Processing math: 100%
  • 中文核心期刊要目总览
  • 中国科技核心期刊
  • 中国科学引文数据库(CSCD)
  • 中国科技论文与引文数据库(CSTPCD)
  • 中国学术期刊文摘数据库(CSAD)
  • 中国学术期刊(网络版)(CNKI)
  • 中文科技期刊数据库
  • 万方数据知识服务平台
  • 中国超星期刊域出版平台
  • 国家科技学术期刊开放平台
  • 荷兰文摘与引文数据库(SCOPUS)
  • 日本科学技术振兴机构数据库(JST)

No signature of selection on the C-terminal region of glucose transporter 2 with the evolution of avian nectarivory

Alexander M. Myrka, Tooba Shah, Jason T. Weir, Kenneth C. Welch Jr.

Alexander M. Myrka, Tooba Shah, Jason T. Weir, Kenneth C. Welch Jr.. 2020: No signature of selection on the C-terminal region of glucose transporter 2 with the evolution of avian nectarivory. Avian Research, 11(1): 44. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00231-8
Citation: Alexander M. Myrka, Tooba Shah, Jason T. Weir, Kenneth C. Welch Jr.. 2020: No signature of selection on the C-terminal region of glucose transporter 2 with the evolution of avian nectarivory. Avian Research, 11(1): 44. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00231-8

No signature of selection on the C-terminal region of glucose transporter 2 with the evolution of avian nectarivory

Funds: 

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant 386466

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant 06538

the Human Frontier Science Program RGP0062/2016

More Information
  • Abstract:
    Background 

    Flying birds, especially those that hover, need to meet high energetic demands. Birds that meet this demand through nectarivory face the added challenges of maintaining homeostasis in the face of spikes in blood sugar associated with nectar meals, as well as transporting that sugar to energetically demanding tissues. Nectarivory has evolved many times in birds and we hypothesized thatthe challenges of this dietary strategy would exert selective pressure on key aspects of metabolic physiology. Specifically, we hypothesized we would find convergent or parallel amino acid substitutions among different nectarivorous lineages in a protein important to sensing, regulating, and transporting glucose, glucose transporter 2 (GLUT2).

    Methods 

    Genetic sequences for GLUT2 were obtained from ten pairs of nectarivorous and non-nectarivorous sister taxa. We performed PCR amplification of the intracellular C-terminal domain of GLUT2 and adjacent protein domains due to the role of this region in determination of transport rate, substrate specificity and glucosensing.

    Results 

    Our findings have ruled out the C-terminal regulatory region of GLUT2 as a target for selection by sugar-rich diet among avian nectarivores, though selection among hummingbirds, the oldest avian nectarivores, cannot be discounted.

    Conclusion 

    Our results indicate future studies should examine down-stream targets of GLUT2-mediated glucosensing and insulin secretion, such as insulin receptors and their targets, as potential sites of selection by nectarivory in birds.

  • Galliformes are ground-living birds, an order consisting of around 280 species worldwide (). This group of birds is found to have around 23 species listed as endangered and 6 as critically endangered in the IUCN red list (). Phylogenetic relationships among species have been widely studied in recent years (; ; ). Although current phylogenetic information is still limited and does not cover the systematics and affinities of all 280 Galliformes, a recent investigation has established a phylogeny of Galliformes for up to 197 species (), accounting for over 70% of global Galliformes.

    Macro-evolutionary patterns of this large-size and attractive-appearance bird assemblage might be initiated by utilizing the available phylogenetic affinity information of the 197 species (). The proposal to study macro-evolutionary patterns of Galliformes is to reveal in a more comprehensive way the extinction mechanism of this species assemblage from a long-term evolutionary perspective, for the purpose of better conserving them. In the present study, several macro-evolutionary attributes relevant to the phylogeny and diversity of Galliformes are considered.

    In first instance, clade age has been thought to link up with species richness. The relationship between clade age and species richness is one of recent interest in macro-evolutionary studies (; ). Clade age has been thought to relate to species richness because of the fact that older clades could have more time to diversify (; ), implying that the older the age of the clade, the higher its richness, resulting in a positive clade age-species richness relationship. However, whether such a relationship is universal is still controversial. Several previous studies have shown that clade age could predict species richness (; ), while others argued that there is no clear relationship between clade age and species diversity (). In the present study, I wanted to test whether there is a relationship between the evolutionary age of the ancestors of Galliformes and the number of their externally living descendants.

    Secondly, a shifting pattern in the rate of diversification has been broadly observed in many taxa, by showing patterns in which this rate is initially high but decreases over time (, ). Such a declining-diversification model is predicted by adaptive evolution (), because openings of new vacant niches are limited. Filling vacant niches would have been accomplished at an early evolutionary time, leading to a decline in the rate of diversification of species ().

    Finally, the size of their range might be related to the rate of diversification of species (), since range size of a species is a trait jointly affected by species dispersal, colonization and reproduction. The importance of geographic isolation in shaping speciation has been debated for a long time (). A phylogenetic comparative method, referred to as "age-range correlation", is introduced to quantify the relative importance of sympatric and allopatric speciation on structuring contemporary species diversity patterns (; ).

    Considerable progress has been made in the development of robust statistical methods to infer ancestral ranges by incorporating a variety of biological processes. For example, a dispersal-extinction-cladogenesis model (DEC) has been proposed to estimate explicitly and infer historical changing patterns of ancestral ranges of species when projected on the phylogeny under a maximum likelihood framework (; ). In addition to maximum likelihood-based methods for reconstructing ancestral distributional ranges, traditional methods are derived from the parsimony principle. Dispersal-vicariance analysis (DIVA) () and some of its extensions (for example, statistical DIVA (S-DIVA), ) are built on parsimony algorithms and still widely cited in current literature of phylogeographic studies (). Recently, a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method has been proposed by .

    The ancestral ranges of the Galliformes group were estimated by utilizing the well-established phylogenetic tree for 197 Galliformes (). The following terrestrial regions are considered in biogeographical analyses: East Asia (A), South Asia (B), Southeast Asia (C), West Asia (D), North America (E), South America (F), Africa (G), Europe (H) and Oceania (I). Distribution of each species over these terrestrial regions was obtained from the Avibase database (http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/avibase.jsp?lang=EN).

    In comparing ancestral ranges of Galliformes species, three analytical methods are used, i.e., dispersal-vicariance analysis (DIVA), Bayesian binary MCMC analysis (BBM) and dispersal-extinction-cladogenesis analysis (DEC). All three methods are carried out by using the software RASP (, ).

    Different diversification rate-shifting models have been tried to fit the Galliformes phylogeny, as proposed in previous studies (; , ). Specifically, four methods from an R package "laser" () are implemented for comparative purposes, consisting of a constant-speciation and constant-extinction model (CONSTANT), a decreasing-speciation and constant-extinction model (SPVAR), a constant-speciation and increasing-extinction model (EXVAR) and a decreasing-speciation and increasing-extinction model (BOTHVAR) (). These four models have been used to test the temporal shifting patterns in rates of diversification of different taxa (, ).

    Each of the models require four parameters for estimation (), which can be obtained by maximizing the following likelihood equation ():

    L(t|λ(t),μ(t))=N1n=2n(λ(t)μ(t))exp{n(λ(t)μ(t))(tntn+1)}×{1μ(t)λ(t)exp((λ(t)μ(t))tn+1)}n1{1μ(t)λ(t)exp((λ(t)μ(t))tn)}n (1)

    where t is the vector of observed branch times from the phylogeny, tn the branch time for the lineage, while n, λ(t) and μ(t) are time-dependent speciation and extinction rates, respectively. The time-dependent rate of diversification is defined as r(t)=λ(t)-μ(t) and N is the number of external tips in the tree.

    In the CONSTANT model, λ(t) and μ(t) are assumed to be constant over the entire phylogenetic tree (i.e., λ(t) = λ0, μ(t) = μ0), where λ0 and μ0 are the constants to be estimated. In the SPVAR model, μ(t) is assumed to be constant over the entire tree (i.e., μ(t) = μ0), while λ(t) is assumed to decrease continuously from the root to the tips of the tree, defined as follows: λ(t)=λ0 exp(-kt). As seen in the SPVAR model, the additional parameter k is required to model the declining trend of rate of speciation over the tree. For this model, the rate of diversification is predicted to decline over the evolutionary time as (r(t)=λ0 exp(-kt)-μ0). In the EXVAR model, the rate of speciation is assumed to be constant over the tree while the rate of extinction is assumed to decline over the tree as follows: u(t)=u0(1-exp(-zt)). As well, this model has an additional parameter, i.e., z, to be estimated. Finally, in the BOTHVAR model, both λ(t) and μ(t) are assumed to change over time as follows: λ(t)=λ0 exp(-kt) and u(t)=u0(1-exp(-zt)) (; ).

    The evolutionary age for each clade is calculated as the phylogenetic distance between the root and the internal node leading to the focused clade. The corresponding clade species richness is defined as the number of external tips (living species) for that specific clade.

    To reveal the possible relationship between clade age and clade species richness and/or phylogenetic diversity, I performed both a non-phylogenetic ordinary least-squares regression analysis (OLS) and a phylogenetic general least-squares regression analysis (PGLS). Given that various clades are not independent from each other, it is necessary to remove the impacts of phylogenetic inertia by performing PGLS, i.e., a method to introduce a phylogenetic variance-covariance matrix in the fitting formula, a matrix missing in the OLS method. For the OLS method, the vector of coefficients is fitted using the following identity:

    ˆβOLS=(XTX)1XTy (2)

    while for the PGLS method, the vector of coefficients is estimated from the following equation:

    ˆβPGLS=(XTW1X)1XTW1y (3)

    The superscript T denotes the transpose of a matrix, while -1 denotes the inverse of a matrix. X is a matrix with columns indicating the explanatory variables, while y is a column vector storing the values for the response variable and W is the phylogenetic variance-covariance matrix. The calculation of W is only related to the branch lengths of the phylogenetic tree ().

    Both the Bayesian and maximum likelihood methods (BBI and Lagrange) identified SE Asia as the most likely origin of the distribution of the most common ancestor for all Galliformes species. The S-DIVA method failed to run because of unknown errors (out of memory when using RASP software).

    Because BBI and Lagrange share some levels of similarity, ancestral ranges estimated by Lagrange are the focus in the subsequent biogoegraphic discussion (Figure 1). As seen, a number of dispersal and vicariance events have occurred in the distribution of Galliformes species.

    Figure 1. Ancestral range reconstruction of Galliformes with color legends using Lagrange maximum likelihood method.
    Figure  1.  Ancestral range reconstruction of Galliformes with color legends using Lagrange maximum likelihood method.
    Codes for terrestrial regions: E Asia (A), S Asia (B), SE Asia (C), W Asia (D), N America (E), S America (F), Africa (G), Europe (H) and Oceania (I).

    At root node 393 (Figure 1), the most likely ancestral range is SE Asia and N America with a marginal probability of 29% (light orange color, symbol: CE). One vicariance event is identified, in which the Galliformes lineages in N America and SE Asia are separated in subsequent evolutionary times.

    For the lineages distributed in N America, in later times at node 378 (Figure 1), two dispersal events occurred. Starting from N America, one ancestral lineage dispersed to S America (node 233, Figure 1, light blue color, symbol: EF) while another dispersed to Africa (node 377, Figure 1, purple color, symbol: EG). Again some time later (node 366), some lineages dispersed to E Asia (blue color, symbol: A).

    For the lineage distributed in SE Asia at the root (Figure 1), it continued to inhabit that region and later underwent local radiation up until our contemporary era. During some evolutionary time points at nodes 391 and 389, some ancestral lineages of Galliformes dispersed to Oceania (green color, symbol: Ⅰ), leading to the contemporary distribution of Alectura lathami and Leipoa ocellata in Australia, Megapodius pritchardii in Tonga and Megapodius layardi in Vanuatu.

    No significant diversification rate-shifting pattern is evident in Galliformes phylogeny. As shown by the comparison of different diversification models, the constant-rate model received the lowest AIC value (-621.62, Table 1) and thus became the best model.

    Table  1.  A comparison of different time-dependent diversification models for fitting the Galliformes phylogeny
    Model CONSTANT SPVAR EXVAR BOTHVAR
    Likelihood 312.81 312.69 312.81 312.63
    AIC -621.62 -619.38 -619.61 -617.27
    Parameters
    λ0 0.174 0.193 0.1 85 0.186
    μ0 0.064 0.014 0.011 0.001
    K - 0.001 - 0.001
    Z - 1.003 0.078
    The best-fitted model is marked in boldface.
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格

    There is a significant and positive relationship between clade age and Galliformes species richness (Figure 2), regardless of whether the situation or whether phylogenetic inertia is controlled or not. For the OLS, the fitted equation of clade richness=1.24×clade age-8.29 (p < 0.05), while for the PGLS, the best fitted equation of clade richness=3.111 × clade age-101.48 (p < 0.05). This supports the prediction that older clades process higher species diversity since they have more time to diversify.

    Figure 2. Clade age-richness relationships.
    Figure  2.  Clade age-richness relationships.
    The black fitted line indicated the result from ordinary least-squares regression analysis (OLS), while the red line is from the phylogenetical general least-squares regression analysis (PGLS). Both lines have significant slopes (p < 0.05). For OLS, the fitted equation is clade richness=1.24×clade age-8.29; while for PGLS, the fitted equation is clade richness=3.111×clade age-101.48.

    Interestingly, no significant diversification-shifting trend has been observed for the phylogeny of the 197 Galliformes species (Table 1). Several previous studies working on other avian taxa suggest a temporally diversification rate-declining pattern, for example that of the North American Wood-warblers (). However, other studies also show that rates of diversification could have shown a temporally increasing trend up to our contemporary era for some specific species assemblages, for example Tiger Beetles () and angiosperm plants (). It is still controversial whether the rate of species diversification has a density-dependent trend throughout evolutionary times. From my observation of the Galliformes phylogeny, I conclude that this avian assemblage has a relatively constant rate of diversification over time, contradicting any time-dependent shifting trends of diversification.

    There is a strong correlation between clade age and Galliformes richness as shown in Figure 2. As such, the current study confirms that clade age predicts Galliformes diversity throughout evolutionary times, but not rates of diversification. This conclusion is consistent with those of several previous studies (; ). However, other studies have argued that there is no clear positive relationship between clade age and species richness (; ) due to variation in rates of diversification among clades (). Because I found that rates of diversification tend to be constant over evolutionary times for this Galliformes assemblage (Table 1), species richness of this avian group is principally driven by clade age (Figure 2).

    As evidenced by the results of the Lagrange maximum likelihood analysis, it is found that SE Asia and N America are two disjunctive ancestral distributional origins for the earliest ancestor of Galliformes species. Dispersal frequency is very high for ancestral lineages of Galliformes. At some point in time, the lineage distributed in SE Asia then dispersed over Oceania while another lineage from N America dispersed to S America, Africa, E Asia and Europe. Active dispersals of Galliformes ancestors over the various continents might be an important driver of species diversity, because new vacant niches were available in these new terrestrial regions. Therefore, instead of rates of diversification, ecological opportunity might have played, implicitly, a role in species richness of Galliformes (; ; ).

    Some limitations apply to this study. First, the phylogeny used contains only 197 Galliformes species, which might be not sufficient to unravel the true macro-evolutionary pattern of the assemblage because the remaining 83 species have not been included in this analysis. It has been suggested that estimating rates of diversification is very sensitive to the complete status of the tree, because incomplete taxonomic sampling could generate artificial diversification rate-shifting patterns (; ). Second, estimation of the ancestral range is widely applied in plant biogeographical studies. Whether it is legitimate to infer historically ancestral ranges for bird taxa using plant-tailored statistical methods requires further elaboration. However, there is a growing trend in inferring ancestral life-history states of avian groups (). To a certain extent therefore, it should be rational to estimate the ancestral distribution of Galliformes using the analytical DEC, S-DIVA and BBM methods. Third, utilization of country-level distributional information might not be sufficient to quantify range-clade relationships, given that country-level distributional records do not accurately reflect the true distributional ranges of Galliformes species. For example, some species might be present in a small area of a large country, leading to the over-representation of the distribution of the species.

    In implementing further studies, the correlation of life-history traits and rates of diversification would be of interest, since it is reported that the ability of migration of avian species might slow down the rate of speciation of taxa (; ). Analyses of the correlation between functional traits and rates of diversification would offer some insights into the relationship between dispersal capability and speciation patterns for Galliformes ().

    The constant diversification rate for global Galliforme species implied that there were no diversification rate-shifting trends for Galliformes species. The present study may contribute to the understanding of the ecology and diversity patterns of Galliformes from the perspective of historical biogeography, although some limitations existed.

    The author declares that he has no competing interests.

    This work is supported by the China Scholarship Council (CSC). I like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments to improve the quality of the present work.

  • Figure  1.   Phylogenetic relationships of species sequenced. Blue and orange branches indicate nectarivores and non-nectarivores respectively. Branch lengths are not to scale. Tree was produced using Mesquite Version 3.61. (Maddison and Maddison 2019) and published phylogenies (Burns et al. 2003; Warren et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2007; Hackett et al. 2008; Irestedt and Ohlson 2008; Wright et al. 2008; Hedges and Kumar 2009; Reding et al. 2009; Weir et al. 2009; Jønsson et al. 2010; Sedano and Burns 2010; Moyle et al. 2011; Jetz et al. 2012)

    Table  1   Representative species from divergent taxa of nectarivorous (with double asterisks) and non-nectarivorous (without asterisks) diet used in this study

    Contrast Clades compared Sequenced representatives of each contrast Common name
    1 Lorikeets and budgerigars and an outgroup Lorius garrulus (nectarivore)** Chattering Lorry
    Melopsittacus undulatus (non-nectarivore) Budgerigar
    Pionus menstruus (non-nectarivore) Blue-headed Parrot
    2 Sunbird-asities and broadbills Neodrepanis hypoxtha (nectarivore)** Yellow-bellied Sunbird-asity
    Smithornis rufolateralis (non-nectarivore) Rufous-sided Broadbill
    3 Hanging parrots and lovebirds/guaiaberos Loriculus galgulus (nectarivore)** Blue-crowned Hanging Parrot
    Loriculus phili (nectarivore)** Philippine Hanging Parrot
    Agapornis cana (non-nectarivore) Grey-headed Lovebird
    Bolbopsittacus lunulatus (non-nectarivore) Guaiabero
    4 Hummingbirds and swifts Calypte anna (nectarivore)** Anna's Hummingbird
    Archilochus colubris (nectarivore)** Ruby-throated Hummingbird
    Apus affinis (non-nectarivore) House Swift
    Cypseloides rutilus (non-nectarivore) Chestnut-collared Swift
    Chaetura pelagica (non-nectarivore) Chimney Swift
    5 Saffron-crowned tanager and related tanagers Tangara xanthocephala (nectarivore)** Saffron-crowned Tanager
    Tangara florida (non-nectarivore) Emerald Tanager
    Tangara icterocephala (non-nectarivore) Silver-throated Tanager
    6 Flowerpeckers/sunbirds and motacillidae Arachnothera longirostra (nectarivore)** Little Spiderhunter
    Dicaeum trigonostigma (nectarivore)** Orange-bellied Flowerpecker
    Anthus lutescens (non-nectarivore) Yellowish Pipit
    Anthus novaeseelandiae (non-nectarivore) Newzealand Pipit
    7 Green Honeycreeper and related tanagers Chlorophanes spiza (nectarivore)** Green Honeycreeper
    Heterospingus rubrifrons (non-nectarivore) Sulphur-rumped Tanager
    8 O. larvatus and O. nigripennis Oriolus larvatus (non-nectarivore)** Black-headed Oriole
    Oriolus nigripennis (nectarivore) Black-winged Oriole
    9 T. episcopus and T. sayaca Thraupis episcopus (nectarivore)** Blue-gray Tanager
    Thraupis sayaca (non-nectarivore) Sayaca Tanager
    10 Banaquits and grassquits Coereba flaveola (nectarivore)** Bananquit
    Tiaris olivaceus (non-nectarivore) Yellow-faced Grassquit
    Arbitrary numbers are assigned to each contrast and dietary category is indicated
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  2   Amino acid variation in sequences examined

    下载: 导出CSV
  • Ali RS, Morag FD, Muhammad S, Sarver D, Hou L, Wong GW, et al. Glucose transporter expression and regulation following a fast in the ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris. J Exp Biol. 2020; 22: 9989. .

    Baker HG, Baker I, Hodges SA. Sugar composition of nectars and fruits consumed by birds and bats in the tropics and subtropics. Biotropica. 1998; 30: 559–86.

    Benson DA, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, Wheeler DL. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005; 33: D34–8.

    Beuchat CA, Chong CR. Hyperglycemia in hummingbirds and its consequences for hemoglobin glycation. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 1998; 120: 409–16.

    Blem CR. Patterns of lipid storage and utilization in birds. Integr Comp Biol. 1976; 16: 671–84.

    Braun EJ, Sweazea KL. Glucose regulation in birds. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 2008; 151: 1–9.

    Burns KJ, Hackett SJ, Klein NK. Phylogenetic relationships of Neotropical honeycreepers and the evolution of feeding morphology. J Avian Biol. 2003; 34: 360–70.

    Byers M, Bohannon-Stewart A, Khwatenge C, Alqureish C, Alhathlol A, Nahashon S, et al. Absolute quantification of tissue specific expression of glucose transporters in chickens. J Mol Cell Biol. 2018; 1: 1–8.

    Carver FM, Shibley IA Jr, Pennington JS, Pennington SN. Differential expression of glucose transporters during chick embryogenesis. Cell Mol Life Sci CMLS. 2001; 58: 645–52.

    Duchêne S, Audouin E, Crochet S, Duclos MJ, Dupont J, Tesseraud S. Involvement of the ERK1/2 MAPK pathway in insulin-induced S6K1 activation in avian cells. Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2008; 34: 63–73.

    Dupont J, Dagou C, Derouet M, Simon J, Taouis M. Early steps of insulin receptor signaling in chicken and rat: apparent refractoriness in chicken muscle. Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2004; 26: 127–42.

    Dupont J, Tesseraud S, Simon J. Insulin signaling in chicken liver and muscle. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2009; 163: 52–7.

    Gasteiger E, Gattiker A, Hoogland C, Ivanyi I, Appel RD, Bairoch A. ExPASy: the proteomics server for in-depth protein knowledge and analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003; 31: 3784–8.

    Gaster M, Handberg A, Beck-Nielsen H, Schroder HD. Glucose transporter expression in human skeletal muscle fibers. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2000; 279: E529–38.

    Guillemain G, Loizeau M, Pincon-Raymond M, Girard J, Leturque A. The large intracytoplasmic loop of the glucose transporter GLUT2 is involved in glucose signaling in hepatic cells. J Cell Sci. 2000; 113: 841–7.

    Hackett SJ, Kimball RT, Reddy S, Bowie RCK, Braun EL, Braun MJ, et al. A phylogenomic study of birds reveals their evolutionary history. Science. 2008; 320: 1763–8.

    Hazelwood RL. The avian endocrine pancreas. Am Zool. 1973; 13: 699–709.

    Hedges SB, Kumar S. The timetree of life. New York: OUP Oxford; 2009.

    Huang S, Czech MP. The GLUT4 glucose transporter. Cell Metab. 2007; 5: 237–52.

    Irestedt M, Ohlson JI. The division of the major songbird radiation into Passerida and 'core Corvoidea' (Aves: Passeriformes)— the species tree vs. gene trees. Zool Scr. 2008; 37: 305–13.

    Jetz W, Thomas GM, Joy JB, Hartmann K, Mooers AO. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature. 2012; 491: 444–8.

    Jønsson KA, Bowie RCK, Moyle RG, Irestedt M, Norman JA, Fjeldså J. Phylogeny and biogeography of Oriolidae (Aves: Passeriformes). Ecography. 2010; 33: 232–41.

    Katagiri H, Asano T, Ishihara H, Tsukuda K, Lin JL, Inukai K, et al. Replacement of intracellular C-terminal domain of GLUT1 glucose transporter with that of GLUT2 increases Vmax and Km of transport activity. J Biol Chem. 1992; 267: 22550–5.

    Kono T, Nishida M, Nishiki Y, Seki Y, Sato K, Akiba Y. Characterisation of glucose transporter (GLUT) gene expression in broiler chickens. Br Poult Sci. 2005; 46: 510–5.

    Leturque A, Brot-Laroche E, Gall ML. GLUT2 mutations, translocation, and receptor function in diet sugar managing. Am J Physiol-Endocrinol Metab. 2009; 296: E985–92.

    Long W, Cheeseman CI. Structure of, and functional insight into the GLUT family of membrane transporters. Cell Health Cytoskeleton. 2015; 7: 167–83.

    MacDonald JR, Ziman R, Yuen RKC, Feuk L, Scherer SW. The database of genomic variants: a curated collection of structural variation in the human genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42: D986–92.

    Maddison WP, Maddison DR. Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 3.61. 2019. .

    Moyle R, Taylor S, Oliveros C, Lim H, Haines CL, Abdul Rahman M, et al. Diversification of an endemic Southeast Asian genus: phylogenetic relationships of the spiderhunters (Nectariniidae: Arachnothera). Auk. 2011; 128: 777–88.

    Mueckler M, Thorens B. The SlC2 (GLUT) family of membrane transporters. Mol Aspects Med. 2013; 34: 121–38.

    Nicolson SW, Fleming PA. Nectar as food for birds: the physiological consequences of drinking dilute sugar solutions. Plant Syst Evol. 2003; 238: 139–53.

    OsorIo-Fuentealba C, Contreras-Ferrat AE, Altamirano F, Espinosa A, Li Q, Niu W, et al. Electrical stimuli release ATP to increase GLUT4 translocation and glucose uptake via PI3K[gamma]-Akt-AS160 in skeletal muscle cells. Diabetes. 2013; 62: 1519–26.

    Polakof S, Mommsen TP, Soengas JL. Glucosensing and glucose homeostasis: from fish to mammals. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 2011; 160: 123–49.

    R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020. URL https://www.R-project.org/.

    Reding DM, Foster JT, James HF, Pratt HD, Fleischer RC. Convergent evolution of 'creepers' in the Hawaiian honeycreeper radiation. Biol Lett. 2009; 5: 221–4.

    Rideau N, Derouet M, Grimsby J, Simon J. Glucokinase activation induces potent hypoglycemia without recruiting insulin and inhibits food intake in chicken. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2010; 169: 276–83.

    Roberts MW. Hummingbirds' nectar concentration preferences at low volume: the importance of time scale. Anim Behav. 1996; 52: 361–70.

    Schuchmann K-L. Handbook of the birds of the world. Barcelona: Lynx Editions; 2015.

    Seatter MJ, De la Rue SA, Porter LM, Gould GW. QLS motif in transmembrane helix Ⅶ of the glucose transporter family interacts with the C-1 position of D-glucose and is involved in substrate selection at the exofacial binding site. Biochemistry. 1998; 37: 1322–6.

    Sedano RE, Burns KJ. Are the Northern Andes a species pump for Neotropical birds? Phylogenetics and biogeography of a clade of Neotropical tanagers (Aves: Thraupini). J Biogeogr. 2010; 37: 325–43.

    Seki Y, Sato K, Kono T, Abe H, Akiba Y. Broiler chickens (Ross strain) lack insulin-responsive glucose transporter GLUT4 and have GLUT8 cDNA. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2003; 133: 80–7.

    Shen B, Han X, Zhang J, Rossiter SJ, Zhang S. Adaptive evolution in the glucose transporter 4 gene Slc2a4 in Old World fruit bats (family: Pteropodidae). PLoS ONE. 2012; 7: e33197.

    Shepherd PR, Kahn BB. Glucose transporters and insulin action— implications for insulin resistance and diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341: 248–57.

    Sweazea KL, Braun EJ. Glucose transporter expression in English sparrows (Passer domesticus). Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 2006; 144: 263–70.

    Taniguchi CM, Emanuelli B, Kahn CR. Critical nodes in signalling pathways: insights into insulin action. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006; 7: 85–96.

    Thorens B. Glucose transporters in the regulation of intestinal, renal, and liver glucose fluxes. Am J Physiol-Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 1996; 270: G541–53.

    Thorens B. GLUT2 glucose sensing and glucose homeostasis. Diabetologia. 2015; 58: 221–32.

    Thorens B, Mueckler M. Glucose transporters in the 21st Century. Am J Physiol-Endocrinol Metab. 2010; 298: E141–5.

    Uldry M, Thorens B. The SLC2 family of facilitated hexose and polyol transporters. Pflüg Arch. 2004; 447: 480–9.

    Wals PA, Katz J. Glucokinase in bird liver a membrane bound enzyme. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1981; 100: 1543–8.

    Warren BH, Bermingham E, Prys-Jones RP, Thébaud C. Immigration, species radiation and extinction in a highly diverse songbird lineage: white-eyes on Indian Ocean islands. Mol Ecol. 2006; 15: 3769–86.

    Weir JT, Bermingham E, Schluter D. The Great American Biotic Interchange in birds. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009; 106: 21737–42.

    Witteveen M, Brown M, Downs CT. Does sugar content matter? Blood plasma glucose levels in an occasional and specialist avian nectarivore. Comp Biochem Physiol Part A Mol Integr Physiol. 2014; 167: 40–4.

    Workman RE, Myrka AM, Wong GW, Tseng E, Welch KC, Timp W. Single-molecule, full-length transcript sequencing provides insight into the extreme metabolism of the ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris. GigaScience. 2018; 7: 1–12.

    Wright TF, Schirtzinger EE, Matsumoto T, Eberhard JR, Graves JR, Sanchez JJ. A multilocus molecular phylogeny of the parrots (Psittaciformes): support for a Gondwanan origin during the Cretaceous. Mol Biol Evol. 2008; 25: 2141–56.

    Wu L, Fritz JD, Powers AC. Different functional domains of GLUT2 glucose transporter are required for glucose affinity and substrate specificity. Endocrinology. 1998; 139: 4205–12.

    Zhang S, Yang L, Yang X, Yang J. Molecular phylogeny of the yuhinas (Sylviidae: Yuhina): A paraphyletic group of babblers including Zosterops and Philippine Stachyris. J Ornithol. 2007; 148: 417–26.

    Zhang W, Sumners LH, Siegel PB, Cline MA, Gilbert ER. Quantity of glucose transporter and appetite-associated factor mRNA in various tissues after insulin injection in chickens selected for low or high body weight. Physiol Genomics. 2013; 45: 1084–94.

    Zhao F-Q, Keating AF. Functional properties and genomics of glucose transporters. Curr Genomics. 2007; 8: 113–28.

    Zuker M. Mfold web server for nucleic acid folding and hybridization prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003; 31: 3406–15.

  • 期刊类型引用(3)

    1. Dey, P., Ray, S.D., Kochiganti, V.H.S. et al. Mitogenomic Insights into the Evolution, Divergence Time, and Ancestral Ranges of Coturnix Quails. Genes, 2024, 15(6): 742. 必应学术
    2. Fuentes-López, A., Rebelo, M.T., Romera, E. et al. Genetic diversity of Calliphora vicina (Diptera: Calliphoridae) in the Iberian Peninsula based on cox1, 16S and ITS2 sequences. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2020, 131(4): 952-965. 必应学术
    3. Chen, Y.. Does the diversification rate of endemic birds of mainland China follow abrupt, gradual shifting or constant patterns?. Integrative Zoology, 2017, 12(2): 165-171. 必应学术

    其他类型引用(0)

图(1)  /  表(2)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  196
  • HTML全文浏览量:  39
  • PDF下载量:  11
  • 被引次数: 3
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2020-04-16
  • 录用日期:  2020-10-27
  • 网络出版日期:  2022-04-24
  • 发布日期:  2020-11-05

目录

Corresponding author: Kenneth C. Welch Jr., Kenneth.welchjr@utoronto.ca

  1. On this Site
  2. On Google Scholar
  3. On PubMed

/

返回文章
返回