low Light. Cell Reports. 2019;29(11):3349-55. e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2019.11.024

Mure LS, Hatori M, Zhu Q, Demas J, Kim IM, Nayak SK, et al. Melanopsin-encoded response properties of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. Neuron. 2016; 90: 1016–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.04.016

Somasundaram P, Wyrick GR, Fernandez DC, Ghahari A, Pinhal CM, Richardson MS, et al. C-terminal phosphorylation regulates the kinetics of a subset of melanopsin-mediated behaviors in mice. PNAS USA. 2017:201611893. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611893114

Comment 2. In general, the authors should comment more on the visual ecology of these species. This includes some information on the spectral composition of their light environment and the illumination levels. See Reviewer #1, Comment 4.

Comment 3. The discussion would be even more interesting by a comparison of other marine life, e.g., what is known about fish melanopsins, are there difference between surface and deep-sea fish … But this is of course at the discretion of the authors. See Reviewer #1, Comment 9.

Thank you for your consideration and please contact me for any further comments and corrections,

Sincerely,

Jeffry I Fasick, PhD

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Stephan CF Neuhauss

1 Sep 2021

Spectral tuning and deactivation kinetics of marine mammal melanopsins

PONE-D-21-18150R1

Dear Dr. Fasick,

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. Congratulations to a most interesting study.

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,

Stephan C.F. Neuhauss, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Stephan CF Neuhauss

8 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-18150R1

Spectral tuning and deactivation kinetics of marine mammal melanopsins

Dear Dr. Fasick:

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. Stephan C.F. Neuhauss

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 Table. Oligonucleotide primers for PCR.

    Forward and reverse primers for PCR amplification of full-length bowhead whale Opn4 and partial coding domain for other cetacean Opn4 sequences including North Atlantic right whale, bottlenose dolphin and harbor porpoise.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. PCR cycling parameters.

    Temperatures for denaturation, annealing and extension for the amplification of Opn4 coding sequences from bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise and North Atlantic right whale retinal cDNA. Reactions contained forward and reverse primers (see above) and were carried out in a 25 μl mixture containing 1 μM of each primer, 2 μl of reverse transcribed single-stranded cDNA, and Amplitaq Gold master mix (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). Annealing Tm were from NCBI Primer-BLAST for each primer pair.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. PCR cycling parameters.

    Temperatures for denaturation, annealing and extension for the amplification of West Indian manatee and bowhead whale opn4 coding sequences.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Accession numbers.

    GenBank accession numbers used to generate the tree shown in Fig 2 and in commented on in the Discussion.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Text

    (TXT)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    The sequences underlying this study have been uploaded to GenBank. The accession numbers are located in the Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES