- Research article
- Open Access
Origin and evolution of the enhancer of split complex
© Dearden. 2015
Received: 18 June 2015
Accepted: 12 September 2015
Published: 18 September 2015
The Enhancer of split complex is an unusual gene complex found in Arthropod genomes. Where known this complex of genes is often regulated by Notch cell signalling and is critically important for neurogenesis. The Enhancer of split complex is made up of two different classes of genes, basic helix-loop-helix-orange domain transcription factors and bearded class genes. The association of these genes has been detected in the genomes of insects and crustaceans.
Tracing the evolution of the Enhancer of split complex in recently sequenced Arthropod genomes indicates that enhancer of split basic helix-loop-helix orange domain genes arose before the common ancestor of insects and Crustacea, and before the formation of the complex. Throughout insect and crustacean evolution, a four-gene cluster has been present with lineage specific gene losses and duplications. The complex can be found in the vast majority of genomes, but appears to be missing from the genomes of chalcid wasps, raising questions as to how they carry out neurogenesis in the absence of these crucial genes.
The enhancer of split complex arose in the common ancestor of Crustacea and insects, probably through the linkage of a basic helix-loop-helix orange domain gene and a bearded class gene. The complex has been maintained, with variations, throughout insect and crustacean evolution indicating some function of the complex, such as coordinate regulation, may maintain its structure through evolutionary time.
Evolutionary conserved complexes of genes are rare in insect genomes  while relatively common in vertebrates [2–4]. The best characterised is the Hox complex, found in the genomes of widely diverse animals, in which interlinked and coordinate gene expression appear to stabilise the genomic structure of the complex over evolutionary time . Complexes of genes that remain intact over wide evolutionary distances in insect genomes presumably have similar features to the Hox complex, such as coordinate regulation, that maintain their genomic structure, while the genome is rearranged around them.
The Enhancer of Split Complex (E(spl)-C) is an unusual and conserved complex of genes first identified in Drosophila melanogaster. This complex differs from most in that the genes it contains encode two completely different sorts of proteins: bHLH-Orange domain transcription factors [6, 7] (bHLHO), and Bearded class proteins [8, 9] (Brd). The association between these two types of genes has been found in the genomes of both insects and crustaceans , implying that this complex first formed through the association of these genes rather than the more usual gene duplication.
A limited survey of insect and crustacean genomes has shown that the E(spl) complex is ancestrally made up of three bHLHO encoding genes (bHLH1, bHLH2 and her) and a single Brd-class gene . The structure of the complex is modified in some insects, Drosophila being an example, where two bHLH-orange domain genes are absent from the complex and there are seven copies of the remaining one, the Brd-class gene, mα, has been duplicated and there are a range of unrelated genes inserted in the complex [6, 9–16].
The E(spl)-C was first identified as a modifier of the Notch mutant Split . Subsequent studies have shown that the bHLH proteins encoded by E(spl)-C act as effectors of Notch cell signalling [13, 18]. During neurogenesis in Drosophila, presumptive neuroblasts signal to surrounding cells in proneural clusters through the Notch cell-signalling pathway (Reviewed in [19–21]). This pathway leads to expression of E(spl)-C bHLH genes , which act to repress the expression , and function , of proneural genes, a set of transcription factors that promote neural cell fate [24, 25]. Presumptive neuroblasts thus signal surrounding cells to block their differentiation as neuroblasts through the activation of Notch cell signalling, and the expression of the E(spl) bHLHO domain proteins [26–29]. E(spl) bHLHO domain proteins encode a c-terminal WRPW motif which recruits the transcriptional repressor Groucho, which in turn acts to attenuate gene expression by promoting RNA polymerase pausing, and causes local histone deacetylation . E(spl) bHLHO domain proteins thus target transcriptional repression to proneural genes, and proneural gene targets.
Brd class proteins from the E(spl)-C, in contrast, antagonise Notch signalling by interacting with Neuralised , an E3 ubiquitin ligase, stimulating the degradation of a Notch ligand, Delta . In Drosophila, brd-class proteins particularly act to pattern adult sensory precursor formation [8, 9]. Bearded class genes encode small proteins with amphipathic alpha helices, and little sequence conservation .
The genes contained within the E(spl)-C are regulated in a range of ways. While individual enhancer elements for some of the genes have been identified [33, 34], the entire complex appears also to be activated by Su(H) [9, 35–40], a transcription factor usually regulated by Notch signalling . This Notch responsiveness is also found in a crustacean, Daphnia . Individual transcripts are repressed, in Drosophila, by miRNAs binding to 3′UTR located sites (named GY, Brd and K- boxes) [15, 43, 44]. There is also evidence for coordinate regulation of the E(Spl)-C by cohesin , a chromatin structure regulating protein that coats the E(spl)-C in cells and represses expression, and repression by Polycomb group proteins . The genomics DNA containing the E(spl)-C also is structured in three dimensions in cells such that the chromatin of the complex interacts with itself forming an isolated domain, but does not interact with flanking regions . This self-interactive structure implies the complex is regulated in a coordinated manner .
E(Spl)-C bHLH proteins are closely related to other clades of insect bHLH-orange domain proteins, including clockwork orange (cwo), Similar to Deadpan, (Side), H airy and E (spl) related with a Y RPW domain (Hey), hairy (h), deadpan (dpn). These genes have multiple roles in insects. Hairy is a regulator of segmentation [47, 48], acting as a pair-rule gene in many arthropods [49–51]. Deadpan  has multiple roles in Drosophila development, such as dosage compensation  and regulating neuroblast proliferation through responding to Notch signalling . Hey has been shown to regulate neuron fate determination . Cwo (clockwork orange) has a role in regulating the circadian clock [56–59]. Side has no identified function in Drosophila. In non-arthropod animals, closely related genes, the HES genes (hairy-enhancer of split genes) act, in most situations, as effectors of Notch signalling [60, 61] though some these genes do have non-Notch related roles [62, 63]. Given this close phylogenetic relationship, and the role in Notch signalling conserved between arthropods and vertebrates, it seems likely that Notch responsiveness, and a role as an effector of Notch signalling, may be an ancestral function for this group of transcription factors. Indeed expression of E(spl)-mδ produces a neurogenic effect when mis-expressed in Xenopus embryos .
The unusual nature of the E(spl)-C, containing two types of genes, and its potential coordinate regulation, make understanding the dynamics of its evolution important. Here I examine the structure and relationships of the E(spl)-C from arthropod and onychophoran genomes, particularly those provided by the i5K consortium [65, 66]. The i5K consortium provides high quality Arthropod genome sequences that allow both the identification of genes, and examination of genome structure. This dataset allows us to trace both the origins and subsequent evolution of the E(spl)-C in arthropods.
Results and discussion
Phylogeny of all isolated E(spl) bHLH genes recovers three major clades
Branch-lengths within the E(spl) bHLH clades are short, indicating strong conservation of sequence, but these branch lengths increase between bHLH1 proteins from Diptera, implying more sequence divergence in that group. The assignment of E(spl) bHLH genes from crustacean and insect genomes to these three clades of allows us to interpret the genomic structure of the E(spl)-C in crustacean and insect genomes.
Genomic analysis of E(spl) genes indicates clusters and conserved structure
In Eurytemora, a copepod crustacean, the E(spl)-C is modified with duplications of all three E(spl) bHLH genes (two bHLH-1, three her and 5 bHLH2). Alongside this, no mα gene can be identified.
In insects, a four-gene complex can also be identified in deeply branching clades (Fig. 2). In a mayfly (Ephemera) and a termite (Zootermopsis), a four-gene complex, identical to Daphnia, is present.
In the large hemipteroid clade of insects, examples of a four-gene complex are relatively common (Frankliniella (Western flower thrips), Acrythosiphon (Pea Aphid, though this is split between two contigs) , and Homalodisca (Glassy-winged sharpshooter)). Despite this conservation, gene-loss has occurred in some Hemipteroid lineage, with species such as Cimex (bedbug) and Oncopeltus (milkweed bug) having only two bHLH genes (her and bHLH2) and species such as Gerris (Waterstrider) and Halyomorpha (Brown marmorated stink bug) having a single E(spl) gene (bHLH2). The patterns of change in the complex imply that such losses are lineage or species specific, and that the selective pressure to maintain the full E(spl)-C is somewhat reduced in this assemblage. In species without the full complex of genes, mα is invariably missing, though its fast sequence evolution means that it could be located elsewhere in the genome.
Her is present in the E(spl)-C of Mayetiola (Hessian fly), a more deeply branching fly, and there is an unidentifiable gene (due to a gap in genome sequence), in the same position in the fragmentary genome of Lutzomyia (Blackfly). These patterns imply that at least a three gene complex (her, mα and bHLH2) was present in the common ancestor of Diptera, but that gene loss (Culicidae) and expansion of the complex (Brachycera) have extensively modified the E(spl)-C in this group.
In most of the complexes I have identified, the orientation of genes with respect to the direction of transcription of mα is conserved. bHLH-1 and her are transcribed on the opposite strand to mα, and bHLH2 on the same strand. The only variations to this pattern are in Diptera (Fig. 6) where the multiple copies of bHLH2 in Brachycera are transcribed from either strand, and in Culex (Mosquito), where mα and bHLH2 are transcribed from opposite strands.
These data imply that the origins of the E(spl)-C lie in the pan-crustacean clade. I can find no evidence for E(spl)-C bHLH genes in chelicerates (4 genomes), the most basally branching clade of arthropods, nor the onychophora, the closest non-arthropod ecdysozoan group. While this analysis is not conclusive as to the presence of these genes in onychophorans (due to the partial nature of the genome sequence), their absence in all chelicerates examined is best explained by absence of these genes in this lineage, but could plausibly be due to gene loss.
The patterns of conservation, gene loss and expansion indicate that the E(spl)-C has a history of conservation of an ancestral four-gene structure, with gene-loss in some lineages, usually not affecting bHLH2, and expansion via gene duplication in Brachyceran flies, and the copepod Eurytemora. These expansions are difficult to explain, as their patterns of expansion are different. In Eurytemora, all bHLH genes are expanded, while mα is missing. In Brachycera, bHLH1 and her are missing from the complex, with an expansion of bHLH2 and mα. Given there are many species with two, or only one class of E(Spl) gene, these expansions are not best explained as a way to replace missing members of the complex, but may be related to complexity of gene regulation, or pattern formation, required from the complex.
Insertions into the E(spl)-C
In Drosophila melanogaster (Fig. 6), 2 non bHLHO/mα genes are found in the E(spl)-C. These genes, m1(encoding a Kazal-type protease inhibitor) and m6 (encoding a protein with a Myelin proteolipid protein PLP), do not produce Notch signalling- like defects when mutant, though m6, like the other E(spl)-C genes, is regulated by Notch signalling . The insertion of m1 and m6 in the complex are conserved in other Drosophilids [10, 71] but only m1 is conserved in the Bracyceran flies Ceratitis and Lucilia. Flanking the Drosophila complex is another Notch related gene, groucho, which encodes a protein that interacts with E(spl)-bHLH genes to supress gene expression [30, 72]. This gene does not flank the E(spl)-C outside Drosophila species.
Unrelated genes are inserted into the E(spl)-C in many insect species but these insertions are most often not conserved between species. The exception to this are a set of tubulin tyrosine ligase genes inserted between bHLH1 and her in Hymenopteran genomes (Fig. 3). One or two of these genes are present in this location in all Hymenopteran examined that have an E(spl)-C. The maintenance of this insertion over 250 million years of evolutionary time, and the expression pattern of one of these genes in Honeybees  implies that these tyrosine-tubulin ligase genes may be regulated by Notch signalling.
The stability of the E(spl)-C in hymenopteran genomes extends to flanking genes. All Hymenopteran complexes are also flanked by a gene named gooseberry (Fig. 3). Gooseberry is a paired-box containing transcription factor that has been shown to have roles in patterning the nervous system and cuticle in a number of insect species [73–79] including hymenoptera [80, 81]. This gene is also found flanking the E(spl)-C in Homoladisca (Fig. 2), implying the association of gooseberry and E(spl)-C may date from the common ancestor of Endopterygota and the hemipteroid assemblage.
Chalcid Wasps have lost the E(spl) complex
Interestingly, studies of the effect of Nasonia venom on their fly hosts indicates that E(spl)-C genes are upregulated in the host in response to the venom , possibly to trigger developmental arrest. Is it possible that the evolution of resistance to their own venom has necessitated the deletion of the E(spl)-C from the genomes of wasps that use this mechanism?
Origins of the e(spl) complex
The E(spl)-like genes from Strigamia do not form a cluster in the genome, and the proteins encoded by these genes form a clade separate to the three crustacean/insect E(spl)-C bHLH clades. As most phylogenetic examinations of the placement of myriapods within the arthropods indicates that they are the sister group to crustaceans and insects, the origins of E(spl)-c bHLH proteins must lie somewhere after the separation of the lineage leading to chelicerates, but before the last common ancestor of insects/crustacea and myriapods. E(spl)-C bHLHO proteins thus pre-date the origin of the E(spl)-C, which is present only in the genomes of insects and crustacea.
These differences in the organisation of the E(spl)-C genes and complex mirror, to some extent, differences between these clades in the presence of the neural stem cells, neuroblasts, that the E(spl)-C regulates. In chelicerates and myriapods there is no evidence for cells similar to the neural stem cells that arise out of proneural clusters and repress their neighbours through Notch signalling and the E(spl)-C in Drosophila [83–87]. Neither of these groups have an E(spl)-C in our analyses, while Crustacea and insects, which do have identifiable neuroblasts, do. There is some evidence that Myriapods, which have no E(spl)-C but do have E(Spl) bHLHO proteins, may have specialised neural precursors in groups of cells specified to become neural . Understanding how neural cells are specified in these groups, and how this is related to Notch signalling, will allow us to determine if the formation of the E(spl)-C is linked to the evolution of neuroblasts.
The pattern of evolution of the E(spl)-C implies some regulatory reason for the conservation of its structure, perhaps on a par with the well-described coordinate regulation of the Hox complex . Examining the expression and function of these genes in species with variations of the complex, and in deeply branching groups such as myriapods, will provide insight into the reasons behind the conservation of this remarkable gene complex.
BHLHO domain genes and Brd-class genes were identified in arthropod genomes using Blast , with orthology assigned using a reciprocal blast best-hit approach. Coding sequences were either extracted from gene prediction sets, or, if such predictions were absent or erroneous, using FGENESH  on contigs identified as containing bHLHO sequences using tblastn . Predicted proteins were generated and aligned using CLC Genomics Workbench (http://www.clcbio.com).
Genomic analyses were carried out using CLC Genomics Workbench to visualise the placement of bHLHO genes on scaffolds and contigs. Predicted proteins encoded in these regions were analysed with blastp , in the first instance, and HMMER  (to identify Brd-class encoding genes).
All phylogenetics were carried out using MrBayes  using the WAG model of protein  which proved to be the most appropriate model after testing using mixed models. Monte-Carlo Markov chains were run for 1000000 generations with the initial 25 % of trees discarded as burn-in. Consensus trees were visualised with Dendroscope  or CLC Genomics Workbench.
Availability of data and materials
All sequences and accession numbers (either derived from Genbank or the Baylor i5K pilot project (https://www.hgsc.bcm.edu/i5k-pilot-project-summary)) are available in Additional file 2.
This manuscript describes analysis of publically available genome sequences and annotation (used with permission) and thus did not require animal ethics approval.
The author would like to acknowledge P.M. Dearden for critical reading of this manuscript. The author is grateful for the efforts of the i5K consortium and the Baylor College of Medicine Human Genome Sequencing Center who provided genome sequences and annotation. Hemipteran taxon images in Fig. 9 are from Joseph Hughes, used under a creative commons license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Zdobnov EM, Bork P. Quantification of insect genome divergence. Trends Genet. 2007;23(1):16–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Barbazuk WB, Korf I, Kadavi C, Heyen J, Tate S, Wun E, et al. The syntenic relationship of the zebrafish and human genomes. Genome Res. 2000;10(9):1351–8.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kohn M, Hogel J, Vogel W, Minich P, Kehrer-Sawatzki H, Graves JA, et al. Reconstruction of a 450-My-old ancestral vertebrate protokaryotype. Trends Genet. 2006;22(4):203–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kikuta H, Laplante M, Navratilova P, Komisarczuk AZ, Engstrom PG, Fredman D, et al. Genomic regulatory blocks encompass multiple neighboring genes and maintain conserved synteny in vertebrates. Genome Res. 2007;17(5):545–55.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hughes CL, Kaufman TC. Hox genes and the evolution of the arthropod body plan. Evol Dev. 2002;4(6):459–99.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Knust E, Schrons H, Grawe F, Campos-Ortega JA. Seven genes of the Enhancer of split complex of Drosophila melanogaster encode helix-loop-helix proteins. Genetics. 1992;132(2):505–18.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Delidakis C, Monastirioti M, Magadi SS. E(spl): genetic, developmental, and evolutionary aspects of a group of invertebrate Hes proteins with close ties to Notch signaling. Curr Top Dev Biol. 2014;110:217–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Apidianakis Y, Nagel AC, Chalkiadaki A, Preiss A, Delidakis C. Overexpression of the m4 and malpha genes of the E(spl)-complex antagonizes notch mediated lateral inhibition. Mech Dev. 1999;86(1–2):39–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lai EC, Bodner R, Posakony JW. The enhancer of split complex of Drosophila includes four Notch-regulated members of the bearded gene family. Development. 2000;127(16):3441–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Duncan EJ, Dearden PK. Evolution of a genomic regulatory domain: the role of gene co-option and gene duplication in the Enhancer of split complex. Genome Res. 2010;20(7):917–28.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schrons H, Knust E, Campos-Ortega JA. Toward a functional dissection of the Enhancer-of-split gene complex. J Neurogenet. 1991;7:145.Google Scholar
- Delidakis C, Artavanis-Tsakonas S. The Enhancer of split [E(spl)] locus of Drosophila encodes seven independent helix-loop-helix proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992;89(18):8731–5.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schrons H, Knust E, Campos-Ortega JA. The Enhancer of split complex and adjacent genes in the 96 F region of Drosophila melanogaster are required for segregation of neural and epidermal progenitor cells. Genetics. 1992;132(2):481–503.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Oellers N, Tietze K, Knust E. The genes of the Enhancer-of-split complex of Drosophila melanogaster encodes regulatory helix-loop-helix proteins. J Neurogenet. 1993;8:242.Google Scholar
- Lai EC, Posakony JW. The Bearded box, a novel 3′ UTR sequence motif, mediates negative post-transcriptional regulation of Bearded and Enhancer of split Complex gene expression. Development. 1997;124(23):4847–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Leviten MW, Lai EC, Posakony JW. The Drosophila gene Bearded encodes a novel small protein and shares 3′ UTR sequence motifs with multiple Enhancer of split complex genes. Development. 1997;124(20):4039–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Welshons WJ. Dosage experiments with split mutants in the presence of an enhancer of split. Drosophila Inf Serv. 1956;30:157–8.Google Scholar
- Jennings B, Preiss A, Delidakis C, Bray S. The Notch signalling pathway is required for Enhancer of split bHLH protein expression during neurogenesis in the Drosophila embryo. Development. 1994;120(12):3537–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Knust E. Cell fate choice during early neurogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster. Perspect Dev Neurobiol. 1994;2(2):141–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bray SJ. Expression and function of Enhancer of split bHLH proteins during Drosophila neurogenesis. Perspect Dev Neurobiol. 1997;4(4):313–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hartenstein V, Wodarz A. Initial neurogenesis in Drosophila. Wiley Interdiscipl Rev Dev Biol. 2013;2(5):701–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nakao K, Campos-Ortega JA. Persistent expression of genes of the enhancer of split complex suppresses neural development in Drosophila. Neuron. 1996;16(2):275–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Oellers N, Dehio M, Knust E. bHLH proteins encoded by the Enhancer of split complex of Drosophila negatively interfere with transcriptional activation mediated by proneural genes. Mol Gen Genet. 1994;244(5):465–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ruiz-Gomez M, Ghysen A. The expression and role of a proneural gene, achaete, in the development of the larval nervous system of Drosophila. EMBO J. 1993;12(3):1121–30.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tepass U, Hartenstein V. Neurogenic and proneural genes control cell fate specification in the Drosophila endoderm. Development. 1995;121(2):393–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lecourtois M, Schweisguth F. The neurogenic suppressor of hairless DNA-binding protein mediates the transcriptional activation of the enhancer of split complex genes triggered by Notch signaling. Genes Dev. 1995;9(21):2598–608.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gigliani F, Longo F, Gaddini L, Battaglia PA. Interactions among the bHLH domains of the proteins encoded by the Enhancer of split and achaete-scute gene complexes of Drosophila. Mol Gen Genet. 1996;251(6):628–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Heitzler P, Bourouis M, Ruel L, Carteret C, Simpson P. Genes of the Enhancer of split and achaete-scute complexes are required for a regulatory loop between Notch and Delta during lateral signalling in Drosophila. Development. 1996;122(1):161–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jennings BH, Tyler DM, Bray SJ. Target specificities of Drosophila enhancer of split basic helix-loop-helix proteins. Mol Cell Biol. 1999;19(7):4600–10.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kaul A, Schuster E, Jennings BH. The Groucho co-repressor is primarily recruited to local target sites in active chromatin to attenuate transcription. PLoS Genet. 2014;10(8):e1004595.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lai EC, Bodner R, Kavaler J, Freschi G, Posakony JW. Antagonism of notch signaling activity by members of a novel protein family encoded by the bearded and enhancer of split gene complexes. Development. 2000;127(2):291–306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pavlopoulos E, Pitsouli C, Klueg KM, Muskavitch MA, Moschonas NK, Delidakis C. neuralized Encodes a peripheral membrane protein involved in delta signaling and endocytosis. Dev Cell. 2001;1(6):807–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Preiss A, de Celis J, Jennings B, Wech I, Wurmbach E, Delidakis C, et al. Distinct expression of individual Enhancer of split genes. J Neurogenet. 1997;11:187–8.Google Scholar
- Wech I, Bray S, Delidakis C, Preiss A. Distinct expression patterns of different enhancer of split bHLH genes during embryogenesis of Drosophila melanogaster. Dev Genes Evol. 1999;209(6):370–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Eastman DS, Slee R, Skoufos E, Bangalore L, Bray S, Delidakis C. Synergy between suppressor of Hairless and Notch in regulation of Enhancer of split m gamma and m delta expression. Mol Cell Biol. 1997;17(9):5620–8.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cave JW, Xia L, Caudy M. Differential regulation of transcription through distinct Suppressor of Hairless DNA binding site architectures during Notch signaling in proneural clusters. Mol Cell Biol. 2011;31(1):22–9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nellesen DT, Lai EC, Posakony JW. Discrete enhancer elements mediate selective responsiveness of enhancer of split complex genes to common transcriptional activators. Dev Biol. 1999;213(1):33–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Maeder ML, Polansky BJ, Robson BE, Eastman DA. Phylogenetic footprinting analysis in the upstream regulatory regions of the Drosophila enhancer of split genes. Genetics. 2007;177(3):1377–94.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bailey AM, Posakony JW. Suppressor of hairless directly activates transcription of enhancer of split complex genes in response to Notch receptor activity. Genes Dev. 1995;9(21):2609–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Furukawa T, Kobayakawa Y, Tamura K, Kimura K, Kawaichi M, Tanimura T, et al. Suppressor of hairless, the Drosophila homologue of RBP-J kappa, transactivates the neurogenic gene E(spl)m8. Idengaku Zasshi. 1995;70(4):505–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fortini ME, Artavanis-Tsakonas S. The suppressor of Hairless protein participates in Notch receptor signaling. Cell. 1994;79(2):273–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ungerer P, Eriksson BJ, Stollewerk A. Unravelling the evolution of neural stem cells in arthropods: notch signalling in neural stem cell development in the crustacean Daphnia magna. Dev Biol. 2012;371(2):302–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lai EC, Burks C, Posakony JW. The K box, a conserved 3′ UTR sequence motif, negatively regulates accumulation of enhancer of split complex transcripts. Development. 1998;125(20):4077–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lai EC, Tam B, Rubin GM. Pervasive regulation of Drosophila Notch target genes by GY-box-, Brd-box-, and K-box-class microRNAs. Genes Dev. 2005;19(9):1067–80.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schaaf CA, Misulovin Z, Sahota G, Siddiqui AM, Schwartz YB, Kahn TG, et al. Regulation of the Drosophila Enhancer of split and invected-engrailed gene complexes by sister chromatid cohesion proteins. PLoS One. 2009;4(7):e6202.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schaaf CA, Misulovin Z, Gause M, Koenig A, Dorsett D. The Drosophila enhancer of split gene complex: architecture and coordinate regulation by notch, cohesin, and polycomb group proteins. G3. 2013;3(10):1785–94.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ingham PW, Pinchin SM, Howard KR, Ish-Horowicz D. Genetic analysis of the hairy locus of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1985;111:463–86.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rushlow CA, Hogan A, Pinchin SM, Howe KM, Lardelli M, Ish-Horowicz D. The Drosophila hairy protein acts in both segmentation and bristle patterning and shows homology to N-myc. EMBO J. 1989;8(10):3095–104.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sommer RJ, Tautz D. Involvement of an orthologue of the Drosophila pair-rule gene hairy in segment formation of the short germ-band embryo of Tribolium (Coleoptera). Nature. 1993;361(6411):448–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Damen WG, Weller M, Tautz D. Expression patterns of hairy, even-skipped, and runt in the spider Cupiennius salei imply that these genes were segmentation genes in a basal arthropod. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97(9):4515–9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wilson MJ, Dearden PK. Pair-rule gene orthologues have unexpected maternal roles in the honeybee (Apis mellifera). PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e46490.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bier E, Vaessin H, Younger-Shepherd S, Jan LY, Jan YN. deadpan, an essential pan-neural gene in Drosophila, encodes a helix-loop-helix protein similar to the hairy gene product. Genes Dev. 1992;6:2137–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Younger-Shepherd S, Vassin H, Bier E, Jan LY, Jan YN. deadpan, an essential pan-neural gene encoding an HLH protein, acts as a denominator in Drosophila sex determination. Cell. 1992;70:911–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- San-Juán BP, Baonza A. The bHLH factor deadpan is a direct target of Notch signaling and regulates neuroblast self-renewal in Drosophila. Dev Biol. 2011;352(1):70–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Monastirioti M, Giagtzoglou N, Koumbanakis KA, Zacharioudaki E, Deligiannaki M, Wech I, et al. Drosophila Hey is a target of Notch in asymmetric divisions during embryonic and larval neurogenesis. Development. 2010;137(2):191–201.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kadener S, Stoleru D, McDonald M, Nawathean P, Rosbash M. Clockwork Orange is a transcriptional repressor and a new Drosophila circadian pacemaker component. Genes Dev. 2007;21(13):1675–86.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lim C, Chung BY, Pitman JL, McGill JJ, Pradhan S, Lee J, et al. Clockwork orange encodes a transcriptional repressor important for circadian-clock amplitude in Drosophila. Curr Biol. 2007;17(12):1082–9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Matsumoto A, Ukai-Tadenuma M, Yamada RG, Houl J, Uno KD, Kasukawa T, et al. A functional genomics strategy reveals clockwork orange as a transcriptional regulator in the Drosophila circadian clock. Genes Dev. 2007;21(13):1687–700.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Richier B, Michard-Vanhee C, Lamouroux A, Papin C, Rouyer F. The clockwork orange Drosophila protein functions as both an activator and a repressor of clock gene expression. J Biol Rhythm. 2008;23(2):103–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kobayashi T, Kageyama R. Expression dynamics and functions of Hes factors in development and diseases. Curr Top Dev Biol. 2014;110:263–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gazave E, Guillou A, Balavoine G. History of a prolific family: the Hes/Hey-related genes of the annelid Platynereis. EvoDevo. 2014;5:29.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- San Juan BP, Andrade-Zapata I, Baonza A. The bHLH factors Dpn and members of the E(spl) complex mediate the function of Notch signalling regulating cell proliferation during wing disc development. Biol Open. 2012;1(7):667–76.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Geling A, Plessy C, Rastegar S, Strahle U, Bally-Cuif L. Her5 acts as a prepattern factor that blocks neurogenin1 and coe2 expression upstream of Notch to inhibit neurogenesis at the midbrain-hindbrain boundary. Development. 2004;131(9):1993–2006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tannahill D, Bray S, Harris WA. A Drosophila E(spl) gene is “neurogenic” in Xenopus: a green fluorescent protein study. Dev Biol. 1995;168(2):694–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- i KC. The i5K Initiative: advancing arthropod genomics for knowledge, human health, agriculture, and the environment. J Hered. 2013;104(5):595–600.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Poelchau M, Childers C, Moore G, Tsavatapalli V, Evans J, Lee CY, et al. The i5k Workspace@NAL-enabling genomic data access, visualization and curation of arthropod genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(Database issue):D714–719.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2003;19(12):1572–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chipman AD, Ferrier DE, Brena C, Qu J, Hughes DS, Schroder R, et al. The first myriapod genome sequence reveals conservative arthropod gene content and genome organisation in the centipede Strigamia maritima. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(11):e1002005.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Altschul S, Gish W, Miller W, Myers E, Lipman D. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215(3):403–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wurmbach E, Wech I, Preiss A. The Enhancer of split complex of Drosophila melanogaster harbors three classes of Notch responsive genes. Mech Dev. 1999;80(2):171–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schlatter R, Maier D. The Enhancer of split and Achaete-Scute complexes of Drosophilids derived from simple ur-complexes preserved in mosquito and honeybee. BMC Evol Biol. 2005;5:67.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chen G, Courey AJ. Groucho/TLE family proteins and transcriptional repression. Gene. 2000;249(1–2):1–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gutjahr T, Patel NH, Li X, Goodman CS, Noll M. Analysis of the gooseberry locus in Drosophila embryos: gooseberry determines the cuticular pattern and activates gooseberry neuro. Development. 1993;118(1):21–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bhat KM. The patched signaling pathway mediates repression of gooseberry allowing neuroblast specification by wingless during Drosophila neurogenesis. Development. 1996;122(9):2921–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Duman-Scheel M, Li X, Orlov I, Noll M, Patel NH. Genetic separation of the neural and cuticular patterning functions of gooseberry. Development. 1997;124(15):2855–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Xue L, Li X, Noll M. Multiple protein functions of paired in Drosophila development and their conservation in the Gooseberry and Pax3 homologs. Development. 2001;128(3):395–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Liu W, Xue L. Functional conservation of the Drosophila gooseberry gene and its evolutionary alleles. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e30980.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Savard J, Marques-Souza H, Aranda M, Tautz D. A segmentation gene in tribolium produces a polycistronic mRNA that codes for multiple conserved peptides. Cell. 2006;126(3):559–69.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Davis GK, Jaramillo CA, Patel NH. Pax group III genes and the evolution of insect pair-rule patterning. Development. 2001;128(18):3445–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Osborne PW, Dearden PK. Expression of Pax group III genes in the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Dev Genes Evol. 2005;215(10):499–508.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Keller RG, Desplan C, Rosenberg MI. Identification and characterization of Nasonia Pax genes. Insect Mol Biol. 2010;19 Suppl 1:109–20.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Martinson EO, Wheeler D, Wright J, Mrinalini, Siebert AL, Werren JH. Nasonia vitripennis venom causes targeted gene expression changes in its fly host. Mol Ecol. 2014;23(23):5918–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dove H, Stollewerk A. Comparative analysis of neurogenesis in the myriapod Glomeris marginata (Diplopoda) suggests more similarities to chelicerates than to insects. Development. 2003;130(10):2161–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Brenneis G, Stollewerk A, Scholtz G. Embryonic neurogenesis in Pseudopallene sp. (Arthropoda, Pycnogonida) includes two subsequent phases with similarities to different arthropod groups. Evo Devo. 2013;4(1):32.Google Scholar
- Stollewerk A, Chipman AD. Neurogenesis in myriapods and chelicerates and its importance for understanding arthropod relationships. Integr Comp Biol. 2006;46(2):195–206.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kadner D, Stollewerk A. Neurogenesis in the chilopod Lithobius forficatus suggests more similarities to chelicerates than to insects. Dev Genes Evol. 2004;214(8):367–79.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stollewerk A, Weller M, Tautz D. Neurogenesis in the spider Cupiennius salei. Development. 2001;128(14):2673–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Duncan EJ, Wilson MJ, Smith JM, Dearden PK. Evolutionary origin and genomic organisation of runt-domain containing genes in arthropods. BMC Genomics. 2008;9:558.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Solovyev V, Kosarev P, Seledsov I, Vorobyev D. Automatic annotation of eukaryotic genes, pseudogenes and promoters. Genome Biol. 2006;7 Suppl 1:S10 11–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Finn RD, Clements J, Eddy SR. HMMER web server: interactive sequence similarity searching. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(Web Server issue):W29–37.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Whelan S, Goldman N. A general empirical model of protein evolution derived from multiple protein families using a maximum-likelihood approach. Mol Biol Evol. 2001;18(5):691–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Huson DH, Richter DC, Rausch C, Dezulian T, Franz M, Rupp R. Dendroscope: an interactive viewer for large phylogenetic trees. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007;8:460.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar