19.09.2015 Views

TABLE CONTENTS

How different or similar are nematode communities - International ...

How different or similar are nematode communities - International ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Comparative Genomics of Meloidogyne: Genome Reorganization on the<br />

Road to Plant Parasitism<br />

Bird, D.McK., C.H. Opperman & the M. hapla Genome Annotation Team<br />

Center for the Biology of Nematode Parasitism, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA<br />

Meloidogyne spp. are the most damaging and economically significant plant-parasitic<br />

nematodes worldwide. We selected M. hapla for sequencing based on its small genome (54<br />

Mbp) and established genetic system (sexually reproducing diploid) and have obtained a<br />

whole genome assembly that spans >97% of the M. hapla genome. Extensive automatic and<br />

manual annotation has revealed that M. hapla encodes ~14,500 genes. In addition to gene<br />

discovery, a major motivation for sequencing plant-parasitic nematode genomes is to<br />

understand the processes that have lead to adaptation to the parasitic life style. Comparison of<br />

the genome sequence of M. hapla with those of other nematodes, including the non-parasitic<br />

species C. elegans, has revealed a pattern of gene loss and gene gain reflecting selective<br />

pressures both on individual genes and also on more substantial chromosomal reorganization;<br />

the role of these processes in the evolution of the genus will be discussed. The completion of<br />

the M. incognita genome by Abad et. al., coupled with partial genomes from cyst nematodes<br />

and those of other animal-parasitic and free-living nematodes, provides a unique platform for<br />

comparative genomics among the plant-parasitic Nematoda.<br />

Worm and Fly: What Whole Genome Comparisons Can Tell Us about<br />

Taste and Smell<br />

Trowell, S.<br />

CSIRO Food Futures Flagship & CSIRO Entomology, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia<br />

Caenorhabditis elegans has 32 chemosensory neurons and possibly as few as eight<br />

interneurons dedicated to processing chemosensory information 1 . In contrast, Drosophila<br />

melanogaster, which has the simplest olfactory system of any insect studied in depth, has<br />

more than 2,500 chemosensory neurons 2 and at least twice that number of interneurons 3<br />

dedicated to processing chemosensory information. Neural networks that match the scale of<br />

the Drosophila mushroom bodies are capable of robust classification of many tens or even<br />

hundreds of input classes 4 but it is not conceivable that the nervous system of C. elegans has<br />

this level of integrative power. Despite theory suggesting that the lack of neural processing<br />

power will impose severe restrictions on the nematode’s ability to identify and discriminate<br />

amongst chemosensory cues, the nematode displays a range of sophisticated chemosensory<br />

behaviours, raising the question of how this is achieved. Approximately 1,500<br />

chemoreceptor genes have been identified in the genome sequence of C. elegans, a seemingly<br />

extravagant number compared with the 62 olfactory receptor genes and 60 gustatory receptor<br />

genes known from D. melanogaster. It may be that the nematode’s larger repertoire of<br />

chemoreceptor genes reflects a radically different chemosensory architecture from insects and<br />

more complex animals. If so, it would lead to some precise predictions regarding the<br />

molecular pharmacology of nematode ORs. Furthermore, the real-time performance of even<br />

such a modest nervous system as that of D. melanogaster cannot yet be replicated in silico<br />

cost effectively. Therefore chemosensing strategies adopted by the nematode may provide<br />

some useful learnings for human engineers.<br />

1<br />

P. Sengupta, Pflugers Arch 454 (5), 721 (2007).<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

M. de Bruyne and C. G. Warr, BioEssays 28 (1), 23 (2006).<br />

R. L. Davis, Neuron 11 (1), 1 (1993).<br />

T. Nowotny, R. Huerta, H. D. Abarbanel et al., Biol Cybern 93 (6), 436 (2005).<br />

5 th International Congress of Nematology, 2008 88

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!