A-to-I RNA editing of CYP18A1 mediates transgenerational wing dimorphism in aphids
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife assessment
This study presents an important finding on the molecular mechanism for transduction of environmentally induced polyphenism. The evidence supporting the claims of the author is incomplete due to limited sample sizes and inadequate analysis. This paper would be of interest to those studying aphids wing dimorphism.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
Wing dimorphism is a common phenomenon that plays key roles in the environmental adaptation of aphid; however, the signal transduction in response to environmental cues and the regulation mechanism related to this event remain unknown. Adenosine (A) to inosine (I) RNA editing is a posttranscriptional modification that extends transcriptome variety without altering the genome, playing essential roles in numerous biological and physiological processes. Here, we present a chromosome-level genome assembly of the rose-grain aphid Metopolophium dirhodum by using PacBio long HiFi reads and Hi-C technology. The final genome assembly for M. dirhodum is 447.8 Mb, with 98.50% of the assembled sequences anchored to nine chromosomes. The contig and scaffold N50 values are 7.82 and 37.54 Mb, respectively. A total of 18,003 protein-coding genes were predicted, of which 92.05% were functionally annotated. In addition, 11678 A-to-I RNA-editing sites were systematically identified based on this assembled M. dirhodum genome, and two synonymous A-to-I RNA editing sites on CYP18A1 were closely associated with transgenerational wing dimorphism induced by crowding. One of these A-to-I RNA editing sites may prevent the binding of miR-3036-5p to CYP18A1 , thus elevating CYP18A1 expression, decreasing 20E titer, and finally regulating the wing dimorphism of offspring. Meanwhile, crowding can also inhibit miR-3036-5p expression and further increase CYP18A1 abundance, resulting in winged offspring. These findings support that A-to-I RNA editing is a dynamic mechanism in the regulation of transgenerational wing dimorphism in aphids and would advance our understanding of the roles of RNA editing in environmental adaptability and phenotypic plasticity.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
-
eLife assessment
This study presents an important finding on the molecular mechanism for transduction of environmentally induced polyphenism. The evidence supporting the claims of the author is incomplete due to limited sample sizes and inadequate analysis. This paper would be of interest to those studying aphids wing dimorphism.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary:
In this study, a chromosome-level genome of the rose-grain aphid M. dirhodum was assembled with high quality, and A-to-I RNA-editing sites were systematically identified. The authors then demonstrated that: 1) Wing dimorphism induced by crowding in M. dirhodum is regulated by 20E (ecdysone signaling pathway); 2) an A-to-I RNA editing prevents the binding of miR-3036-5p to CYP18A1 (the enzyme required for 20E degradation), thus elevating CYP18A1 expression, decreasing 20E titer, and finally regulating the wing dimorphism of offspring.
Strengths:
The authors present both genome and A-to-I RNA editing data. An interesting finding is that a A-to-I RNA editing site in CYP18A1 ruin the miRNA binding site of miR-3036-5p. And loss of miR-3036-5p regulation lead to less 20E and winged offspring.
Weaknesses:
H…
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary:
In this study, a chromosome-level genome of the rose-grain aphid M. dirhodum was assembled with high quality, and A-to-I RNA-editing sites were systematically identified. The authors then demonstrated that: 1) Wing dimorphism induced by crowding in M. dirhodum is regulated by 20E (ecdysone signaling pathway); 2) an A-to-I RNA editing prevents the binding of miR-3036-5p to CYP18A1 (the enzyme required for 20E degradation), thus elevating CYP18A1 expression, decreasing 20E titer, and finally regulating the wing dimorphism of offspring.
Strengths:
The authors present both genome and A-to-I RNA editing data. An interesting finding is that a A-to-I RNA editing site in CYP18A1 ruin the miRNA binding site of miR-3036-5p. And loss of miR-3036-5p regulation lead to less 20E and winged offspring.
Weaknesses:
How crowding represses the miR-3036-5p is still unclear.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
Environmental influences on development are ubiquitous, affecting many phenotypes in organisms. However molecular genetic and cellular mechanisms transducing environmental signals are still only barely understood. This study examines part of one such intracellular mechanism in a polyphenic (or dimorphic) aphid.
Strengths:
While other published reports have linked phenotypic plasticity to RNA editing before, this study reports such an interaction in insects. The study uses a wide array of molecular tools to identify connections upstream and downstream of the RNA editing to elucidate the regulatory mechanism, which is illuminating.
Weaknesses:
While this system is intriguing, this report does not foster confidence in its conclusions. Many of the analyses seem based on very small sample sizes. It is …
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
Environmental influences on development are ubiquitous, affecting many phenotypes in organisms. However molecular genetic and cellular mechanisms transducing environmental signals are still only barely understood. This study examines part of one such intracellular mechanism in a polyphenic (or dimorphic) aphid.
Strengths:
While other published reports have linked phenotypic plasticity to RNA editing before, this study reports such an interaction in insects. The study uses a wide array of molecular tools to identify connections upstream and downstream of the RNA editing to elucidate the regulatory mechanism, which is illuminating.
Weaknesses:
While this system is intriguing, this report does not foster confidence in its conclusions. Many of the analyses seem based on very small sample sizes. It is itself problematic that sample sizes are not obvious in most figures, although based on Methods section covering RNAseq, they seem to be either 3, 6 or 9, depending on whether stages were pooled, but that point is not made clear. With such small sample sizes, statistical tests of any kind are unreliable. Besides the ambiguity on sample sizes, it's unclear what error bars or whiskers show in plots throughout this study. When sample sizes are small estimates of variance are not reliable. Student's t-test is not appropriate for comparisons with such small sample sizes. Presently, it is not possible to replicate the tests shown in Figures 3, 4 and 6. (Besides the HT-seq reads, other data should also be made publicly available, following the journal's recommendations.) Regardless, effect sizes in some comparisons (Fig 3J, 4A-C, 6E,H) are clearly not large, making confidence in conclusions low. The authors should be cautious about over-interpreting these data.
-