Skip Navigation


MBE Advance Access originally published online on October 5, 2005
Molecular Biology and Evolution 2006 23(2):292-300; doi:10.1093/molbev/msj028
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Supplementary Material
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
23/2/292    most recent
msj028v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (24)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shi, P.
Right arrow Articles by Zhang, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shi, P.
Right arrow Articles by Zhang, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Research Article

Contrasting Modes of Evolution Between Vertebrate Sweet/Umami Receptor Genes and Bitter Receptor Genes

Peng Shi and Jianzhi Zhang

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan

E-mail: jianzhi{at}umich.edu.

Taste reception is fundamental to diet selection in many animals. The genetic basis underlying the evolution and diversity of taste reception, however, is not well understood. Recent discoveries of T1R sweet/umami receptor genes and T2R bitter receptor genes in humans and mice provided an opportunity to address this question. Here, we report the identification of 20 putatively functional T1R genes and 167 T2R genes from the genome sequences of nine vertebrates, including three fishes, one amphibian, one bird, and four mammals. Our comparative genomic analysis shows that orthologous T1R sequences are relatively conserved in evolution and that the T1R gene repertoire remains virtually constant in size across most vertebrates, except for the loss of the T1R2 sweet receptor gene in the sweet-insensitive chicken and the absence of all T1R genes in the tongueless western clawed frog. In contrast, orthologous T2R sequences are more variable, and the T2R repertoire diverges tremendously among species, from only three functional genes in the chicken to 49 in the frog. These evolutionary patterns suggest the relative constancy in the number and type of sweet and umami tastants encountered by various vertebrates or low binding specificities of T1Rs but a large variation in the number and type of bitter compounds detected by different species. Although the rate of gene duplication is much lower in T1Rs than in T2Rs, signals of positive selection are detected during the functional divergences of paralogous T1Rs, as was previously found among paralogous T2Rs. Thus, functional divergence and specialization of taste receptors generally occurred via adaptive evolution.

Key Words: taste • receptor • T1R • T2R • sweet • umami • bitter • evolution


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Chem SensesHome page
M.-F. Wang, L. E. Marks, and M. E. Frank
Taste Coding after Selective Inhibition by Chlorhexidine
Chem Senses, October 1, 2009; 34(8): 653 - 666.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
C. Smadja, P. Shi, R. K. Butlin, and H. M. Robertson
Large Gene Family Expansions and Adaptive Evolution for Odorant and Gustatory Receptors in the Pea Aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum
Mol. Biol. Evol., September 1, 2009; 26(9): 2073 - 2086.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
J. Zhang
The drifting human genome
PNAS, December 18, 2007; 104(51): 20147 - 20148.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
W. E. Grus, P. Shi, and J. Zhang
Largest Vertebrate Vomeronasal Type 1 Receptor Gene Repertoire in the Semiaquatic Platypus
Mol. Biol. Evol., October 1, 2007; 24(10): 2153 - 2157.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
Y. Hashiguchi and M. Nishida
Evolution of Trace Amine Associated Receptor (TAAR) Gene Family in Vertebrates: Lineage-Specific Expansions and Degradations of a Second Class of Vertebrate Chemosensory Receptors Expressed in the Olfactory Epithelium
Mol. Biol. Evol., September 1, 2007; 24(9): 2099 - 2107.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
M. Nei
The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution
PNAS, July 24, 2007; 104(30): 12235 - 12242.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Neurosci.Home page
H. Oike, T. Nagai, A. Furuyama, S. Okada, Y. Aihara, Y. Ishimaru, T. Marui, I. Matsumoto, T. Misaka, and K. Abe
Characterization of Ligands for Fish Taste Receptors
J. Neurosci., May 23, 2007; 27(21): 5584 - 5592.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Genome ResHome page
P. Shi and J. Zhang
Comparative genomic analysis identifies an evolutionary shift of vomeronasal receptor gene repertoires in the vertebrate transition from water to land
Genome Res., February 1, 2007; 17(2): 166 - 174.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Chem SensesHome page
U.-k. Kim, S. Wooding, N. Riaz, L. B. Jorde, and D. Drayna
Variation in the Human TAS1R Taste Receptor Genes
Chem Senses, September 1, 2006; 31(7): 599 - 611.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol.Home page
E. Rozengurt
Taste Receptors in the Gastrointestinal Tract. I. Bitter taste receptors and {alpha}-gustducin in the mammalian gut
Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, August 1, 2006; 291(2): G171 - G177.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.