On the origin and evolutionary history of NANOG

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Scerbo, Pierluigi ^a,b   Markov, Gabriel V ^a,c,d   Vivien, Céline ^a,e   Kodjabachian, Laurent ^b   Demeneix, Barbara ^a   Coen, Laurent ^a   Girardot, Fabrice ^a  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE LYON   (France)

^d MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY   (Germany)

^e WATCHFROG S A   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR NANOG;

ARTICLE; CELL SPECIFICITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; GENE DUPLICATION; GENOME ANALYSIS; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; NANOG GENE; NONHUMAN; PARALOGY; PHYLOGENY; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL; PRIMORDIAL GERM CELL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN FAMILY; PSEUDOGENE; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY;

ANIMALS; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENETIC LOCI; HOMEODOMAIN PROTEINS; HUMANS; PHYLOGENY; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY, AMINO ACID; SYNTENY;

EID: 84898431583     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085104     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Okita K, Yamanaka S (2011) Induced pluripotent stem cells: opportunities and challenges. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366: 2198-2207.
2. Tapia N, Reinhardt P, Duemmler A, Wu G, Arauzo-Bravo MJ, et al. (2012) Reprogramming to pluripotency is an ancient trait of vertebrate Oct4 and Pou2 proteins. Nat Commun 3: 1279.
3. Sommer RJ (2008) Homology and the hierarchy of biological systems. Bioessays 30: 653-658.
4. Gharib WH, Robinson-Rechavi M (2011) When orthologs diverge between human and mouse. Brief Bioinform 12: 436-441.
5. Takeda H, Matsuzaki T, Oki T, Miyagawa T, Amanuma H (1994) A novel POU domain gene, zebrafish pou2: expression and roles of two alternatively spliced twin products in early development. Genes Dev 8: 45-59. (Pubitemid 24032852)
6. Okamoto K, Okazawa H, Okuda A, Sakai M, Muramatsu M, et al. (1990) A novel octamer binding transcription factor is differentially expressed in mouse embryonic cells. Cell 60: 461-472.
7. Scholer HR, Ruppert S, Suzuki N, Chowdhury K, Gruss P (1990) New type of POU domain in germ line-specific protein Oct-4. Nature 344: 435-439.
8. Morrison GM, Brickman JM (2006) Conserved roles for Oct4 homologues in maintaining multipotency during early vertebrate development. Development 133: 2011-2022. (Pubitemid 43881266)
9. Niwa H, Sekita Y, Tsend-Ayush E, Grutzner F (2008) Platypus Pou5f1 reveals the first steps in the evolution of trophectoderm differentiation and pluripotency in mammals. Evol Dev 10: 671-682.
10. Frankenberg S, Pask A, Renfree MB (2010) The evolution of class V POU domain transcription factors in vertebrates and their characterisation in a marsupial. Dev Biol 337: 162-170.
11. Onichtchouk D, Geier F, Polok B, Messerschmidt DM, Mossner R, et al. (2010) Zebrafish Pou5f1-dependent transcriptional networks in temporal control of early development. Mol Syst Biol 6: 354.
12. Onichtchouk D (2012) Pou5f1/oct4 in pluripotency control: insights from zebrafish. Genesis 50: 75-85.
13. Frankenberg S, Renfree MB (2013) On the origin of POU5F1. BMC Biol 11: 56.
14. Lavial F, Acloque H, Bertocchini F, Macleod DJ, Boast S, et al. (2007) The Oct4 homologue PouV and Nanog regulate pluripotency in chicken embryonic stem cells. Development 134: 3549-3563. (Pubitemid 350028373)
15. Dixon JE, Allegrucci C, Redwood C, Kump K, Bian Y, et al. (2010) Axolotl Nanog activity in mouse embryonic stem cells demonstrates that ground state pluripotency is conserved from urodele amphibians to mammals. Development 137: 2973-2980.
16. Scerbo P, Girardot F, Vivien C, Markov GV, Luxardi G, et al. (2012) Ventx factors function as Nanog-like guardians of developmental potential in Xenopus. PLoS One 7: e36855.
17. Camp E, Sanchez-Sanchez AV, Garcia-Espana A, Desalle R, Odqvist L, et al. (2009) Nanog regulates proliferation during early fish development. Stem Cells 27: 2081-2091.
18. Schuff M, Siegel D, Philipp M, Bundschu K, Heymann N, et al. (2012) Characterization of Danio rerio Nanog and functional comparison to Xenopus Vents. Stem Cells Dev 21: 1225-1238.
19. Theunissen TW, Costa Y, Radzisheuskaya A, van Oosten AL, Lavial F, et al. (2011) Reprogramming capacity of Nanog is functionally conserved in vertebrates and resides in a unique homeodomain. Development 138: 4853-4865.
20. Booth HA, Holland PW (2004) Eleven daughters of NANOG. Genomics 84: 229-238. (Pubitemid 38834162)
21. Fairbanks DJ, Maughan PJ (2006) Evolution of the NANOG pseudogene family in the human and chimpanzee genomes. BMC Evol Biol 6: 12.
22. Robertson M, Stenhouse F, Colby D, Marland JR, Nichols J, et al. (2006) Nanog retrotransposed genes with functionally conserved open reading frames. Mamm Genome 17: 732-743. (Pubitemid 44079944)
23. Zhang J, Wang X, Li M, Han J, Chen B, et al. (2006) NANOGP8 is a retrogene expressed in cancers. FEBS J 273: 1723-1730. (Pubitemid 43779825)
24. Xu C, Fan ZP, Muller P, Fogley R, DiBiase A, et al. (2012) Nanog-like regulates endoderm formation through the Mxtx2-Nodal pathway. Dev Cell 22: 625-638.
25. Sanchez-Sanchez AV, Camp E, Leal-Tassias A, Atkinson SP, Armstrong L, et al. (2010) Nanog regulates primordial germ cell migration through Cxcr4b. Stem Cells 28: 1457-1464.
26. Burge C, Karlin S (1997) Prediction of complete gene structures in human genomic DNA. J Mol Biol 268: 78-94. (Pubitemid 27192680)
27. Salamov AA, Solovyev VV (2000) Ab initio gene finding in Drosophila genomic DNA. Genome Res 10: 516-522. (Pubitemid 30259081)
28. Reese MG, Eeckman FH, Kulp D, Haussler D (1997) Improved splice site detection in Genie. J Comput Biol 4: 311-323. (Pubitemid 27355870)
29. Edgar RC (2004) MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinformatics 5: 113.
30. Gouy M, Guindon S, Gascuel O (2010) SeaView version 4: A multiplatform graphical user interface for sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree building. Mol Biol Evol 27: 221-224.
31. Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, et al. (2012) MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst Biol 61: 539-542.
32. Louis A, Muffato M, Roest Crollius H (2013) Genomicus: five genome browsers for comparative genomics in eukaryota. Nucleic Acids Res 41: D700-705.
33. Ruan J, Li H, Chen Z, Coghlan A, Coin LJ, et al. (2008) TreeFam: 2008 Update. Nucleic Acids Res 36: D735-740. (Pubitemid 351149816)
34. Vilella AJ, Severin J, Ureta-Vidal A, Heng L, Durbin R, et al. (2009) EnsemblCompara GeneTrees: Complete, duplication-aware phylogenetic trees in vertebrates. Genome Res 19: 327-335.
35. Yang Z (2007) PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol Biol Evol 24: 1586-1591.
36. Anisimova M, Yang Z (2007) Multiple hypothesis testing to detect lineages under positive selection that affects only a few sites. Mol Biol Evol 24: 1219-1228. (Pubitemid 47343648)
37. Chiari Y, Cahais V, Galtier N, Delsuc F (2012) Phylogenomic analyses support the position of turtles as the sister group of birds and crocodiles (Archosauria). BMC Biol 10: 65.
38. Felsenstein J (1978) Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Systematic Zoology 27: 401-410.
39. Force A, Lynch M, Pickett FB, Amores A, Yan YL, et al. (1999) Preservation of duplicate genes by complementary, degenerative mutations. Genetics 151: 1531-1545. (Pubitemid 29177561)
40. Frankenberg S, Shaw G, Freyer C, Pask AJ, Renfree MB (2013) Early cell lineage specification in a marsupial: a case for diverse mechanisms among mammals. Development 140: 965-975.
41. Vinogradov AE (1998) Genome size and GC-percent in vertebrates as determined by flow cytometry: the triangular relationship. Cytometry 31: 100-109.
42. Gogarten JP, Olendzenski L (1999) Orthologs, paralogs and genome comparisons. Curr Opin Genet Dev 9: 630-636.
43. Teshima KM, Innan H (2004) The effect of gene conversion on the divergence between duplicated genes. Genetics 166: 1553-1560. (Pubitemid 38507068)
44. Saunders A, Faiola F, Wang J (2013) Pursuing Self-Renewal and Pluripotency with the Stem Cell Factor Nanog. Stem Cells.
45. Zhou Y, Li S, Huang Q, Xie L, Zhu X (2013) Nanog suppresses cell migration by downregulating thymosin beta4 and Rnd3. J Mol Cell Biol.
46. Borrull A, Ghislin S, Deshayes F, Lauriol J, Alcaide-Loridan C, et al. (2012) Nanog and Oct4 overexpression increases motility and transmigration of melanoma cells. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 138: 1145-1154.
47. Johnson AD, Crother B, White ME, Patient R, Bachvarova RF, et al. (2003) Regulative germ cell specification in axolotl embryos: a primitive trait conserved in the mammalian lineage. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 358: 1371-1379. (Pubitemid 37053986)
48. Johnson AD, Richardson E, Bachvarova RF, Crother BI (2011) Evolution of the germ line-soma relationship in vertebrate embryos. Reproduction 141: 291-300.
49. Yang Y, Liu W, Liu ZL, Hu XX, Li N (2004) Mapping NANOG to chromosome 5 in swine. Anim Genet 35: 411.