Molecular Evolutionary Analysis of the HCRTR Gene Family in Vertebrates

Cai, Zhen; Liu, Hehe; Wang, Liyun; Li, Xinxin; Bai, Lili; Gan, Xinmeng; Li, Liang; Han, Chunchun

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8120263

BioMed Research International

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Conclusions Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2018 | Article ID 8120263 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8120263

Molecular Evolutionary Analysis of the HCRTR Gene Family in Vertebrates

Zhen Cai,^1,2Hehe Liu ,¹Liyun Wang,¹Xinxin Li,¹Lili Bai,¹Xinmeng Gan,¹Liang Li,¹and Chunchun Han¹

Academic Editor: Salvatore Gallone

Received11 Sept 2017

Revised17 Mar 2018

Accepted17 Apr 2018

Published04 Jun 2018

Abstract

Hypocretin system is composed of hypocretins (hcrts) and their receptors (hcrtrs), which has multiple vital functions. Hypocretins work via hypocretin receptors and it is reported that functional differentiation occurred in hcrtrs. It is necessary to figure out the evolution process of hypocretin receptors. In our study, we adopt a comprehensive approach and various bioinformatics tools to analyse the evolution process of HCRTR gene family. It turns out that the second round of whole genome duplication in early vertebrate ancestry and the independent round in fish ancestry may contribute to the diversity of HCRTR gene family. HCRTR1 of fishes and mammals are not the same receptor, which means that there are three members in the family. HCRTR2 is proved to be the most ancient one in HCRTR gene family. After duplication events, the structure of HCRTR1 diverged from HCRTR2 owing to relaxed selective pressure. Negative selection is the predominant evolutionary force acting on the HCRTR gene family but HCRTR1 of mammals is found to be subjected to positive selection. Our study gains insight into the molecular evolution process of HCRTR gene family, which contributes to the further study of the system.

1. Introduction

Hypocretin system is composed of hypocretins (hcrts) and their receptors (hcrtrs). In vertebrates, there are two hypocretins, hcrta and hcrtb. Both of them are derived by proteolytic processing from a common precursor preproorexin coded by HCRT [1]. Hypocretins work via hypocretin receptors. Up to now, there are two types of receptors found in vertebrates, named hcrtr1 and hcrtr2. hcrtr2 has similar affinity for both hypocretins, whereas hcrtr1 favors hcrta [2]. Since discovered in 1998 [3, 4], hypocretin system has been reported to participate in various physiological processes including dietary and metabolic regulation [5], sleep-wake circuit [6, 7], drug addiction and reward process [8], and even cancerous cells apoptosis [9–13]. Studies on knockout or neuron-depleted animal models indicate hypocretin system is important in maintaining normal vital signs such as basal blood pressure [14], respiratory rate [15], and energy expenditure [16–18].

Given the diverse functions of hypocretin system, antagonists targeted at hcrtr1 or hcrtr2 are considered as potential drugs for treatment of many diseases. Take insomnia, for example. Existing drugs such as benzodiazepines and melatonin receptor antagonists play a role in the treatment of insomnia, but most of them will lead to the change of sleep architecture, with many side effects. It has been found that hypocretin plays a crucial role in the sleep regulation and can be used as a novel therapeutic target for insomnia. Hypocretin receptor antagonists can selectively block hypocretin receptors with no side effects like benzodiazepines, and they have stronger pharmacological activity than existing hypnotics. This not only provides a new approach for the treatment of insomnia, but also provides an alternative treatment strategy for other hcrtr-mediated pathologies such as drug addiction, obesity, and depression. At present, the development of orexin receptor antagonists has made great progress. Suvorexant [19] has already been launched to the market. Lemborexant [20], Filorexant [21], and SB-649868 [22] are in phase II or phase III trials, and MK-1064 [23] and MK-3697 [24] have become clinical candidate drugs. There is huge potential and great prospect for the drug researches.

Moreover, functional differentiation occurred in hcrtrs. Dogs and mice lacking functional HCRTR2 are observed to show narcolepsy [25, 26], yet HCRTR1 knockout mice hardly act abnormally in the sleep-wake circuit [17]. Hcrtrs are synthesized solely within a restricted region of the dorsal hypothalamus, including the lateral hypothalamus proper, adjacent perifornical area, and dorsomedial hypothalamus. Despite that, hypocretin neurons project widely throughout the brain targeting two receptors with partially overlapping distributions [27]. Hcrtr2 in histaminergic neurons of tuberomammillary is a key mediator for stimulating arousal, and hcrtr2 in PVN and autonomic nuclei of medulla plays a role in stress responses. Hcrtr1 mainly exists in LC and areas in control of food intake and motivated behaviors [28].

With more and more genomes sequenced, an increasing number of HCRTR sequences spring up. HCRTR1 forms after mammals appear. There was a long time that two hypocretins corresponded to one receptor. It is interesting to figure out the evolution process of the hypocretin receptors. However, the evolution process of hypocretin system has rarely been discussed. Once, scientists thought that hypocretin and secretin were evolutionarily relevant because they shared similar sequence [3, 29]. However, the study between hypocretin/secretin and their receptors rejected the point [30]. Because HCRTR2 is widespread in vertebrates and HCRTR1 is specific to mammals, it is generally believed that HCRTR2 is more ancient and that HCRTR1 forms in mammals from HCRTR2 [31]. However, the HCRTR1 found in fishes indicates that HCRTR gene family is more complicated than anticipated. A thorough evolution analysis is yet to be conducted.

In our study, we adopted a comprehensive approach and various bioinformatics tools to analyse the evolution process of HCRTR gene family, which gains insight into hypocretin system. Tons of researches demonstrate that hypocretin system is closely related to a large amount of diseases, such as obesity [32, 33], panic anxiety [34], age-related anorexia [35], multiple system atrophy [36], neurological disorders [37], Parkinson’s disease [38], Alzheimer disease [39], and obstructive apnea-hypopnea syndrome [40]. Different receptors may be linked to different diseases. There are crystal clear benefits to figure out the evolution process of HCRTR gene family.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Mining Databases and Collecting Sequences

The coding sequences and amino acid sequences of HCRTR gene family were downloaded from the public databases, NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) and Ensembl (http://asia.ensembl.org/index.html), which involved a total of 166 species (Additional File 1). 38 representative species were chosen (Additional File 1) and Blastn (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi) was used to retrieve HCRTR-likes in respective genome with its own HCRTR1 sequence as reference. Most uncertain sequences were deleted after alignment.

2.2. Prediction of Protein Structure Domains (PSDs)

The amino acid sequences were submitted to SMART (http://smart.embl-heidelberg.de/) to predict protein structure domains. After PSDs were predicted, we obtained the corresponding nucleotide and amino acid sequences from the data set we collected above. Because the difference mainly consisted in one structure domain (Orexin_rec2), we then compared Orexin_rec2 domains of 11 representative species including human, mouse, cow, platypus, zebra finch, chicken, zebrafish, tiger puffer, West Indian Ocean coelacanth, American alligator, and African clawed frog.

2.3. Phylogenetic Analysis

The amino acid sequences of the conserved structure domain (7tm_1) were aligned with MAFFT [41] with default parameters. Before phylogenetic tree was constructed, the best model was predicted with ProtTest 3.4.2 [42]. Phylogenetic tree was calculated with 1000 bootstrap replicates with two methods, Maximum likelihood and Neighbor-joining, under JTT + G model. Vase tunicate was the out-group in both trees.

2.4. Gene Microsynteny Analysis

Gene microsynteny analysis was performed with a public platform Genomicus (http://www.genomicus.biologie.ens.fr/) on which we obtained microsynteny of HCRTR gene family. Owing to the limited species, we selected 12 species for further analysis including human, mouse, cow, chicken, zebra finch, coelacanth, zebrafish, spotted gar, fugu, frog, lizard, and vase tunicate.

2.5. Selective Pressure Analysis

We analysed all the conserved PSDs of hcrtrs, respectively. Because the sequence number of 7_tm1 structure domain of hcrtr1 of fishes was not enough for analysis and no Orexin_rec2 structure domain was predicted from the amino acid sequences of hcrtr1s, we just divided PSDs into three group: Group (1) 7_tm1 structure domain of hcrtr1 among mammals; Group (2) 7_tm1 structure domain of hcrtr2; Group (3) Orexin_rec2 structure domain of hcrtr2. Unreliable sequences were deleted after alignment in case of false annotation. The nucleotide sequences were aligned with Muscle (Codons) in MEGA7 [43]. We then analysed selective pressure of each group with Datamonkey (http://www.datamonkey.org/) [44] to detect positive selection sites. The automatic model selection tool was executed to choose the best model and three groups matched three different nucleotide substitution bias models. Also, two methods (SLAC and FEL) were used to analyse selective pressure of each site.

3. Results

3.1. Members of HCRTR Gene Family

We obtained a set of HCRTR sequences from 109 species which consisted of 48 HCRTR1s and 109 HCRTR2s (Additional File 1). In the past, it was universally believed that HCRTR1 was specific to mammals while HCRTR2 existed in all the vertebrates. However it turned out that there were three HCRTR1-likes in fishes, one named HCRTR1 in West Indian Ocean coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae), one annotated HCRTR1 in spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus), and one without annotation sharing 48% common sequence with HCRTR2 of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). In addition, vase tunicate (Ciona intestinalis), a type of Urochordata, was found to have HCRTR2 as well. More and more exceptions indicated that HCRTR gene family was larger than anticipated.

During analysis, we also found a false annotation in NCBI database. Detailed phylogenetic and structure analysis suggested that the annotated HCRTR1 of Dalmatian pelican (Pelecanus crispus) was more similar to HCRTR2. There was no HCRTR1 in birds.

3.2. Phylogenetic Analysis of HCRTR Gene Family

The phylogenetic trees with two methods were similar and highly consistent with the species tree (Figures 1 and 2). HCRTR1 and HCRTR2 diverged in a very early time in both trees and HCRTR2 of vase tunicate (out-group) was not grouped into any clade of vertebrates. However, in Neighbor-joining tree (Figure 1), HCRTR1s of spotted gar and West Indian Ocean coelacanth were grouped into HCRTR1 clade while in Maximum likelihood tree (Figure 2) HCRTR1 of spotted gar did not belong to any existing clades and HCRTR1 of West Indian Ocean coelacanth was grouped into HCRTR2 clade. In both trees, no matter what clade HCRTR1 of fishes was grouped into, they diverged from the common ancestors very early.

3.3. Gene Microsynteny Analysis

Genes around HCRTR gene family were conserved and arranged in a particular order (Figure 3). We showed 11 genes that were close to HCRTR gene family and it could be seen that genes around HCRTR2 were more conserved. Except for HCRTR2 of fishes and birds who lost one flanking gene, all 11 flanking genes were detected in other vertebrates. As for HCRTR1, mammals kept 6 flanking genes and 4 of them changed gene direction compared to HCRTR2. Moreover, what was interesting was that HCRTR1 of fishes had better microsynteny with HCRTR2 rather than HCRTR1 of mammals and HCRTR2 of vase tunicate had no flanking genes in common with HCRTR1 and had one common gene with HCRTR2 of vertebrates.

3.4. Protein Structure Domains Analysis

The diagrams were shown in Figure 4 which illustrated protein structure domains of HCRTRs in 12 representative species. Hcrtr1 contained one protein structure domain (7tm_1) at an average length of 296.2 amino acids and hcrtr2 consisted of two protein structure domains. One domain (7tm_1, average 293.3-amino-acid long) was highly conserved with 7tm_1 in hcrtr1, and the other domain (Orexin_rec2) was specific to hcrtr2 which had 53.4 amino acids on average.

7tm_1 was composed of several transmembrane structures and highly conserved. However, Orexin_rec2 varied among species. It consisted of about 58 amino acids in mammal lineages and about 56 amino acids in birds, amphibians, and reptiles. However, as for fishes, Orexin_rec2 was shorter with only 39 amino acids.

In addition, West Indian Ocean coelacanth, an ancient fish, possessed both hctrt1 and hcrtr2 and hcrtr1 of West Indian Ocean coelacanth had both 7tm_1 and Orexin_rec2.

In conclusion, differences primarily consisted in the Orexin_rec2. In Figure 5, we compared corresponding amino acid sequences and could see hcrtr1 lost more amino acids than hcrtr2. Hcrtr1 of West Indian Ocean coelacanth lost the least amount of amino acids and it was the only species whose hcrtr1 predicted Orexin_rec2. It suggested that the loss of Orexin_rec2 in hcrtr1 was not owing to the deletion of the whole functional segment but multiple signal amino acid sites. Moreover, low complexity regions (LCRs) of hcrtr1 and hcrtr2 were different in amount. In Figure 4 HCRTR1 of mammals had more LCRs.

3.5. Selective Pressure Analysis

Under the optimal model, results (Table 1) indicated hcrtrs were highly conserved in the evolution process. There were lots of negative selection sites detected in all the groups at 0.1 significant level. Only the 143rd site of 7_tm1 structure domain of hcrtr1 among mammals was proved to be undergoing positive selection. And no positive selection sites were found in other two groups of hcrtr2.

4. Discussions

To investigate the evolution process of HCRTR gene family, we took advantage of published nucleotide and amino acid sequences, identified or predicted, which were recorded in Additional File 1. HCRTR2 of vase tunicate was the most ancient hypocretin receptor in our study, which revealed that hypocretin receptor had already formed in at least part of Urochordata. HCRTR2 existed in all the vertebrates while HCRTR1 was specific to mammal. This was consistent with previous studies [31]. But 3 HCRTR1-likes of fishes suggested that HCRTR gene family might be larger than anticipated, at least in fishes. The diversity of gene family resulted from evolution.

The phylogenetic trees illustrated that HCRTR1 and HCRTR2 diverged early. And according to gene microsynteny analysis, it could be seen that homology is high between two segments where HCRTR1 and HCRTR2 were located. Gene duplication event had been considered as a reason for new gene. Orthologs were separated by speciation, yet paralogs were generated by gene or genome duplication event [45]. Duplication event was important to gene family expansion. In early vertebrates, the dynamic genome reorganization model [46] indicated that the vertebrate chromosomes were derived from 10 proto-chromosomes through several rounds of whole genome duplications (WGDs, 2 rounds in vertebrates and 3 rounds in fishes) and multiple fissions and fusions. The model divided vertebrate chromosomes into many regions and HCRTR1 of human was located roughly in B3 region of chromosome 1 and HCRTR2 was located in B2 region of chromosome 6. HCRTR2 of Chicken was in B2 region of chromosome 3. Proto-chromosome B was the common ancestor of chromosomes 1 and 6 of human and chromosome 3 of chicken, and B2/B3 regions originated from the second round of WGD (Figure 6). HCRTR gene family was likely to originate in the second round of WGD.

As for the HCRTR1 of fishes, it was different from HCRTR1 of mammals and HCRTR2 of vertebrates according to phylogenetic trees. Moreover, HCRTR1 of fishes had better microsynteny with HCRTR2 rather than HCRTR1 of mammals, which meant that HCRTR1 of fishes and mammals probably did not originate from the same duplication event. The origin of HCRTR1 of fishes might be closely related to the third round of WGD [47] that was specific to the ancestor of fishes. The extra independent genome duplication events had been confirmed in Chinese paddlefish [48] and fishes in the family Salmonidae [49]. Incomplete HCRTR1-like segment was also detected in Atlantic salmon (Salmonidae) in our study.

New genes produced by gene duplication events would not be subject to selective pressure. The structure of HCRTR1 of West Indian Ocean coelacanth suggested that early HCRTR1 might have both 7tm_1 and Orexin_rec2 and then the structure of Orexin_rec2 was destroyed because of relaxed selective pressure. HCRTR2, which HCRTR1 was derived from, was more ancient. It was also supported by gene microsynteny analysis. HCRTR2 of vertebrates had one common flanking gene with HCRTR2 of vase tunicate but HCRTR1 did not. In addition, studies showed that new receptors always acquired ligand binding ability in a new way. Once they acquired this ability, it could gradually develop into specific binding ability [50]. LCRs were reported to be important for the ability of ligand binding [51] and LCRs of hcrtr1 possibly contributed to the specific binding ability, which supported our point as well.

As a vital neuropeptide, it had been well studied that hcrtr1 was a specific receptor to hcrta while hcrtr2 was a nonselective receptor [52]. Due to the structures of hcrtr1 and hcrtr2, we speculated that 7tm_1 mainly responded to hcrta and Orexin_rec2 responded to hcrtb. The remaining structure of Orexin_rec2 of hcrtr1 might account for hcrtr1’s inefficient activation by hcrtb [53]. Some held the view that mutations in genes generated by duplication events would not do harms to organisms but actually help them adapt to the environment, such as antifreeze proteins in Antarctic notothenioid fish [54]. HCRTR gene family was highly conserved among species. Selection pressure analysis showed that the negative selection was the predominant evolutionary force acting on the HCRTR gene family, and only one codon was found to be subjected to positive selection in HCRTR1 of mammals. The appearance of HCRTR1 might promise more advanced functions in mammals and fishes.

5. Conclusions

The second round of whole genome duplication in early vertebrate ancestry and the independent round in fish ancestry may contribute to the diversity of HCRTR gene family. HCRTR1 of fishes and mammals is not the same receptor, which means that there are three members in the family. HCRTR2 is proved to be the most ancient one in HCRTR gene family. After duplication events, the structure of HCRTR1 diverged from HCRTR2 owing to relaxed selective pressure. Negative selection is the predominant evolutionary force acting on the HCRTR gene family but HCRTR1 of mammals is found to be subjected to positive selection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors certify that there are no conflicts of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Project of National Science and Technology Plan for the Rural Development in China (no. 2015BAD03B06), the application foundation project of Sichuan Science and Technology Bureau (2015JY0110), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 31301964).

Supplementary Materials

The additional file records the information of species and sequences we used in phylogenetic analysis. LPSD1, LPSD2, and LAA mean location of protein structure domain 1 (7tm_1), location of protein structure domain 2 (Orexin_rec2), and length of amino acids, respectively. The highlighted items are parts of the 38 representative species used for Blastn and some species are not listed in the table: black-capped squirrel monkey (XM_010337142.1), Damaraland mole-rat (XM_010628936.1), dromedary (XM_010995387.1), African bush elephant (XM_010587000.1), killer whale (XM_012532256.1), large flying fox (XM_011375020.1), Chinese alligator (XM_006035463.1), and western clawed frog (XM_002934850.3). (Supplementary Materials)

References

A. L. Gotter, A. L. Webber, P. J. Coleman, J. J. Renger, and C. J. Winrow Dr., “International union of basic and clinical pharmacology. LXXXVI. Orexin receptor function, nomenclature and pharmacology,” Pharmacological Reviews, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 389–420, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Liguori, L. M. Pavone, L. Assisi et al., “Expression of orexin B and its receptor 2 in rat testis,” General and Comparative Endocrinology, vol. 242, pp. 66–73, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. de Lecea, T. S. Kilduff, C. Peyron et al., “The hypocretins: hypothalamus-specific peptides with neuroexcitatory activity,” Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 322–327, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Sakurai, A. Amemiya, M. Ishii et al., “Orexins and orexin receptors: a family of hypothalamic neuropeptides and G protein-coupled receptors that regulate feeding behavior,” Cell, vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 573–585, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. Eisch and D. Petrik, “Depression and hippocampal neurogenesis: a road to remission?” Science, vol. 338, no. 6103, pp. 72–75, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Plaza-Zabala, Á. Flores, R. Maldonado, and F. Berrendero, “Hypocretin/orexin signaling in the hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus is essential for the expression of nicotine withdrawal,” Biological Psychiatry, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 214–223, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Sakurai, “The neural circuit of orexin (hypocretin): Maintaining sleep and wakefulness,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 171–181, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Nakamura, S. Takeda, M. Kageshima et al., “Mechanical force analysis of peptide interactions using atomic force microscopy,” Peptide Science, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 48–54, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Bieganska, P. Sokolowska, O. Johren, and J. B. Zawilska, “Orexin A suppresses the growth of rat C6 glioma cells via a caspase-dependent mechanism,” J MolNeurosci, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 706–712, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Xu, X. E, H. Liu et al., “Tumor necrosis factor-alpha is a potential diagnostic biomarker for chronic neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury,” Neuroscience Letters, vol. 595, pp. 30–34, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Dehan, C. Canon, G. Trooskens et al., “Expression of type 2 orexin receptor in human endometrium and its epigenetic silencing in endometrial cancer,” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 1549–1557, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Spinazzi, M. Rucinski, G. Neri, L. K. Malendowicz, and G. G. Nussdorfer, “Preproorexin and orexin receptors are expressed in cortisol-secreting adrenocortical adenomas, and orexins stimulate in vitro cortisol secretion and growth of tumor cells,” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 3544–3549, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Zhou, X. Zhao, H. Liu, J. Qu, and C. P. Huang, “Visible-light sensitive cobalt-doped BiVO₄ (Co-BiVO₄) photocatalytic composites for the degradation of methylene blue dye in dilute aqueous solutions,” Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, vol. 99, pp. 214–221, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Kayaba, A. Nakamura, Y. Kasuya et al., “Attenuated defense response and low basal blood pressure in orexin knockout mice,” American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, vol. 285, no. 3, pp. R581–R593, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. W. Davenport, P.-Y. S. Chan, W. Zhang, and Y.-L. Chou, “Detection threshold for inspiratory resistive loads and respiratory-related evoked potentials,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 276–285, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. M. Chemelli, J. T. Willie, C. M. Sinton et al., “Narcolepsy in orexin knockout mice: Molecular genetics of sleep regulation,” Cell, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 437–451, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Hara, C. T. Beuckmann, T. Nambu et al., “Genetic ablation of orexin neurons in mice results in narcolepsy, hypophagia, and obesity,” Neuron, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 345–354, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Hara, M. Yanagisawa, and T. Sakurai, “Difference in obesity phenotype between orexin-knockout mice and orexin neuron-deficient mice with same genetic background and environmental conditions,” Neurosci Lett, vol. 380, no. 3, pp. 239–242, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. J. Winrow, A. L. Gotter, C. D. Cox et al., “Promotion of Sleep by Suvorexant—A Novel Dual Orexin Receptor Antagonist,” Journal of Neurogenetics, vol. 25, no. 1-2, pp. 52–61, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. T. Beuckmann, M. Suzuki, T. Ueno, K. Nagaoka, T. Arai, and H. Higashiyama, “In vitro and in silico characterization of lemborexant (E2006), a novel dual orexin receptor antagonist,” The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, vol. 362, no. 2, pp. 287–295, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Chabi, Y. Zhang, S. Jackson et al., “Randomized controlled trial of the orexin receptor antagonist filorexant for migraine prophylaxis,” Cephalalgia, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 379–388, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Bettica, L. Squassante, S. Zamuner, G. Nucci, H. Danker-Hopfe, and E. Ratti, “The orexin antagonist SB-649868 promotes and maintains sleep in men with primary insomnia,” SLEEP, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1097–1104, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. Roecker, S. P. Mercer, J. D. Schreier et al., “Discovery of 5′′-Chloro-,” ChemMedChem, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 311–322, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. Roecker, T. S. Reger, M. C. Mattern et al., “Discovery of MK-3697: A selective orexin 2 receptor antagonist (2-SORA) for the treatment of insomnia,” Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters, vol. 24, no. 20, pp. 4884–4890, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. T. Willie, R. M. Chemelli, C. M. Sinton et al., “Distinct narcolepsy syndromes in orexin receptor-2 and orexin null mice: Molecular genetic dissection of non-REM and REM sleep regulatory processes,” Neuron, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 715–730, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. T. Willie, R. M. Chemelli, C. M. Sinton, and M. Yanagisawa, “To eat or to sleep? Orexin in the regulation of feeding and wakefulness,” Annu Rev Neurosci, vol. 24, pp. 429–458, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. N. Marcus, C. J. Aschkenasi, C. E. Lee et al., “in the rat brain. The Journal of comparative neurology,” Differential expression of orexin receptors, vol. 1 and 2, pp. 25–10, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Grimaldi, A. Silvani, E. E. Benarroch, and P. Cortelli, “Orexin/hypocretin system and autonomic control :New insights and clinical correlations,” Neurology, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 271–278, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. E. Alvarez and J. G. Sutcliffe, “Hypocretin is an early member of the incretin gene family,” Neuroscience Letters, vol. 324, no. 3, pp. 169–172, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Holmqvist, K. E. Akerman, and J. P. Kukkonen, “High specificity of human orexin receptors for orexins over neuropeptide Y and other neuropeptides,” Neurosci Lett, vol. 305, no. 3, pp. 177–180, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. K. Y. Wong, S. Y. L. Ng, L. T. O. Lee, H. K. H. Ng, and B. K. C. Chow, “Orexins and their receptors from fish to mammals: a comparative approach,” General and comparative endocrinology, vol. 171, no. 2, pp. 124–130, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Funato, A. L. Tsai, J. T. Willie et al., “Enhanced Orexin Receptor-2 Signaling Prevents Diet-Induced Obesity and Improves Leptin Sensitivity,” Cell Metabolism, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 64–76, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
C. H. Lin, W. S. Lai, Y. L. Huang, and M. Chou, “I-SEAD: a secure routing protocol for mobile Ad Hoc networks,” Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 102–107, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
P. L. Johnson, W. Truitt, S. D. Fitz et al., “A key role for orexin in panic anxiety,” Nature Medicine, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 111–115, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Kmiec, E. PΘtervßri, M. Balask et al., “Chapter Thirteen - Anorexia of Aging,” in Vitamins Hormones, L. Gerald, Ed., vol. Volume, pp. 319–355, Academic Press, Volume 92, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Vajtai and M. M. Reinert, “Malignant glioneuronal tumor of the adult cerebrum with neuropil-like islands involving proliferating nodules: confirmatory report of an unusual variant,” Acta Neuropathologica, vol. 113, no. 6, pp. 711–713, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Fronczek, C. R. Baumann, G. J. Lammers, C. L. Bassetti, and S. Overeem, “Hypocretin/orexin disturbances in neurological disorders,” Sleep Medicine Reviews, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 9–22, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Wienecke, E. Werth, R. Poryazova et al., “Progressive dopamine and hypocretin deficiencies in Parkinson's disease: Is there an impact on sleep and wakefulness?” Journal of Sleep Research, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 710–717, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Slats, J. A. H. R. Claassen, M. M. Verbeek, and S. Overeem, Reciprocal interactions between sleep, circadian rhythms and Alzheimer's disease: focus on the role of hypocretin and melatonin. Ageing research reviews, vol. 12, 188-200. doi, 10.1016/j.arr.2012.04.003, 2013.
X. Yao, H. Yang, G. Zhang, and Y. Tang, “Plasma orexin-A level in patients with obstructive apnea-hypopnea syndrome,” Lin chuanger bi yanhoukezazhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology, pp. 547–549, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Katoh and H. Toh, “Parallelization of the MAFFT multiple sequence alignment program,” Bioinformatics, vol. 26, no. 15, Article ID btq224, pp. 1899-1900, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Darriba, G. L. Taboada, R. Doallo, and D. Posada, “ProtTest 3: fast selection of best-fit models of protein evolution,” Bioinformatics, vol. 27, no. 8, Article ID btr088, pp. 1164-1165, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kumar, G. Stecher, and K. Tamura, MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 7.0 for Bigger Datasets. Molecular biology and evolution, vol. 33, 1870-1874. doi, 10.1093/molbev/msw054, 2016.
W. Delport, A. F. Y. Poon, S. D. W. Frost, and S. L. Kosakovsky Pond, “Datamonkey 2010: a suite of phylogenetic analysis tools for evolutionary biology. Bioinformatics,” in Datamonkey 2010: a suite of phylogenetic analysis tools for evolutionary biology. Bioinformatics, vol. 26, pp. 2455–2457, England, Oxford, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
V. E. Prince and F. B. Pickett, “Splitting pairs: the diverging fates of duplicated genes,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 3, no. 11, pp. 827–837, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Nakatani, H. Takeda, Y. Kohara, and S. Morishita, “Reconstruction of the vertebrate ancestral genome reveals dynamic genome reorganization in early vertebrates,” Genome Research, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1254–1265, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Jaillon, J.-M. Aury, F. Brunet et al., “Genome duplication in the teleost fish Tetraodon nigroviridis reveals the early vertebrate proto-karyotype,” Nature, vol. 431, no. 7011, pp. 946–957, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. D. Crow, C. D. Smith, J.-F. Cheng, G. P. Wagner, and C. T. Amemiya, “An independent genome duplication inferred from Hox paralogs in the American paddlefish--a representative basal ray-finned fish and important comparative reference,” Genome biology and evolution, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 937–953, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
R. D. Handy, G. Al-Bairuty, A. Al-Jubory et al., “Effects of manufactured nanomaterials on fishes: a target organ and body systems physiology approach,” Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 821–853, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Escriva, F. Delaunay, and V. Laudet, Ligand binding and nuclear receptor evolution. BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology, Ligand binding and nuclear receptor evolution. BioEssays, news and reviews in molecular, 2000.
Z. Wu, X.-M. Zhao, and L. Chen, “A systems biology approach to identify effective cocktail drugs,” BMC Systems Biology, vol. 4, no. 2, article 7, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Sakurai, “Orexins and orexin receptors: Implication in feeding behavior,” Regulatory Peptides, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 25–30, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Sakurai, “Roles of orexin and effects of orexin receptor antagonists,” Nihon Rinsho. Japanese Journal of Clinical Medicine, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 1023–1030, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. Chen, C.-H. C. Cheng, J. Zhang et al., “Transcriptomic and genomic evolution under constant cold in Antarctic notothenioid fish,” Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 35, pp. 12944–12949, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2018 Zhen Cai et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1917

Downloads

1453

Citations