bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Widespread retention of ohnologs in key developmental gene families
following whole genome duplication in arachnopulmonates
Amber Harper1, Luis Baudouin Gonzalez1, Anna Schönauer1, Ralf Janssen2, Michael
Seiter3, Michaela Holzem1,4, Saad Arif1,5, Alistair P. McGregor1,5*, Lauren Sumner-
Rooney6,*
1Department of Biological and Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life
Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom.
2Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Geocentrum, Villavägen 16, 752
36 Uppsala, Sweden.
3Department of Evolutionary Biology, Unit Integrative Zoology, University of Vienna,
Althanstrasse 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
4Division of Signalling and Functional Genomics, German Cancer Research Centre
(DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany and Department of Cell and Molecular Biology,
Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
5Centre for Functional Genomics, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, OX3 0BP,
United Kingdom.
6Oxford University Museum of Natural History, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1
3PW, United Kingdom.
*Corresponding authors: [email protected] (APM) and lauren.sumner-
[email protected] (LSR).
1 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
ABSTRACT
Whole genome duplications have occurred multiple times during animal evolution,
including in lineages leading to vertebrates, teleosts, horseshoe crabs and
arachnopulmonates. These dramatic events initially produce a wealth of new genetic
material, generally followed by extensive gene loss. It appears, however, that
developmental genes such as homeobox genes, signalling pathway components and
microRNAs are frequently retained as duplicates (so called ohnologs) following
whole-genome duplication. These not only provide the best evidence for whole-
genome duplication, but an opportunity to study its evolutionary consequences.
Although these genes are well studied in the context of vertebrate whole-genome
duplication , similar comparisons across the extant arachnopulmonate orders are
patchy. We sequenced embryonic transcriptomes from two spider species and two
amblypygid species and surveyed three important gene families, Hox, Wnt and
frizzled, across these and twelve existing transcriptomic and genomic resources for
chelicerates. We report extensive retention of putative ohnologs, including
amblypygids, further supporting the ancestral arachnopulmonate whole-genome
duplication. We also find evidence of consistent evolutionary trajectories in Hox and
Wnt gene repertoires across three of the five arachnopulmonate orders, with inter-
order variation in the retention of specific paralogs. We identify variation between
major clades in spiders and are better able to reconstruct the chronology of gene
duplications and losses in spiders, amblypygids, and scorpions. These insights shed
light on the evolution of the developmental toolkit in arachnopulmonates, highlight
the importance of the comparative approach within lineages, and provide substantial
new transcriptomic data for future study.
Keywords
2 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Arachnids, developmental toolkit, gene duplication, transcriptomes, whole genome
duplication.
INTRODUCTION
The duplication of genetic material is an important contributor to the evolution of
morphological and physiological innovations (Ohno 1970; Zhang 2003). The most
dramatic example of this is whole genome duplication (WGD), when gene copy
numbers are doubled and retained paralogs (ohnologs) can then share ancestral
functions (subfunctionalization) and/or evolve new roles (neofunctionalization) (Ohno
1970; Force et al. 1999; Lynch and Conery 2000). The occurrence of two rounds
(2R) of WGD in the early evolution of vertebrates has long been associated with their
taxonomic and morphological diversity (e.g. Ohno 1970; Holland et al. 1994; Dehal
and Boore 2005; Holland 2013), and a subsequent 3R in teleosts is frequently linked
to their success as the most diverse vertebrate group (e.g. Meyer and Schartl 1999;
Glasauer and Neuhauss 2014). However, this remains controversial and difficult to
test (Donoghue and Purnell 2005) and in several animal lineages there is no clear
association between WGD and diversification (Mark Welch et al. 2008; Flot et al.
2013; Havlak et al. 2014; Kenny et al. 2016; Nong et al. 2020). Along with
vertebrates, chelicerates also appear to be hotspots of WGD, with up to three rounds
reported in horseshoe crabs (Havlak et al. 2014; Kenny et al. 2016; Nong et al.
2020), one in the ancestor of arachnopulmonates (spiders, scorpions, and their
allies) (Schwager et al. 2017), and potentially two further rounds within the spider
clade Synspermiata (Král et al. 2019). Chelicerates demonstrate a highly variable
body plan, occupy a wide range of habitats and ecological niches, and have evolved
a variety of biologically important innovations such as venoms and silks (Schwager
et al. 2015). They therefore offer an excellent opportunity for comparison with
3 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
vertebrates concerning the implications of WGD for morphological and taxonomic
diversity, and genome evolution in its wake.
The house spider Parasteatoda tepidariorum has emerged as a model species to
study the impacts of WGD on arachnid evolution and development. Genomic and
functional developmental studies have found retained ohnologs of many important
genes, with evidence for neo- and subfunctionalization compared to single-copy
orthologs in arachnids lacking WGD (Janssen et al. 2015; Leite et al. 2016; Turetzek
et al. 2016; Schwager et al. 2017; Turetzek et al. 2017; Leite et al. 2018; Baudouin-
Gonzalez et al. 2021). Work on the scorpions Centruroides sculpturatus and
Mesobuthus martensii has consistently complemented findings in P. tepidariorum,
with genomic studies recovering many ohnologs retained in common with spiders (Di
et al. 2015; Sharma et al. 2015; Leite et al. 2018). In the past few years, several
additional spider genomes have become available, providing an opportunity to get a
more detailed view of genome evolution following WGD. Although synteny analysis
remains the gold standard for the identification of ohnologs, the required
chromosome-level genomic assemblies remain relatively scarce. Work on the P.
tepidariorum, C. sculpturatus and M. martensii genomes has been complemented by
targeted studies of individual gene families and transcriptomic surveys (Schwager et
al. 2007; Sharma et al. 2012; Leite et al. 2018; Gainett and Sharma 2020).
Combined with phylogenetic analyses, the identification of duplications can provide
evidence of WGD events and their timing in arachnid evolution. Although
transcriptomes can yield variant sequences of individual genes, from different alleles
or individuals in mixed samples, these are generally straight-forward to filter out from
truly duplicated loci owing to substantial sequence divergence in the latter. They also
offer the double-edged sword of capturing gene expression, rather than presence in
4 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
the genome; pseudogenized or silenced duplicates are not detected, but neither are
functional genes if they are not expressed at the sampled timepoint or tissue. Such
studies have produced strong additional evidence for an ancestral WGD, with
patterns of duplication coinciding with our expectations for arachnopulmonate
ohnologs (Clarke et al. 2014; Clarke et al. 2015; Sharma et al. 2015; Turetzek et al.
2017; Leite et al. 2018; Gainett and Sharma 2020; Gainett et al. 2020).
Comparison of WGD events among arachnopulmonates, horseshoe crabs and
vertebrates indicates that despite extensive gene loss following duplication events,
certain gene families are commonly retained following duplication (Holland et al.
1994; Schwager et al. 2007; Kuraku and Meyer 2009; Di et al. 2015; Sharma et al.
2015; Kenny et al. 2016; Leite et al. 2016; Schwager et al. 2017; Leite et al. 2018).
These typically include genes from the conserved developmental ‘toolkit’ of
transcription factors (TFs), cell signalling ligands and receptors, and microRNAs
(Erwin 2009). Among these, several have stood out as focal points in the study of
gene and genome duplications. The Hox group of homeobox genes regulate the
identity of the body plan along the antero-posterior axis of all bilaterian animals
(McGinnis and Krumlauf 1992; Abzhanov et al. 1999; Carroll et al. 2005; Pearson et
al. 2005; Hueber and Lohmann 2008; Holland 2013). Four clusters of these key
developmental genes were retained after 1R and 2R in vertebrates (Holland et al.
1994; Meyer and Schartl 1999; Kuraku and Meyer 2009; Pascual-Anaya et al. 2013),
and the arachnopulmonate WGD is evident in the almost universal retention of Hox
gene duplicates in sequenced genomes, with two ohnologs of all ten arthropod Hox
genes in the scorpion M. martensii (Di et al. 2015; Leite et al. 2018), all except Hox3
being represented by two copies in C. sculpturatus (Leite et al. 2018), and all except
fushi tarazu (ftz) in P. tepidariorum (Schwager et al. 2017). Systematic studies of
5 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Hox gene expression patterns in the latter demonstrated that all nine pairs of Hox
paralogs exhibit signs of sub- or neofunctionalization (Schwager et al. 2017). This
high level of retention and expression divergence lends strong support to the
importance of Hox gene duplication in the evolution of the arachnopulmonate body
plan, and further consolidates the position of this family as a key indicator of WGD.
Additionally, arachnids lacking WGD, such as ticks, mites, and harvestmen, exhibit
single copies of the Hox genes, with no evidence for duplication via other routes
(Grbić et al. 2011; Leite et al. 2018; Gainett et al. 2021).
In addition to TFs, the ligands and receptors of some signalling pathways of the
developmental toolkit (e.g. Hedgehog, Wnt, TGF-ß, NHR) also demonstrate higher
copy numbers in vertebrates and other groups subject to WGD, including
arachnopulmonates (Holland et al. 1994; Meyer and Schartl 1999; Shimeld 1999;
Pires-daSilva and Sommer 2003; Cho et al. 2010; Janssen et al. 2010; Hogvall et al.
2014; Janssen et al. 2015). The Wnt signalling pathway plays many important roles
during animal development, including segmentation and patterning of the nervous
system, eyes and gut (Erwin 2009; Murat et al. 2010). In the canonical pathway, Wnt
ligands bind to transmembrane receptors, such as Frizzled, to trigger translocation of
ß-catenin to the nucleus and mediate regulation of gene expression (Cadigan and
Nusse 1997; Hamilton et al. 2001; Logan and Nusse 2004; van Amerongen and
Nusse 2009). There are thirteen subfamilies of Wnt genes found in bilaterians, as
well as multiple receptor families and downstream components. In contrast to the
extensive retention of Hox ohnologs following WGD, Wnt duplicates in P.
tepidariorum appear to be restricted to Wnt7 and Wnt11, with the remaining eight
subfamilies represented by single genes (Janssen et al. 2010). However, these are
the only reported Wnt gene duplications in arthropods despite several recent surveys
6 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
(Bolognesi et al. 2008; Murat et al. 2010; Hayden and Arthur 2013; Meng et al. 2013;
Hogvall et al. 2014; Janssen and Posnien 2014; Holzem et al. 2019), and beyond P.
tepidariorum no other arachnopulmonates have been systematically searched.
Similarly, duplications within the four frizzled gene subfamilies appear to be
restricted to arachnopulmonates among arthropods, wherein only fz4 is duplicated in
both P. tepidariorum and M. martensii (Janssen et al. 2015).
Several Wnt families have also been retained after the 1R and 2R events in
vertebrates, for example there are two copies each of Wnt2, Wnt3, Wnt5, Wnt7,
Wnt8, Wnt9, and Wnt10 in humans (Miller 2001; Janssen et al. 2010). However, no
subfamilies are represented by three or four copies in humans and so there is some
consistency with arachnopulmonates in that the Wnts may be more conservative
markers of WGD, to be used in combination with Hox and other homeobox genes.
The extensive and consistent retention of key developmental genes like Hox genes
apparent in P. tepidariorum and C. sculpturatus, and Wnt genes in P. tepidariorum,
strongly support the occurrence of an ancestral WGD in arachnopulmonates.
However, data are only available for a handful of species so far, resulting in very
patchy taxonomic sampling. For example, only P. tepidariorum and Pholcus
phalangioides have been comprehensively surveyed for homeobox genes among
spiders (Leite et al. 2018), omitting the large and derived retrolateral tibial apophysis
(RTA) clade, which includes jumping spiders, crab spiders and other free hunters,
and the systematic identification of Wnt genes has been restricted to only P.
tepidariorum. Spiders and scorpions are by far the most speciose of the
arachnopulmonates, and there may be additional diversity in their repertoires of
these important developmental gene families of which we are not yet aware.
7 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
In addition, and perhaps more urgently, only two of the five arachnopulmonate
lineages have dominated the field thus far; sufficient genomic information for
comparison is lacking beyond spiders and scorpions. Also represented in
Arachnopulmonata are the amblypygids (whip spiders), relatively understudied and
enigmatic animals comprising around 190 extant species. They exhibit highly derived
morphology of the pedipalps, which are adapted to form raptorial appendages, and
of the first pair of walking legs, which are antenniform and can comprise more than
100 segments (Weygoldt 2009). Despite the scarcity of transcriptomic or genomic
data for amblypygids (whip spiders) (Gainett and Sharma 2020; Gainett et al. 2020
for recent advances), their widely accepted position within Arachnopulmonata
implies that they were also subject to an ancestral WGD. A recent survey of the
Phrynus marginemaculatus transcriptome supported this in the recovery of multiple
duplicate Hox and leg gap genes (Gainett and Sharma 2020). Particularly given the
derived nature of their appendages, this group could shed substantial light on
genomic and morphological evolution following WGD.
To better understand the genomic consequences of WGD in a greater diversity of
arachnopulmonate lineages, we sequenced de novo embryonic transcriptomes from
two spiders belonging to the derived RTA clade and two amblypygids. We surveyed
Hox, Wnt and frizzled genes in these species and existing genomic and
transcriptomic resources for comparison with other arachnids, both with and without
an ancestral WGD, improving sampling at both the order and sub-order levels.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Embryo collection, fixation and staging
8 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Embryos of mixed ages were collected from captive females of the amblypygids
Charinus acosta (Charinidae; parthenogenetic, collected at one day, one month and
two months after the appearance of egg sacs; equivalent to approximately 1%, 30%
and 60% of development) and Euphrynichus bacillifer (Neoamblypygi: Phrynichidae;
mated, collected at approximately 30% of development), the wolf spider Pardosa
amentata (collected in Oxford, UK, equivalent to stages 11/12 in P. tepidariorum)
and mixed stage embryos of the jumping spider Marpissa muscosa (kindly provided
by Philip Steinhoff and Gabriele Uhl) and stored in RNAlater. Phalangium opilio were
collected in Uppsala, Sweden, and developmental series of embryos ranging from
egg deposition to the end of embryogenesis were collected for sequencing.
Transcriptomics
Total RNA was extracted from mixed aged embryos, pooled by species, of Charinus
acosta, Euphrynichus bacillifer, Pardosa amentata and Marpissa muscosa using
QIAzol lysis reagent according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Qiagen). Illumina
libraries were prepared using a TruSeq RNA kit (including polyA selection) and
sequenced on the NovaSeq platform (100bp PE, Edinburgh Genomics). The quality
of raw reads was assessed using FastQC v0.11.9 (Andrews 2010), erroneous k-
mers were corrected using rCorrector (default settings; Song and Florea 2015), and
unfixable read pairs (from low-expression homolog pairs or containing too many
errors) were discarded using a custom Python script (available at
https://github.com/harvardinformatics/TranscriptomeAssemblyTools/blob/master/Filte
rUncorrectabledPEfastq.py courtesy of Adam Freeman). Adapter sequences were
identified and removed and low quality ends (phred score cut-off = 5) trimmed using
TrimGalore! v0.6.5 (available at https://github.com/FelixKrueger/TrimGalore). De
novo transcriptome assembly was performed using only properly paired reads with
9 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Trinity v2.10.0 (Haas et al. 2013) using default settings. Transcriptome completeness
was evaluated on the longest isoform per gene using BUSCO v4.0.2 (77) along with
the arachnid database (arachnida_odb10 created on 2019-11-20; 10 species, 2934
BUSCOs) and the arthropod database (arthropoda_odb10 created on 2019-11-20;
90 species, 1013 BUSCOs). Reads are available on SRA (BioProject
PRJNA707377) and assembled transcriptomes are available at (XXXXX).
Identification of gene candidates
To identify Hox, Wnt and frizzled gene candidates across chelicerates, we performed
BLAST searches (p-value 0.05) against existing genomic and transcriptomic
resources and the four new embryonic transcriptomes generated in this study. Hox,
Wnt and Frizzled peptide sequences previously identified in P. tepidariorum and
Ixodes scapularis were reciprocally blasted against the respective NCBI proteomes
and the top hit was selected (Supplementary File 1) (Janssen et al. 2010; Janssen et
al. 2015; Schwager et al. 2017; Leite et al. 2018). Hox protein sequences previously
identified in C. sculpturatus (Schwager et al. 2017) and P. opilio (Leite et al. 2018)
were reciprocally blasted against the respective NCBI proteomes and the top hit was
selected (Supplementary File 1). These sequences along with the Hox and Fz
peptide sequences identified in M. martensii genome were used as query sequences
in our analysis (Di et al. 2015; Janssen et al. 2015).
BLASTP searches were performed against the NCBI proteomes of Stegodyphus
dumicola, C. sculpturatus, Tetranychus urticae and Limulus polyphemus. TBLASTN
searches were performed against C. acosta, E. bacillifer, P. amentata and M.
muscosa (this study); the transcriptomes of P. phalangioides (Turetzek, Torres-Oliva,
Kaufholz, Prpic, Posnien, in preparation), Phoxichilidium femoratum (Ballesteros et
al. 2021) and P. opilio (PRJNA236471); and the genomes of Pardosa
10 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
pseudoannulata (PRJNA512163), Acanthoscurria geniculata (PRJNA222716), M.
martensii (CDS sequence file; Cao et al. 2013). We then predicted the peptide
sequences using the Translate ExPASy online tool
(https://web.expasy.org/translate/; default settings). Protein sequence identity was
confirmed by reciprocal BLAST against the NCBI database and the construction of
maximum likelihood trees. Where more than one sequence was identified as a
potential candidate for a single gene, nucleotide and protein alignments were
inspected to eliminate the possibility that they were isoforms, individual variants, or
fragments of the same gene. Only the longest isoforms and gene fragments were
selected for phylogenetic analysis (Supplementary File 1). All Hox sequences
identified contain a complete or partial homeodomain (Supplementary Files 2-3). The
TBLASTN search in P, phalangioides identified a Ubx gene not reported previously
by Leite et al. (2018). The Trinity transcript accession numbers of all identified
sequences, NCBI protein accession and other sequence identifiers used in the
subsequent phylogenetic analysis are found in Supplementary File 1.
Due to high levels of fragmentation in P. opilio, multiple non-overlapping fragments
were found to align with query Wnt sequences. To verify the identity and relationship
of these fragments, primers were designed against the 5’-most and 3’-most ends of
the aligned series (see Supplementary File 1). Total RNA was extracted using Trizol
(Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions and cDNA produced using
the SuperScriptII first-strand synthesis system (Invitrogen) for RT-PCR using the
designed primer pairs. PCR products were sequenced by Macrogen Europe to
confirm predicted combinations of fragmented transcripts (see Supplementary File
1).
Phylogenetic analysis
11 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Hox, Wnt and Frizzled protein predictions were retrieved from NCBI for the insects
Drosophila melanogaster, Bombyx mori, Tribolium castaneum; the crustacean
Daphnia pulex; and the onychophoran Euperipatoides kanangrensis (Supplementary
File 1). The Hox, Wnt and Frizzled peptide sequences for the myriapod Strigamia
maritima were retrieved from Chipman et al. (2014) (Supplementary File 1).
Alignments were performed in Clustal Omega using default parameters (Larkin et al.
2002; Sievers et al. 2011), with the exception of the full Hox protein sequences,
which were aligned using COBALT (Papadopoulos and Agarwala 2007). Maximum
likelihood trees were generated from whole-sequence alignments to assign
sequences to families and study the relationship between candidate duplicates.
Phylogenetic analyses were performed in IQ-Tree (v2.0.3, Nguyen et al. 2015) using
ModelFinder to identify optimal substitution models (JTT+F+R9 for full Hox
sequences, LG+G4 for Hox homeodomain sequences, GTR+F+I+G4 for Hox
homeobox sequences, LG+R8 for Wnt, JTT+R8 for Fz; Kalyaanamoorthy et al.
2017) and 100,000 bootstrap replicates. Trees were visualized in FigTree v.1.4.4
(http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/) and tidied in Adobe Illustrator. Hox
sequences were additionally analysed using RaXML v8 (Stamatakis 2014), using the
same substitution models chosen by Iqtree and the automatic bootstopping algorithm
(Pattengale et al. 2009). Alignments are provided in Supplementary Files 2-4 and 9-
11.
RESULTS
Transcriptome assemblies
12 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
To further study the outcomes of WGD in the ancestor of arachnopulmonates we
carried out RNA-Seq on embryos of two further spider species, P. amentata and M.
muscosa, and two species of amblypygids, C. acosta and E. bacillifer.
RNA-Seq for the four species produced between 222,479,664 and 272,844,971 raw
reads, reduced to 211,848,357 and 260,853,757 after processing. Trinity assembled
between 184,142 and 316,021 transcripts in up to 542,344 isoforms (Table 1).
Contig N50 ranged from 592 bp in M. muscosa to 978 bp in E. bacillifer, and from
1461 bp (M. muscosa) to 2671 bp (E. bacillifer) in the most highly expressed genes
(representing 90% of total normalized expression) (Table 1).
Transcriptomes were found to be between 83.7% (C. acosta) and 89.4% (E.
bacillifer) complete according to BUSCO scores compared to the arthropod
database, with between 3.5% and 9.5% duplicated BUSCOs. Compared to the
arachnid databases, transcriptomes were 82%-90.1% complete for single-copy
BUSCOs and contained between 5.3%-12.9% duplicated BUSCOs (Table 1).
To explore the extent of duplication in these arachnopulmonates we then surveyed
the copy number of Hox, Wnt and Frizzled genes in their transcriptomes in
comparison to other arachnids. It is important to note that the absence of genes
recovered from transcriptomes does not eliminate the possibility that they are
present in the genome, as the transcriptomes will only capture genes expressed at
the relevant point in development. Mixed-stage embryonic samples (all except E.
bacillifer) may yield more transcripts for the same reason.
Hox repertoires and their origins
13 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Spider Hox gene repertoires are largely consistent with Parasteatoda tepidariorum,
which has two copies of all except ftz (Figure 1). There are several exceptions:
single copies of Hox3 in Marpissa muscosa, Pardosa amentata and Pardosa
pseudoannulata, of Sex combs reduced (Scr) in Acanthoscurria geniculata and
Stegodyphus dumicola, of proboscipedia (pb) in A. geniculata, and of labial (lab) in
Pholcus phalangioides (Figure 1). Although we found two AbdB candidates in
Pardosa pseudoannulata, one of these did not contain a homeodomain and was
excluded from phylogenetic analyses. In contrast to Leite et al. (2018) we recovered
two copies of Ubx from P. phalangioides. The inclusion of additional sequences in
this analysis also helped resolve issues in gene homologies previously presented in
P. phalangioides by Leite et al. (2018).
Both amblypygids exhibit extensive duplication of Hox genes, with two copies
recovered for all except for pb in C. acosta and pb and Ubx in E. bacillifer (Figure 1).
The scorpions Mesobuthus martensii and Centruroides sculpturatus exhibited similar
Hox repertoires, with two copies recovered for all ten genes, except for a single copy
of Hox3 in C. sculpturatus.
Among the non-arachnopulmonate arachnids, I. scapularis and P. opilio exhibited no
duplication of any Hox genes, in line with previous genomic surveys (Leite et al.
2018; Gainett et al. 2021). In the mite Tetranychus urticae, we did not identify Hox3
and abdA candidates, consistent with Grbić et al. (2011) and Ontano et al. (2020).
However, our BLAST search did not recover the Antp-2 copy previously identified by
Grbić et al. (2011). The resolution of several sequences from T. urticae was variable;
for example, previously identified Tu-ftz-1, Tu-ftz-2, Tu-AbdB and Tu-Ubx sequences
14 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
(Grbić et al. 2011) did not resolve correctly in the full Hox tree (Figure 2) but did in
the homeodomain and homeobox trees (Supplementary Files 5-8).
We also surveyed two non-arachnid chelicerates, a pycnogonid Phoxichilidium
femoratum and the horseshoe crab Limulus polyphemus, the latter of which has
undergone multiple rounds of WGD independent of the arachnopulmonates (Kenny
et al. 2016; Nong et al. 2020). We recovered single copies of all Hox genes except
Ubx and abdA, which were not found, in Phoxichilidium femoratum, consistent with
Ballesteros et al. (2021; Figure 1). Limulus polyphemus returned multiple copies of
all Hox genes except ftz and Ubx, including three copies of lab, pb, Hox3, Scr and
AbdB, five potential copies of Dfd, and two copies of Antp and abdA (Figure 1).
Full protein sequences produced the best supported phylogeny: six nodes returned
support <50%. Two of these concerned the placement of outgroup (non-chelicerate)
sequences and one concerned the deeper relationship of the Hox3 and Pb clades,
which is beyond the scope of this study. The remaining three reflect uncertainty in
the within-clade placement of chelicerate sequences (Figure 2). An additional ten
nodes returned support of 50-60%, which we consider too weak to justify
interpretation. Analyses using protein sequences from homeodomains only
contained insufficient phylogenetic information to resolve within-clade relationships,
but confirmed gene identity (Supplementary Files 5-6). Nucleotide sequences of
homeodomains provided more within-clade resolution, but with lower support than
full protein sequences (Supplementary Files 7-8). Using full protein sequences, we
recover Antp as a paraphyletic group, albeit with low support (61%). The
homeodomain phylogenies (both protein and nucleotide) confirm the identity of these
sequences, indicating substantial sequence divergence outside of this conserved
15 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
region in several species. The following discussion is based on the phylogeny of the
full protein sequences (Figure 2).
Overall, the resolution of duplicate Hox sequences indicates that the majority are
likely to be ohnologs. In many cases, duplicates form well-supported clades of
orthologs, containing sequences from multiple Orders, suggesting a shared origin for
duplication. The majority of Hox genes are present in duplicate across the
arachnopulmonates, strengthening this pattern. Few duplicates form paralogous
pairs within species, or paired clades of paralogs within lineages, as would be
expected from lineage-specific duplications (although there are exceptions, such as
scorpion Lab and Antp, Figure 2).
For both abdA and AbdB, sequences broadly formed two overall clades; although
these were not well supported for AbdB (49-51%), relationships within them are still
informative. In both cases, spider sequences formed two distinct and well-supported
(>97%) clades that reflect overall phylogenetic relationships in their topology. The
amblypygid sequences resolved as two ortholog pairs, one in each of the two overall
clades. These are therefore strong candidates for ohnologs. Scorpion AbdB and
abdA were not consistent with this pattern; in both cases, one pair of orthologs
resolved together and one pair separately (Figure 2). Although this reflects a low
likelihood of a lineage-specific duplication of abdA and AbdB in scorpions, it does not
further clarify possible ohnolog relationships. Spider and scorpion Pb duplicates are
candidate ohnologs, resolving in two well-supported (>99%) clades of orthologs
whose topologies reflect phylogenetic relationships. Ftz duplicates in scorpions and
amblypygids also resolved with orthologs of other arachnopulmonates, but one set of
scorpion paralogs was placed with substantial uncertainty (support <60%). Most
spider and amblypygid Antp sequences follow the pattern expected of ohnologs,
16 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
forming two clades of orthologs, but three of the scorpion sequences formed a well-
supported clade (91%) while the fourth resolved within the small group of sequences
that fall outside the main Antp clade.
The origin of Ubx, Dfd, Lab, Hox3 and Scr duplicates in arachnopulmonates is not
clear from our phylogenetic analysis alone, with neither orthologs nor paralogs
resolving together consistently, and topology that is a poor reflection of phylogeny.
However, spider sequences broadly formed two clades with other
arachnopulmonates, and synteny analysis in both P. tepidariorum (Schwager et al.
2017) and Trichonephila antipodiana (Fan et al. 2021) demonstrate clearly that Hox
gene duplications therein are the result of WGD. The placement of the amblypygid
and scorpion duplicates was more variable. In some cases these also appear to
resolve as would be expected of ohnologs (e.g. amblypygid Hox3), but in others their
placement could indicate lineage-specific duplication, although usually with low
support (e.g. amblypygid Ubx).
It seems likely that having a single copy of ftz is common across all spiders (Figures
1-2), consistent with the loss of a duplicate in their common ancestor. A recently
published high-quality genome from Trichonephila antipodiana also reported a single
copy of ftz (Fan et al. 2021), as did another mygalomorph transcriptome,
Aphonopelma hentzi (Ontano et al. 2020). The absence of Hox3 duplicates in M.
muscosa, P. pseudoannulata and P. amentata may indicate a lineage-specific loss in
the RTA clade, which unites salticids, lycosids and their allies. Indeed, only one copy
of Hox3 was previously recovered in Cupiennius salei, which also belongs to the
RTA clade (Schwager et al. 2007). Although the absence of a second copy in the
embryonic transcriptomes could be attributed to failure to capture expression, both
C. salei and P. pseudoannulata yielded single copies from genomic DNA,
17 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
strengthening the case for a genuine loss. The P. tepidariorum Hox3-A sequence is
highly divergent, and its expression is very weak (Schwager et al. 2017); this could
indicate ongoing pseudogenisation. Other apparent losses of Hox gene duplicates
are restricted to transcriptomes of individual species, with the exception of Scr in
Stegodyphus dumicola, and could reflect failure to capture additional sequences.
The absence of a second copy of pb in both Charinus acosta and Euphrynichus
bacillifer, which are distantly related within Amblypygi, suggests a loss in the
common ancestor of amblypygids. Gainett and Sharma (2020) also recovered a
single copy of pb in Phrynus marginemaculatus, but two copies in Charinus
israelensis. However, one of these had an incomplete homeodomain (32 aa) that
was identical to the other C-isr protein sequence; we are hesitant about its status as
a duplicate. Embryos of C. acosta were collected at multiple stages of development,
supporting the hypothesis that this is a genuine loss, rather than absence of
expression at a particular developmental stage. However, the apparent absence of a
Ubx duplicate in E. bacillifer could equivocally indicate lineage-specific loss or
absence of expression at a single timepoint. In P. tepidariorum the two Ubx ohnologs
are expressed most strongly in close succession, at stages 8.1 and 8.2 (Schwager et
al. 2017), but this may not reflect relative expression patterns in amblypygids.
Wnt repertoires and their origins
Consistent with Parasteatoda tepidariorum (Janssen et al. 2010), we found
representatives of ten Wnt subfamilies in all surveyed spiders. The absence of Wnt9
and Wnt10 indicates their likely absence in the spider ancestor, while the absence of
Wnt3 is consistent with all other protostomes (Janssen et al. 2010; Murat et al. 2010;
Hogvall et al. 2014). Two copies of Wnt7 were retrieved from Marpissa muscosa,
18 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Pardosa amentata, Acanthoscurria geniculata, Pholcus phalangioides, P.
tepidariorum, Pardosa pseudoannulata and Stegodyphus dumicola. All spiders
except A. geniculata also yielded two copies of Wnt11. A second copy of Wnt4,
which is absent in P. tepidariorum, was recovered from P. amentata, M. muscosa, A.
geniculata, S. dumicola and P. pseudoannulata. We also found duplicates of
Wnt1/wg in both A. geniculata and P. pseudoannulata, and a duplicate of WntA in P.
pseudoannulata.
Representation of the Wnt subfamilies in the amblypygids is higher than any other
chelicerate studied to date, including those with high-quality genome assemblies
(Janssen et al. 2010; Hogvall et al. 2014; Holzem et al. 2019). We recovered
transcripts from twelve out of thirteen subfamilies (missing Wnt3) and duplicates of
Wnt1/wg, Wnt4, and Wnt7 in both species (Figure 3). Additional duplicates of Wnt6
and Wnt11 were recovered from Charinus acosta (Figure 3).
Representatives of ten Wnt subfamilies were found in the two scorpion genomes,
with both missing Wnt3, Wnt8 and Wnt9. Two copies of Wnt1/wg, Wnt6, Wnt7 and
Wnt11 were retrieved in both species, with an additional copy of Wnt4 in M.
martensii.
We found no evidence of Wnt gene duplication in the non-arachnopulmonate
arachnids (Figure 3). In the harvestman Phalangium opilio we recovered single
copies of all except Wnt2 and Wnt3. Ixodes scapularis was also missing Wnt10 but
was otherwise similar, whereas we also did not recover Wnt1/wg, Wnt7, Wnt9, or
Wnt11 in the mite Tetranychus urticae. In the non-arachnid chelicerates,
Phoxichilidium femoratum and Limulus polyphemus, we found similar representation
of the subfamilies, with all except Wnt3 and Wnt10 in P. femoratum and all except
19 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
these and Wnt9 in L. polyphemus. No duplicates were recovered in P. femoratum,
but large numbers of duplicates were found in L. polyphemus. These included six
potential copies of Wnt5 and Wnt7, four of Wnt11 and Wnt16, and five of WntA.
Only two nodes returned support <50%: one uniting Wnt8, Wnt9, Wnt10 and Wnt16
(39%), and one uniting Wnt1/wg, Wnt4, Wnt6 and Wnt11 (36%). These are
positioned deep within the tree and concern the interrelationships of the Wnt
subfamilies, which are beyond the scope of this study.
Most of the duplicate Wnt genes appear to be likely ohnologs; confirmation requires
synteny analysis, but the relationships between paralogs resolved by phylogenetic
analysis generally support duplications originating in the arachnopulmonate
ancestor.
Duplicates of Wnt7 were previously identified in P. tepidariorum (Janssen et al.
2010) and are recovered from all surveyed arachnopulmonates. The spider Wnt7
duplicates formed two clades (bootstrap ≥ 61%) suggesting the retention of ohnologs
(Figure 4). The amblypygid Wnt7 ortholog pairs resolve as sisters to the spider
clades, but support for these placements is lower (50-60%), and they display slightly
higher sequence similarity between paralogs (73-74%) than the spiders (60-72%).
The scorpion Wnt7 ortholog pairs formed their own separate clade with strong
support (92%; Figure 4), possibly indicating a lineage-specific duplication.
Nonetheless, the sequence divergence between the scorpion paralog pairs (68-70%)
is similar to that between putative ohnologs in spiders (60-72%).
Duplicates of Wnt11 previously identified in P. tepidariorum (Janssen et al. 2010)
were recovered from all surveyed spiders except A. geniculata, C. acosta, and both
scorpions. The spider Wnt11 duplicates formed two separate and well-supported
20 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
clades (≥ 85%, Figure 4), and each amblypygid Wnt11 orthology group was sister to
one of the spider clades (98-99%; Figure 4). Similarity between paralogs in the four
new transcriptomes was very low (41-54%). We propose that the spider and
amblypygid Wnt11 duplicates are probably retained from the ancestral WGD. The
resolution of the scorpion Wnt11 duplicates is less clear; ortholog pairs resolve
together with 100% support, but only one resolves as sister to the two clear clades
occupied by the spider and amblypygid duplicates (98%; Figure 4). They exhibit
similar sequence similarity (49-50%) to the putative ohnologs.
Wnt4 paralogs from M. muscosa, P. amentata, A. geniculata, P. pseudoannulata and
S. dumicola form two separate and well-supported clades with duplicates from the
amblypygids (bootstrap ≥ 91%). They show substantial sequence divergence within
species (53-64% similarity), indicating that they are again likely to represent retained
ohnologs following the arachnopulmonate WGD, despite being lost in the lineage to
P. tepidariorum.
We did not recover duplicates of Wnt2, Wnt5, Wnt8-10, or Wnt16 in any
arachnopulmonate lineage. This suggests their loss shortly after WGD in the
common ancestor of all arachnopulmonates. Two dissimilar overlapping partial
sequences of WntA were recovered from the genome of P. pseudoannulata, but
these resolve as sister to one another (Figure 4) and are located on the same
scaffold, indicating a lineage-specific tandem duplication. We therefore suggest that
the WntA duplicate resulting from WGD was also lost in the spider ancestor.
We identified two copies of Wnt1/wg in the transcriptomes of both amblypygids and
A. geniculata, and in the genomes of P. pseudoannulata, C. sculpturatus, and M.
martensii. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first duplication of Wnt1/wg
21 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
reported in any animal. This requires critical interpretation. We can eliminate the
possibility of individual variation in C. acosta, as embryos are produced by
parthenogenesis and are therefore clones, and in C. sculpturatus and S. dumicola,
as the sequences were recovered from a single individual’s genome (Supplementary
File 1). Sequence similarity between paralogs was low (55-73%) compared to
similarity between orthologs at the order level (e.g. 91% between M. muscosa and P.
amentata), and comparable to orthologs at the class level (e.g. 61% between P.
tepidariorum and Ixodes scapularis), reducing the likelihood that we are detecting
allelic variation within individuals. We also inspected nucleotide alignments and
found lower paralog sequence similarity than evident from amino acid sequences
(65-69%), indicating synonymous evolution. Although synteny analysis is required for
conclusive confirmation, our phylogeny indicates that the amblypygid, scorpion, and
A. geniculata duplicates are likely to be ohnologs retained from the
arachnopulmonate WGD, as they form separate clades (≥ 70%, Figure 4). The
putative duplicates in P. pseudoannulata, in contrast, resolve as sister to one
another. These two sequences have (short) non-identical overlapping regions, but
they are partial. It is equivocal whether they represent a genuine, lineage-specific
duplication.
Frizzled repertoires and their origins
All surveyed spiders possess at least one copy of FzI and FzII, with a second copy
recovered from the genome of Stegodyphus dumicola and the transcriptome of
Marpissa muscosa, respectively (Figure 5). FzIII was absent from the transcriptomes
of M. muscosa and P. amentata, and the genomes of S. dumicola and P.
pseudoannulata, consistent with P. tepidariorum (Janssen et al. 2015). However,
single FzIII orthologs were recovered from Acanthoscurria geniculata and previously
22 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
identified in Pholcus phalangioides (Janssen et al. 2015). Thus, entelegynes may
universally lack fz3 but it was likely present in the ancestor of all spiders. Consistent
with P. tepidariorum (Janssen et al. 2015), we identified two FzIV sequences in S.
dumicola and A. geniculata, but only one in M. muscosa, P. amentata and P.
pseudoannulata and only one was previously recovered from P. phalangioides
(Janssen et al. 2015). Janssen et al. (2015) demonstrated that the expression of the
two fz4 paralogs in P. tepidariorum is separated temporally, so we might not expect
to detect both transcripts in developing embryos of similar stages. However, this
does not explain the absence of a FzIV duplicate from the genome of P.
pseudoannulata.
Both amblypygid species have a large repertoire of frizzled genes compared to other
arachnids, with duplicates of FzI, FIII and FzIV in both species and an additional
duplicate of FzII in Charinus acosta (Figures 5).
The scorpions Mesobuthus martensii (Janssen et al. 2015) and Centruroides
sculpturatus possess single FzI and FzIII orthologs and a duplication of FzIV. We
also recovered a FzII ortholog in C. sculpturatus, and a FzI duplicate in M. martensii.
Among the non-arachnopulmonate arachnids, Ixodes scapularis possesses a single
copy of all four orthology groups, but FzIII was absent in Phalangium opilio and
Tetranychus urticae. A FzII duplicate was recovered from Tetranychus urticae.
Phoxichilidium femoratum and Limulus polyphemus possess all four orthology
groups. No duplicates were recovered in P. femoratum. Five copies of FzI and FzII
and three copies of FzIII and FzIV were recovered from L. polyphemus (Figure 5).
Frizzled paralogs appear to stem from both WGD events and lineage-specific
duplications. FzI duplicates were recovered from both amblypygid transcriptomes, M.
23 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
martensii, and S. dumicola. The Sd-Fz1 and Me-Fz1 paralog pairs exhibit high
sequence similarity (>73%) and resolved as sisters with 100% bootstrap support,
indicating that these are likely the results of lineage-specific duplications.
Conversely, the amblypygid Fz1-1 and Fz1-2 ortholog pairs form separate clades
with the Fz1 sequences from spiders and scorpions, respectively (Figure 6). We
therefore interpret these duplicates as ohnologs.
Duplicates of FzII were recovered from M. muscosa and C. acosta. The Mm-Fz2
paralogs form a well-supported clade (79%; Figure 6), indicating that this is the result
of a lineage-specific duplication followed by rapid sequence divergence in Mm-Fz2-2
(53% sequence similarity). The origin of the FzII duplication in Charinus acosta is not
clear. Ca-Fz2-1 resolves as a sister group to the spider Fz2 sequences (99%; Figure
6) and Ca-Fz2-2 forms a clade with Eb-Fz2, which in turn resolves as sister to the
Ca-Fz2-1 and spider sequences (93%; Figure 6). This topology could support an
ohnolog relationship between Ca-Fz2-1 and Ca-Fz2-2 but cannot be confirmed.
Sequence similarity between the C. acosta paralogs is relatively high (82%), perhaps
higher than expected from ohnologs.
The origin of the amblypygid FzIII duplicates is also unclear. One ortholog pair forms
a clade with L. polyphemus Fz3 (66%; Figure 6) and the other forms a clade with the
spiders and scorpions (≥ 70%; Figure 6). This suggests an origin in WGD, but
support for their placement is not strong (66%, Figure 6). Paralogous pairs
demonstrate middling sequence similarity (65-66%).
Both amblypygids and scorpions, and the spiders P. tepidariorum, S. dumicola and
A. geniculata, possess FzIV duplicates. The spider Fz4 sequences formed two
separate and well-supported clades (100%; Figure 6). The amblypygid ortholog pairs
24 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
resolved as sister to the two spider clades (98%; Figure 6). The scorpion ortholog
pairs, however, formed a clade together (76% support; Figure 6) which is sister to all
the spider and amblypygid Fz4 sequences (82%; Figure 6). All paralogous pairs
exhibited substantial sequence divergence (similarity 44-58%). We propose that the
spider and amblypygid FzIV duplicates are retained from the ancestral WGD;
however, once again, the origin of the scorpion FzIV duplicates is less clear, and
may reflect a lineage-specific duplication.
DISCUSSION
The impact of WGD on genome evolution is evident across the three gene families
surveyed here, but it appears that retention patterns of putative ohnologs vary
substantially between them. We also see distinct phylogenetic patterns beginning to
emerge in gene repertoires, with improved sampling within lineages enabling us to
distinguish between possible signal and likely noise. Of course, transcriptomic data
come with necessary caveats regarding gene expression and capture, and absences
from transcriptomes should be regarded with caution. However, where patterns are
consistent across multiple species, or better, between transcriptomic and genomic
resources, we can be more confident about their authenticity. For example,
comparisons of the transcriptome of Pardosa amentata and the genome of Pardosa
pseudoannulata show identical Hox and Fz repertoires, indicating good gene capture
in the former. The apparent duplicates of Wnt1/wg and WntA in P. pseudoannulata
that were not recovered in P. amentata are of uncertain status (partial sequences,
phylogenetic position) and were absent from all other spider genomes.
Hox duplicates are broadly retained, with slight variation between major clades
25 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
The widespread retention of duplicate Hox genes is consistent among the
arachnopulmonate orders studied to date, and specific repertoires appear to be fairly
conserved at the order level (Schwager et al. 2007; Cao et al. 2013; Di et al. 2015;
Schwager et al. 2017; Leite et al. 2018; Ontano et al. 2020). Given that this is the
level at which overall body plans are conserved, this is perhaps not surprising.
Thanks to the relatively conserved expression patterns of Hox genes along the
antero-posterior axis of chelicerates, we can begin to speculate about the possible
macroevolutionary implications of duplication and loss. For example, an anticipated
duplicate of pb appears to have been lost in both amblypygids but persists in spiders
and scorpions. In spiders, both pb paralogs are expressed in the pedipalp and leg-
bearing segments, separated temporally (Schwager et al. 2017). Given the highly
derived nature of the raptorial pedipalps and the antenniform first pair of walking legs
in amblypygids, it is perhaps surprising that this duplicate was not retained.
However, this might indicate that other Hox genes expressed in the anterior
prosomal segments (e.g. lab, Hox3, or Dfd) may contribute to these morphological
innovations. Recent work by Gainett and Sharma (Gainett and Sharma 2020)
examining the specification of the antenniform legs found little difference in Distal-
less, dachshund or homothorax expression between that and posterior leg pairs,
indicating that these are not likely to be responsible. A good candidate for future
study might be lab: a single ortholog is expressed in both the pedipalps and the first
walking leg in the harvestman Phalangium opilio (Sharma et al. 2012), and
expression patterns and experimental manipulation provide evidence for functional
divergence between the two lab paralogs, also expressed in the pedipalps and first
walking legs, in P. tepidariorum (Pechmann et al. 2015; Schomburg et al. 2020).
26 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Likewise, the seemingly universal absence of a ftz duplicate in spiders, but its
retention in scorpions and amblypygids, poses a similar question. In both P. opilio
(Sharma et al. 2012) and P. tepidariorum (Schwager et al. 2017), a single copy of ftz
is expressed in leg pairs 2-4, implying that spiders have not lost ftz functionality by
losing a duplicate. Any subfunctionalization or neofunctionalization that could be
evident in scorpion and amblypygid ftz had therefore presumably not taken place at
the point of their divergence from spiders. Expression patterns of the two paralogs in
these groups would be of interest for comparison with both harvestmen and spiders.
Given that neither scorpions nor amblypygids exhibit much divergence within L2-4,
there are no obvious routes for subfunctionalization.
The potential loss of a Hox3 duplicate in the spider RTA clade would be an unusual
example of infraorder variation in Hox repertoires, if it represents a true absence.
The consistency of this finding between both transcriptomic and genomic resources
supports this conclusion. In P. tepidariorum, Hox3-A and Hox3-B exhibit dramatic
protein sequence divergence (20.6% similarity). Both copies are expressed in the
embryo, with their expression overlapping spatially and temporally but not identical,
indicating some functional divergence; however, Hox3-A expression was reported to
be very weak (Schwager et al. 2017). In the other spiders for which we recovered
Hox3 duplicates, paralogs also exhibited very low sequence similarities (24.7-
30.6%), and these duplicates had very low similarity to each other (17.2-30.1%,
compared to 33-58.2% between those resolving with other spider Hox3 sequences).
In all cases, one resolved within a well-supported clade of spider Hox3 and the other
was placed haphazardly. We speculate that the Hox3 duplicate is highly divergent or
degenerate in spiders, leading to eventual pseudogenization in the RTA clade. As
other infraorder losses of Hox genes were only observed in single species, some
27 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
from embryonic transcriptomes, it would be premature to conclude that they are
genuinely absent from the genome.
The retention of Wnt duplicates is more specific, but with some surprises
In contrast to the widespread retention of Hox duplicates, these new data indicate
that the retention of duplicate Wnt genes is less common and restricted to certain
subfamilies. Apparent ohnologs of Wnt4, Wnt7 and Wnt11 are retained in the
majority of arachnopulmonates, for example, but Wnt2, Wnt5, Wnt8-10, and Wnt16
are present in single copies across the board. These patterns could reflect early
losses, by chance, of duplicates, or differential ‘evolvability’ of Wnt subfamilies. The
fact that retention patterns appear to differ between the arachnopulmonate and
horseshoe crab independent WGD events lends support to the former hypothesis.
Our understanding of specific Wnt functions among arthropods is more limited than
that of Hox genes, but Wnt expression patterns in Parasteatoda tepidariorum are
available for tentative comparison. For example, previous attempts to characterise
the expression patterns of Wnt11 paralogs in P. tepidariorum only detected
expression of Wnt11-2 (Janssen et al. 2010). Given the retention of Wnt11-1 in both
spiders and scorpions, and the considerable divergence between paralogous
sequences, Wnt11 could be a good candidate for sub- or neofunctionalization, but
the role of Wnt11-1 remains unknown. Conversely, the presence of two apparent
Wnt4 ohnologs in spiders and amblypygids (Figures 3-4) contrasts with the retention
of only one Wnt4 in P. tepidariorum. The role of the additional copy, particularly in
spiders, will be of future interest and expression patterns of Wnt4-2 in these groups
will help to clarify this. Although it is possible that the second copy is redundant or in
the process of pseudogenization, the fact that both ohnologs are retained in two
28 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
large clades, with detectable levels of expression during development, suggests that
this is not the case. Thus, its absence in P. tepidariorum unexpectedly appears to be
the exception.
The discovery of duplicate Wnt1/wg in scorpions, amblypygids and mygalomorphs is
particularly exciting: duplicates of this Wnt gene have not yet been detected in any
other metazoans, even following multiple rounds of WGD in vertebrates, teleosts
(see https://web.stanford.edu/group/nusselab/cgi-bin/wnt/vertebrate), or horseshoe
crabs. Wnt1/wg performs a wide variety of roles in arthropods, including in segment
polarization and in appendage and nervous system development (Murat et al. 2010)
and has an accordingly complex expression pattern in P. tepidariorum, appearing in
the L1 and L2 segments, limb buds, and dorsal O2 and O3 segments (Janssen et al.
2010). In theory, therefore, there is ample potential for subfunctionalization. Gene
expression and functional studies of Wnt1/wg duplicates in arachnopulmonates will
no doubt prove extremely interesting in the future.
The presence of Wnt10 in both amblypygids and Phalangium opilio is also intriguing
because it is absent from all other chelicerates surveyed so far. Whether this
indicates multiple losses of Wnt10 in all other arachnid lineages, the recovery of a
lost Wnt10 in amblypygids and harvestmen, or the co-option of another gene, is
unclear. It is notable, however, that Wnt10 is also absent in both Limulus
polyphemus and Phoxichilidium femoratum, non-arachnid chelicerates. This might
favour the recovery or co-option hypotheses.
Fz repertoires vary substantially
Previous studies of spiders, scorpions, and ticks indicated that Frizzled repertoires in
these groups are restricted to three or four copies, often with incomplete
29 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
representation of the four orthology groups (Janssen et al. 2015). The spiders
Marpissa muscosa, Stegodyphus dumicola, Pardosa pseudoannulata and Pardosa
amentata are consistent with this pattern, albeit with a unique duplication of FzII in
the jumping spider. We also recovered a single copy of FzII in Centruroides
sculpturatus, which is absent in Mesobuthus martensii, and a FzI duplicate in M.
martensii that was previously missed. In contrast, all four frizzled subfamilies were
recovered in both amblypygid species, with three present in duplicate in
Euphrynichus bacillifer and four in Charinus acosta. Based on our data, it appears
that the frizzled repertoire of amblypygids is around twice the size of all other
arachnids and may have followed a very different evolutionary trajectory to spiders
and scorpions following WGD. The expanded repertoire of frizzled genes in
amblypygids is intriguing since they have the widest Wnt repertoires, via both
duplication and representation of the subfamilies (Wu and Nusse 2002). However,
although frizzled genes encode key receptors for Wnt ligands, they have other Wnt-
independent functions, so the expansion of the frizzled gene repertoire could be
equally related to the evolution of alternative signalling roles (Janssen et al. 2015; Yu
et al. 2020).
Arachnopulmonate genome evolution in the wake of WGD
Our new analyses provide a thorough survey of Hox, Wnt and frizzled genes in
arachnids, and substantially improve the density and breadth of taxonomic sampling
for these key developmental genes in Arachnopulmonata. We find evidence of
consistent evolutionary trajectories in Hox and Wnt gene repertoires across three of
the five arachnopulmonate orders, with inter-order variation in the retention of
specific paralogs. We have also identified intraorder variation at the level of major
clades in spiders, which could help us better understand their morphological
30 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
evolution. In new data for a third arachnopulmonate lineage, the amblypygids, we
find additional evidence supporting an ancestral WGD and are better able to
reconstruct the chronology of gene duplications and losses in spiders and scorpions.
These transcriptomic resources are among the first available for amblypygids and
will aid future investigations of this fascinating group.
By improving taxonomic coverage within the spider lineage we are better able to
polarise some loss/duplication events and identify potential new trends within the
spiders, particularly illustrating separations between synspermiatan and entelegyne
spiders, and between the derived RTA clade and other spiders. Despite being
unable to ultimately conclude that some missing transcripts reflect genuine genomic
losses, it appears that the evolution of these developmental genes in spiders is more
complicated than we thought. It may be that these gene repertoires are genuinely
more variable within spiders than they are in amblypygids or scorpions; spiders are
by far the most taxonomically diverse arachnopulmonate order, and the apparent
diversity of repertoires may simply reflect this. Conversely, the higher apparent
intraorder diversity of gene repertoires may be an artefact of increased sampling in
spiders (up to four or five species for specific gene families) compared to the one or
two available resources for scorpions and amblypygids; we may detect more
diversity within these groups with increased sampling. Nonetheless, we see two
notable trends within spiders, outlined below.
First, we see several characters that appear to unite the RTA clade, which contains
almost half of all extant spider species (World Spider Catalog 2019), having
diversified rapidly following its divergence from the orb weavers (Garrison et al.
2016; Fernández et al. 2018; Shao and Li 2018). Marpissa muscosa, Pardosa
amentata, and Pardosa pseudoannulata all exhibit the apparent loss of Hox3 and fz4
31 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
paralogs and the retention of a Wnt4 duplicate. The identification of genetic trends
potentially uniting this group is exciting, even if the macroevolutionary implications
are unclear: as described above, the possible functions of a Wnt4 paralog are
elusive. Members of the RTA clade are very derived compared to other
araneomorph spiders, both morphologically (e.g. male pedipalp morphology and
sophisticated eyes) and ecologically (most are wandering hunters), and their rapid
diversification would align with clade-specific genetic divergence (Garrison et al.
2016; Fernández et al. 2018; Shao and Li 2018).
Second, although data are only available for single representatives of the
plesiomorphic clades Synspermiata (Pholcus phalangioides) and Mygalomorphae
(Acanthoscurria geniculata), these hint at lineage-specific losses of Hox paralogs
and recover the only examples of FzIII found in spiders so far. The presence of FzIII
is consistent with other arachnopulmonate groups and suggests that it was present
in the spider ancestor and only lost in the more derived entelegyne lineages. If
selected Hox duplicates are indeed absent from the genomes of these two species,
this represents an interesting divergence between the three major groups of spiders.
Although it may seem unusual for Hox duplicates to be lost within lineages, a recent
high-quality genome of Trichonephila antipodiana revealed likely absences of Hox3,
Ubx and abdA ohnologs in addition to ftz (Fan et al. 2021). Though they are unlikely
to be directly responsible, the apparent divergence in gene repertoires we see
between A. geniculata, P. phalangioides and the other spider lineages might provide
a starting point for understanding the important morphological differences between
mygalomorphs, synspermiatans and entelegynes. However, genomic information for
additional taxa in both groups is required to verify these potential losses.
32 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
The amblypygids emerge as a key group of interest for studying the impacts of WGD
owing to their high levels of ohnolog retention. Our transcriptomes, from
representatives of two major clades, provide new evidence supporting a WGD in the
ancestor of arachnopulmonates and demonstrating widespread retention of ohnologs
in three major families of developmental genes (consistent with the retention of many
duplicated regulators of eye development in other species, Gainett et al. 2020). In all
three gene families we studied, repertoires were largest in the amblypygid species.
This was particularly the case in Charinus acosta, which belongs to the less
speciose and more plesiomorphic infraorder Charinidae within living Amblypygi.
Although this study represents just two amblypygid species and three gene families,
this appears to contradict widespread predictions of diversification with the
duplication of important developmental genes such as Hox (e.g. Van De Peer et al.
2009). Of particular interest are the amblypygid Wnt gene repertoires. We have
identified from their transcriptomes, and from the published genome of Centruroides
sculpturatus, the first reported duplicates of Wnt1/wg in any animal, as well as the
first reported Wnt10 in any arachnid. Future functional studies of these genes and
their expression during development will be critical to understanding the evolutionary
impacts of these unusual components of amblypygid gene repertoires. Amblypygids
also represent a potential model group for studying the evolution of arthropod body
plans, owing to the unusual and derived morphology of the pedipalps and especially
the first walking legs. Thanks to a substantial existing body of work on anterior-
posterior patterning, segmentation and appendage development in spiders and other
arachnids, we may have a chance to crack the genetic underpinnings of these
dramatic evolutionary innovations (Pechmann et al. 2009; Sharma et al. 2012;
33 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Sharma et al. 2014; Turetzek et al. 2016; Schwager et al. 2017; Turetzek et al. 2017;
Schomburg et al. 2020; Baudouin-Gonzalez et al. 2021) .
Finally, our analysis of existing genomic data for Centruroides sculpturatus and
Mesobuthus martensii has recovered several Wnt and Frizzled gene duplications,
similar to spiders and amblypygids. However, in contrast to those groups, our
phylogenies have sometimes supported within-lineage duplication in scorpions, as
opposed to the retention of ohnologs following WGD, even when these are observed
in spiders and amblypygids. This was the case for AbdB, Wnt1/wg, Wnt6, Wnt7, and
FzIV (Figures 2,4,6). However, levels of sequence similarity in these cases were
comparable for C. sculpturatus paralogs and amblypygid and spider ohnologs, when
we might expect within-lineage duplicates to show higher similarity. The resolution of
the paralogous sequences in our phylogenetic analyses could be confounded by the
early-branching position of scorpions within Arachnopulmonata, which means
paralogs would be expected to appear towards the bottom of ortholog clades and are
more vulnerable to movement. Nonetheless, this pattern emerged multiple times in
our analyses and may be of future interest.
Both arachnopulmonates and horseshoe crabs have been subject to WGD.
Comparison between these independent events is a useful tool in studying WGD,
spanning smaller phylogenetic distances than arachnopulmonate-vertebrate
comparisons. From the three gene families surveyed here, both patterns and
inconsistencies emerge. As in arachnopulmonates, Hox gene duplicates appear to
be overwhelmingly retained, even in triplet or quadruplet in some cases, in Limulus
polyphemus. Ftz is an interesting exception that aligns with the absence of
duplicates in spiders, but not scorpions or amblypygids. However, the apparent loss
of all Ubx and two abdA duplicates stands at odds with the arachnopulmonates,
34 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
wherein these are largely retained. Wnt repertoires follow a similar pattern to
arachnopulmonates - only select genes are retained in duplicate - but its application
is very different: for example, whereas Wnt4 duplicates are common in
arachnopulmonates, they are completely absent in L. polyphemus, and vice versa for
Wnt5. There are, however, some Wnts that are commonly or even universally
present in single copies following both independent WGD events, potentially
indicating low potential for sub- or neofunctionalization, such as Wnt8, Wnt6 and
Wnt1/wg.
Overall, our new data provide further evidence of an ancestral arachnopulmonate
WGD, identify evolutionary patterns within gene families following WGD, reveal new
diversity in spider gene repertoires, better contextualise existing data from spiders
and scorpions, and broaden the phylogenetic scope of available data for future
researchers. However, other arachnid groups, both with and without ancestral WGD,
require further study. Recent work on two pseudoscorpions recovered duplicates of
most Hox genes (Ontano et al. 2020), in contrast to previous surveys (Leite et al.
2018). This not only further supports arachnopulmonate WGD but substantially
improves our understanding of pseudoscorpion placement within arachnids, which
has been historically problematic. The sequencing of a pseudoscorpion genome
provides the tantalising chance to add a fourth lineage to future studies of WGD and
its impacts (Ontano et al. 2020). The remaining arachnopulmonate orders,
thlyphonids (vinegaroons or whip scorpions) and schizomids, form a clade with
amblypygids (Pedipalpi) and should also have been subject to the
arachnopulmonate WGD. Future work on these groups will shed light on the unusual
patterns of gene retention we find in both major clades of amblypygids. Non-
arachnopulmonate arachnids are invaluable for contextualising the changes that
35 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
occur following WGD, both in terms of gene repertoires and of gene function.
Genomic resources and gene expression pattern studies are vital for this, and the
harvestman Phalangium opilio has emerged as the clear model species (Sharma et
al. 2012; Gainett et al. 2021). The ability to compare rates of sequence divergence,
within-lineage gene duplication, and, eventually, functional properties of
developmental genes in these groups will provide critical comparative data for
arachnopulmonates.
Availability of data and materials
Alignments and gene accession numbers are included as supplementary information
files. Transcriptomes are available via SRA (BioProject PRJNA707377). Assemblies
will be made publicly available upon acceptance for publication.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Funding
This work was supported by the John Fell Fund, University of Oxford (award
0005632 to LSR), NERC (NE/T006854/1 to APM and LSR), the Leverhulme Trust
(RPG-2016-234 and RPG-2020-237 to APM and LSR, respectively), and the
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) (grant number
BB/M011224/1). These funding bodies were not involved in the design of this study,
data collection or analysis, or in writing the manuscript.
Authors’ contributions
36 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
AH analysed assembled transcriptomes, identified gene candidates, performed
phylogenetic analyses, interpreted data, prepared figures and wrote sections of the
manuscript. LBG contributed to data analysis and interpretation. AS processed
embryos and performed RNA extractions. RJ provided data for Pholcus
phalangioides and Phalangium opilio. MS provided amblypygid embryos. MH
provided sequence data and contributed to phylogenetic analysis. SA assembled
transcriptomes, analysed assembly quality and wrote sections of the manuscript.
APM designed and supervised the project, contributed to data interpretation and
analysis, and wrote sections of the manuscript. LSR designed and supervised the
project, performed phylogenetic analyses, interpreted data, prepared figures and
wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
The authors are very grateful to Philip Steinhoff and Gabriele Uhl (University of
Greifswald) for providing embryos of Marpissa muscosa, to Matthias Pechmann
(University of Köln), Natascha Turetzek (Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich)
and Prashant Sharma (University of Wisconsin Madison) for providing assembled
transcriptomes of Acanthoscurria geniculata, Pholcus phalangioides and Phalangium
opilio, respectively, to Nathan Kenny for helpful comments on the manuscript, and to
Simon Ellis (University of Oxford) for IT support.
37 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
REFERENCES
Abzhanov A, Popadic A, Kaufman TC. 1999. Chelicerate Hox genes and the
homology of arthropod segments. Evol Dev. 1(2):77–89. doi:10.1046/j.1525-
142x.1999.99014.x.
van Amerongen R, Nusse R. 2009. Towards an integrated view of Wnt signaling in
development. Development. 136(19):3205–3214. doi:10.1242/dev.033910.
Andrews S. 2010. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data.
http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc.
Ballesteros JA, Setton EVW, Santibáñez-López CE, Arango CP, Brenneis G, Brix S,
Corbett KF, Cano-Sánchez E, Dandouch M, Dilly GF, et al. 2021. Phylogenomic
resolution of sea spider diversification through integration of multiple data classes.
Mol Biol Evol. 38(2):686–701. doi:10.1093/molbev/msaa228.
Baudouin-Gonzalez L, Schoenauer A, Harper A, Blakeley G, Seiter M, Arif S,
Sumner-Rooney L, Russell S, Sharma PP, McGregor AP. 2021. The evolution of
Sox gene repertoires and regulation of segmentation in arachnids. Mol Biol Evol.:1–
31. doi:10.1093/molbev/msab088.
Bolognesi R, Beermann A, Farzana L, Wittkopp N, Lutz R, Balavoine G, Brown SJ,
Schröder R. 2008. Tribolium Wnts: Evidence for a larger repertoire in insects with
overlapping expression patterns that suggest multiple redundant functions in
embryogenesis. Dev Genes Evol. 218(3–4):193–202. doi:10.1007/s00427-007-0170-
3.
Cadigan KM, Nusse R. 1997. Wnt signaling: A common theme in animal
development. Genes Dev. 11(24):3286–3305. doi:10.1101/gad.11.24.3286.
38 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Cao Z, Yu Y, Wu Y, Hao P, Di Z, He Y, Chen Z, Yang W, Shen Z, He X, et al. 2013.
The genome of Mesobuthus martensii reveals a unique adaptation model of
arthropods. Nat Commun. 4. doi:10.1038/ncomms3602.
Carroll S, Grenier J, Weatherbee S. 2005. From DNA to diversity. London: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
Chipman AD, Ferrier DEK, Brena C, Qu J, Hughes DST, Schröder R, Torres-Oliva
M, Znassi N, Jiang H, Almeida FC, et al. 2014. The first myriapod genome sequence
reveals conservative arthropod gene content and genome organisation in the
centipede Strigamia maritima. PLoS Biol. 12(11). doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002005.
Cho SJ, Vallès Y, Giani VC, Seaver EC, Weisblat DA. 2010. Evolutionary dynamics
of the wnt gene family: A lophotrochozoan perspective. Mol Biol Evol. 27(7):1645–
1658. doi:10.1093/molbev/msq052.
Clarke TH, Garb JE, Hayashi CY, Arensburger P, Ayoub NA. 2015. Spider
transcriptomes identify ancient large-scale gene duplication event potentially
important in silk gland evolution. Genome Biol Evol. 7(7):1856–1870.
doi:10.1093/gbe/evv110.
Clarke TH, Garb JE, Hayashi CY, Haney RA, Lancaster AK, Corbett S, Ayoub NA.
2014. Multi-tissue transcriptomics of the black widow spider reveals expansions, co-
options, and functional processes of the silk gland gene toolkit. BMC Genomics.
15(1):1–17. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-15-365.
Dehal P, Boore JL. 2005. Two rounds of whole genome duplication in the ancestral
vertebrate. PLoS Biol. 3(10). doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030314.
Di Z, Yu Y, Wu Y, Hao P, He Y, Zhao H, Li Y, Zhao G, Li X, Li W, et al. 2015.
39 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Genome-wide analysis of homeobox genes from Mesobuthus martensii reveals Hox
gene duplication in scorpions. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 61:25–33.
doi:10.1016/j.ibmb.2015.04.002.
Donoghue PCJ, Purnell MA. 2005. Genome duplication, extinction and vertebrate
evolution. Trends Ecol Evol. 20(6 SPEC. ISS.):312–319.
doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.04.008.
Erwin DH. 2009. Early origin of the bilaterian developmental toolkit. Philos Trans R
Soc B Biol Sci. 364(1527):2253–2261. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0038.
Fan Z, Yuan T, Liu P, Wang L-Y, Jin J-F, Zhang F, Zhang Z-S. 2021. A
chromosome-level genome of the spider Trichonephila antipodiana reveals the
genetic basis of its polyphagy and evidence of an ancient whole-genome duplication
event. Gigascience. 10(3):1–15. doi:10.1093/gigascience/giab016.
Fernández R, Kallal RJ, Dimitrov D, Ballesteros JA, Arnedo MA, Giribet G, Hormiga
G. 2018. Phylogenomics, diversification dynamics, and comparative transcriptomics
across the spider Tree of Life. Curr Biol. 28(9):1489-1497.e5.
doi:10.1016/j.cub.2018.03.064.
Flot JF, Hespeels B, Li X, Noel B, Arkhipova I, Danchin EGJ, Hejnol A, Henrissat B,
Koszul R, Aury JM, et al. 2013. Genomic evidence for ameiotic evolution in the
bdelloid rotifer Adineta vaga. Nature. 500(7463):453–457. doi:10.1038/nature12326.
Force A, Lynch M, Pickett FB, Amores A, Yan YL, Postlethwait J. 1999. Preservation
of duplicate genes by complementary, degenerative mutations. Genetics.
151(4):1531–1545.
Gainett G, Ballesteros J, Kanzler C, Zehms J, Zern J, Aharon S, Gavish-Regev E,
40 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Sharma P. 2020. How spiders make their eyes: Systemic paralogy and function of
retinal determination network homologs in arachnids. BMC Genomics.:1–17.
doi:10.1101/2020.04.28.067199.
Gainett G, González VL, Ballesteros JA, Setton EVW, Baker CM, Barolo Gargiulo L,
Santibáñez-López CE, Coddington JA, Sharma PP. 2021. The genome of a daddy-
long-legs (Opiliones) illuminates the evolution of arachnid appendages and
chelicerate genome architecture. bioRxiv. 2021.01.11.426205.
Gainett G, Sharma PP. 2020. Genomic resources and toolkits for developmental
study of whip spiders (Amblypygi) provide insights into arachnid genome evolution
and antenniform leg patterning. Evodevo. 11(1):1–18. doi:10.1186/s13227-020-
00163-w.
Garrison NL, Rodriguez J, Agnarsson I, Coddington JA, Griswold CE, Hamilton CA,
Hedin M, Kocot KM, Ledford JM, Bond JE. 2016. Spider phylogenomics: untangling
the spider Tree of Life. PeerJ. 4. doi:10.7717/peerj.1719.
Glasauer SMK, Neuhauss SCF. 2014. Whole-genome duplication in teleost fishes
and its evolutionary consequences. Mol Genet Genomics. 289(6):1045–1060.
doi:10.1007/s00438-014-0889-2.
Grbić M, Van Leeuwen T, Clark RM, Rombauts S, Rouzé P, Grbić V, Osborne EJ,
Dermauw W, Ngoc PCT, Ortego F, et al. 2011. The genome of Tetranychus urticae
reveals herbivorous pest adaptations. Nature. 479(7374):487–492.
doi:10.1038/nature10640.
Haas BJ, Papanicolaou A, Yassour M, Grabherr M, Blood PD, Bowden J, Couger
MB, Eccles D, Li B, Lieber M, et al. 2013. De novo transcript sequence
41 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
reconstruction from RNA-Seq: reference generation and analysis with Trinity.
Hamilton FS, Wheeler GN, Hoppler S. 2001. Difference in XTcf-3 dependency
accounts for change in response to β-catenin-mediated Wnt signalling in Xenopus
blastula. Development. 128(11):2063–2073.
Havlak P, Putnam NH, Yue J-X, Brockmann HJ, Nossa CW, Vincent KY, Lv J. 2014.
Joint assembly and genetic mapping of the Atlantic horseshoe crab genome reveals
ancient whole genome duplication. Gigascience. 3(1):1–21. doi:10.1186/2047-217x-
3-9.
Hayden L, Arthur W. 2013. Expression patterns of Wnt genes in the venom claws of
centipedes. Evol Dev. 15(5):365–372. doi:10.1111/ede.12044.
Hogvall M, Schönauer A, Budd GE, McGregor AP, Posnien N, Janssen R. 2014.
Analysis of the Wnt gene repertoire in an onychophoran provides new insights into
the evolution of segmentation. Evodevo. 5(1):1–15. doi:10.1186/2041-9139-5-14.
Holland LZ. 2013. Evolution of new characters after whole genome duplications:
Insights from amphioxus. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 24(2):101–109.
doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2012.12.007.
Holland PWH. 2013. Evolution of homeobox genes. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol.
2(1):31–45. doi:10.1002/wdev.78.
Holland PWH, Garcia-Fernandez J, Williams NA, Sidow A. 1994. Gene duplications
and the origins of vertebrate development. Development. 120:125–133.
Holzem M, Braak N, Brattström O, McGregor AP, Breuker CJ. 2019. Wnt gene
expression during early embryogenesis in the nymphalid butterfly Bicyclus anynana.
42 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Front Ecol Evol. 7(December). doi:10.3389/fevo.2019.00468.
Hueber SD, Lohmann I. 2008. Shaping segments: Hox gene function in the genomic
age. BioEssays. 30(10):965–979. doi:10.1002/bies.20823.
Janssen R, Le Gouar M, Pechmann M, Poulin F, Bolognesi R, Schwager EE, Hopfen
C, Colbourne JK, Budd GE, Brown SJ, et al. 2010. Conservation, loss, and
redeployment of Wnt ligands in protostomes: Implications for understanding the
evolution of segment formation. BMC Evol Biol. 10(1):1–21. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-
10-374.
Janssen R, Posnien N. 2014. Identification and embryonic expression of Wnt2,
Wnt4, Wnt5 and Wnt9 in the millipede Glomeris marginata (Myriapoda: Diplopoda).
Gene Expr Patterns. 14:55–61. doi:10.1016/j.gep.2013.12.003.
Janssen R, Schönauer A, Weber M, Turetzek N, Hogvall M, Goss GE, Patel NH,
McGregor AP, Hilbrant M. 2015. The evolution and expression of panarthropod
frizzled genes. Front Ecol Evol. 3:1–14. doi:10.3389/fevo.2015.00096.
Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TKF, Von Haeseler A, Jermiin LS. 2017.
ModelFinder: Fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat
Methods. 14(6):587–589. doi:10.1038/nmeth.4285.
Kenny NJ, Chan KW, Nong W, Qu Z, Maeso I, Yip HY, Chan TF, Kwan HS, Holland
PWHH, Chu KH, et al. 2016. Ancestral whole-genome duplication in the marine
chelicerate horseshoe crabs. Heredity. 116(2):190–199. doi:10.1038/hdy.2015.89.
Král J, Forman M, Kořínková T, Reyes Lerma AC, Haddad CR, Musilová J, Řezáč
M, Ávila Herrera IM, Thakur S, Dippenaar-Schoeman AS, et al. 2019. Insights into
the karyotype and genome evolution of haplogyne spiders indicate a polyploid origin
43 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
of lineage with holokinetic chromosomes. Sci Rep. 9(1):3001.
Kuraku S, Meyer A. 2009. The evolution and maintenance of Hox gene clusters in
vertebrates and the teleost-specific genome duplication. Int J Dev Biol. 53(5–6):765–
773. doi:10.1387/ijdb.072533km.
Larkin MA, Blackshields G, Brown NP, Chenna R, McGettigan PA, McWilliam H,
Valentin F, Wallace IM, Wilm A, Lopez R, et al. 2002. ClustalW and ClustalX version
2. Bioinformatics. 23(21):2947–2948.
Leite DJ, Baudouin-Gonzalez L, Iwasaki-Yokozawa S, Lozano-Fernandez J,
Turetzek N, Akiyama-Oda Y, Prpic NM, Pisani D, Oda H, Sharma PP, et al. 2018.
Homeobox gene duplication and divergence in arachnids. Mol Biol Evol. 35(9):2240–
2253. doi:10.1093/molbev/msy125.
Leite DJ, Ninova M, Hilbrant M, Arif S, Griffiths-Jones S, Ronshaugen M, McGregor
AP. 2016. Pervasive microRNA duplication in chelicerates: Insights from the
embryonic microRNA repertoire of the spider Parasteatoda tepidariorum. Genome
Biol Evol. 8(7):2133–2144. doi:10.1093/gbe/evw143.
Logan CY, Nusse R. 2004. The Wnt signaling pathway in development and disease.
Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 20(1):781–810.
doi:10.1146/annurev.cellbio.20.010403.113126.
Lynch M, Conery JS. 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate
genes. Science. 290(5494):1151–1155. doi:10.1126/science.290.5494.1151.
Mark Welch DB, Mark Welch JL, Meselson M. 2008. Evidence for degenerate
tetraploidy in bdelloid rotifers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 105(13):5145–5149.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0800972105.
44 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
McGinnis W, Krumlauf R. 1992. Homeobox genes and axial patterning. Cell.
68(2):283–302. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(92)90471-N.
Meng F, Braasch I, Phillips JB, Lin X, Titus T, Zhang C, Postlethwait JH. 2013.
Evolution of the eye transcriptome under constant darkness in Sinocyclocheilus
cavefish. Mol Biol Evol. 30(7):1527–1543. doi:10.1093/molbev/mst079.
Meyer A, Schartl M. 1999. Gene and genome duplications in vertebrates: The one-
to-four (-to-eight in fish) rule and the evolution of novel gene functions. Curr Opin
Cell Biol. 11(6):699–704. doi:10.1016/S0955-0674(99)00039-3.
Miller JR. 2001. Protein family review The Wnts. Gene.:1–15.
Murat S, Hopfen C, McGregor AP. 2010. The function and evolution of Wnt genes in
arthropods. Arthropod Struct Dev. 39(6):446–452. doi:10.1016/j.asd.2010.05.007.
Nguyen LT, Schmidt HA, Von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. 2015. IQ-TREE: A fast and
effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol
Biol Evol. 32(1):268–274. doi:10.1093/molbev/msu300.
Nong W, Qu Z, Li Y, Barton-Owe T, Wong AYP, Yip HY, Lee HT, Narayana S, Baril
T, Swale T, et al. 2020. Horseshoe crab genomes reveal the evolutionary fates of
genes and microRNAs after three rounds (3R) of whole genome duplication.
BioRXiv.:1–29. doi:https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.045815 .
Ohno S. 1970. Evolution by Gene Duplication. New York: Springer.
Ontano AZ, Gainett G, Aharon S, Ballesteros JA, Benavides LR, Corbett KF, Gavish-
Regev E, Harvey MS, Monsma S, Santibáñez-López CE, et al. 2020. Taxonomic
sampling and rare genomic changes overcome long-branch attraction in the
45 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
phylogenetic placement of pseudoscorpions. bioRxiv.:1–39.
doi:10.1101/2020.11.18.389098.
Papadopoulos JS, Agarwala R. 2007. COBALT: Constraint-based alignment tool for
multiple protein sequences. Bioinformatics. 23(9):1073–1079.
doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm076.
Pascual-Anaya J, D’Aniello S, Kuratani S, Garcia-Fernàndez J. 2013. Evolution of
Hox gene clusters in deuterostomes Hox content in invertebrate deuterostomes.
Pattengale ND, Alipour M, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Moret BME, Stamatakis A. 2009.
How Many Bootstrap Replicates Are Necessary? BT - Research in Computational
Molecular Biology. In: Batzoglou S, editor. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg. p. 184–200.
Pearson JC, Lemons D, McGinnis W. 2005. Modulating Hox gene functions during
animal body patterning. Nat Rev Genet. 6(12):893–904. doi:10.1038/nrg1726.
Pechmann M, McGregor AP, Schwager EE, Feitosa NM, Damen WGM. 2009.
Dynamic gene expression is required for anterior regionalization in a spider. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A. 106(5):1468–1472. doi:10.1073/pnas.0811150106.
Pechmann M, Schwager EE, Turetzek N, Prpic NM. 2015. Regressive evolution of
the arthropod tritocerebral segment linked to functional divergence of the Hox gene
labial. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 282(1814). doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.1162.
Van De Peer Y, Maere S, Meyer A. 2009. The evolutionary significance of ancient
genome duplications. Nat Rev Genet. 10(10):725–732. doi:10.1038/nrg2600.
Pires-daSilva A, Sommer RJ. 2003. The evolution of signalling pathways in animal
46 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
development. Nat Rev Genet. 4(1):39–49. doi:10.1038/nrg977.
Schomburg C, Turetzek N, Prpic NM. 2020. Candidate gene screen for potential
interaction partners and regulatory targets of the Hox gene labial in the spider
Parasteatoda tepidariorum. Dev Genes Evol. 230(2):105–120. doi:10.1007/s00427-
020-00656-7.
Schwager EE, Schönauer A, Leite DJ, Sharma PP, McGregor AP. 2015. Chelicerata.
In: Wanninger A, editor. Evolutionary Developmental Biology of Invertebrates 3:
Ecdysozoa I: Non-Tetraconata. Wien: Springer-Verlag. p. 99–139.
Schwager EE, Schoppmeier M, Pechmann M, Damen WGM. 2007. Duplicated Hox
genes in the spider Cupiennius salei. Front Zool. 4. doi:10.1186/1742-9994-4-10.
Schwager EE, Sharma PP, Clarke T, Leite DJ, Wierschin T, Buffry AD, Chao H, Dinh
H, Doddapaneni H, Dugan S, et al. 2017. The house spider genome reveals an
ancient whole-genome duplication during arachnid evolution. BMC Biol. 15(62):1–27.
doi:10.1186/s12915-017-0399-x.
Shao L, Li S. 2018. Early Cretaceous greenhouse pumped higher taxa diversification
in spiders. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 127:146–155. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2018.05.026.
Sharma PP, Santiago MA, González-Santillán E, Monod L, Wheeler WC. 2015.
Evidence of duplicated Hox genes in the most recent common ancestor of extant
scorpions. Evol Dev. 17(6):347–355. doi:10.1111/ede.12166.
Sharma PP, Schwager EE, Extavour CG, Giribet G. 2012. Hox gene expression in
the harvestman Phalangium opilio reveals divergent patterning of the chelicerate
opisthosoma. Evol Dev. 14(5):450–463. doi:10.1111/j.1525-142X.2012.00565.x.
47 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Sharma PP, Schwager EE, Extavour CG, Wheeler WC. 2014. Hox gene duplications
correlate with posterior heteronomy in scorpions. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 281(1792).
doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.0661.
Shimeld SM. 1999. Gene function, gene networks and the fate of duplicated genes.
Semin Cell Dev Biol. 10(5):549–553. doi:10.1006/scdb.1999.0336.
Sievers F, Wilm A, Dineen D, Gibson TJ, Karplus K, Li W, Lopez R, McWilliam H,
Remmert M, Söding J, et al. 2011. Fast, scalable generation of high-quality protein
multiple sequence alignments using Clustal Omega. Mol Syst Biol. 7(539).
doi:10.1038/msb.2011.75.
Song L, Florea L. 2015. Rcorrector: Efficient and accurate error correction for
Illumina RNA-seq reads. Gigascience. 4(1):1–8. doi:10.1186/s13742-015-0089-y.
Stamatakis A. 2014. RAxML version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-
analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 30(9):1312–1313.
doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033.
Turetzek N, Khadjeh S, Schomburg C, Prpic NM. 2017. Rapid diversification of
homothorax expression patterns after gene duplication in spiders. BMC Evol Biol.
17(1):1–12. doi:10.1186/s12862-017-1013-0.
Turetzek N, Pechmann M, Schomburg C, Schneider J, Prpic NM. 2016.
Neofunctionalization of a duplicate dachshund gene underlies the evolution of a
novel leg segment in arachnids. Mol Biol Evol. 33(1):109–121.
doi:10.1093/molbev/msv200.
Weygoldt P. 2009. Evolutionary morphology of whip spiders: towards a phylogenetic
system (Chelicerata: Arachnida: Amblypygi). J Zool Syst Evol Res. 34(4):185–202.
48 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
doi:10.1111/j.1439-0469.1996.tb00825.x.
World Spider Catalog. 2019. doi:doi: 10.24436/2. http://wsc.nmbe.ch.
Wu CH, Nusse R. 2002. Ligand receptor interactions in the Wnt signaling pathway in
Drosophila. J Biol Chem. 277(44):41762–41769. doi:10.1074/jbc.M207850200.
Yu JJ., Maugarny-Cales A, Pelletier S, Alexandre C, Bellaiche Y, Vincent J-P,
McGough IJ. 2020. Frizzled-dependent planar cell polarity without Wnt ligands.
bioRxiv.:2020.05.23.108977. doi:10.1101/2020.05.23.108977.
Zhang J. 2003. Evolution by gene duplication: An update. Trends Ecol Evol.
18(6):292–298. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00033-8.
49 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Figure 1 Repertoires of Hox genes in arachnids and other selected arthropods.
Hox genes are represented by coloured boxes with duplicated Hox genes indicated
by overlapping boxes. Figure includes Hox repertoires previously surveyed in the
arachnids P. tepidariorum, Centruroides sculpturatus, Mesobuthus martensii,
Phalangium opilio, I. scapularis (all genomes) and Pholcus phalangioides (embryonic
transcriptome), the myriapod Strigamia maritima and the insects Drosophila
melanogaster, Tribolium castaneum and Bombyx mori. The insect Hox3 homolog
zen has undergone independent tandem duplications in T. castaneum to yield zen
and zen2; in cyclorrhaphan flies to yield zen and bicoid; and in the genus Drosophila
to yield zen2. Bombyx mori is not representative of all species of ditrysian
Lepidoptera, which typically possess four distinct Hox3 genes termed Special
homeobox genes (ShxA, ShxB, ShxC and ShxD) and the canonical zen gene.
Figure 2 Maximum likelihood phylogeny of Hox amino acid sequences. The
Hox genes are shown as different colours (after Figure 1). Panarthropods included:
Acanthoscurria geniculata (Ag), Bombyx mori (Bm), Centruroides sculpturatus (Cs),
Charinus acosta (Ca), Drosophila melanogaster (Dm), Euperipatoides kanangrensis
(Ek), Euphrynichus bacillifer (Eb), Ixodes scapularis (Is), Limulus polyphemus (Lp),
Marpissa muscosa (Mm), Mesobuthus martensii (Me), Parasteatoda tepidariorum
(Pt), Pardosa amentata (Pa), Pardosa pseudoannulata (Pan), Phalangium opilio
(Po), Pholcus phalangioides (Pp), Phoxichildium femoratum (Pf), Stegodyphus
dumicola (Sd), Strigamia maritima (Sm), Tetranychus urticae (Tu), and Tribolium
castaneum (Tc). Node labels indicate ultrafast bootstrap support values. See
Supplementary File 1 for accession numbers, Supplementary File 2 for full amino
acid sequence alignments.
50 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Figure 3 Repertoires of Wnt subfamilies in arthropods and an onychophoran.
The Wnt subfamilies (1-11, 16 and A) are represented by coloured boxes with
duplicated genes represented by overlapping boxes and putatively lost subfamilies
indicated by white boxes. Figure includes Wnt repertoires recovered in this study and
previously surveyed in the arachnids Parasteatoda tepidariorum and Ixodes
scapularis; the insects Drosophila melanogaster, Tribolium castaneum and Bombyx
mori; the crustacean Daphnia pulex; the myriapod Strigamia maritima; and the
onychophoran Euperpatoides kanangrensis.
Figure 4. Maximum likelihood phylogeny of Wnt amino acid sequences. The 12
Wnt subfamilies are shown as different colours (after Figure 3). Panarthropods
included: Acanthoscurria geniculata (Ag), Bombyx mori (Bm), Centruroides
sculpturatus (Cs), Charinus acosta (Ca), Drosophila melanogaster (Dm),
Euperipatoides kanangrensis (Ek), Euphrynichus bacillifer (Eb), Ixodes scapularis
(Is), Limulus polyphemus (Lp), Marpissa muscosa (Mm), Mesobuthus martensii
(Me), Parasteatoda tepidariorum (Pt), Pardosa amentata (Pa), Pardosa
pseudoannulata (Pan), Phalangium opilio (Po), Pholcus phalangioides (Pp),
Phoxichildium femoratum (Pf), Stegodyphus dumicola (Sd), Strigamia maritima (Sm),
Tetranychus urticae (Tu), and Tribolium castaneum (Tc). Node labels indicate
ultrafast bootstrap support values. See Supplementary File 1 for accession numbers,
Supplementary File 9 for amino acid sequence alignments, and Supplementary File
10 for nucleotide sequence alignments of Wnt1/wg duplicates in C. acosta, C.
sculpturatus and Euphrynichus bacillifer.
Figure 5 Repertoire of frizzled genes in arachnids and other selected
arthropods. The four frizzled orthology groups (FzI, FzII, FzIII, and FzIV) are
represented by coloured boxes, with duplicated genes represented by overlapping
51 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
boxes and gene loss represented by a white box. Figure includes frizzled repertoires
previously surveyed in the arachnids Parasteatoda tepidariorum, Mesobuthus
martensii, Ixodes scapularis (all genomes), and Pholcus phalangioides (embryonic
transcriptome); the myriapod Strigamia maritima; the insects Drosophila
melanogaster and Tribolium castaneum; and the onychophoran Euperipatoides
kanangrensis.
Figure 6 Maximum likelihood phylogeny of Frizzled proteins. The frizzled genes
are shown as different colours (after Figure 5). Panarthropods included:
Acanthoscurria geniculata (Ag), Bombyx mori (Bm), Centruroides sculpturatus (Cs),
Charinus acosta (Ca), Drosophila melanogaster (Dm), Euperipatoides kanangrensis
(Ek), Euphrynichus bacillifer (Eb), Ixodes scapularis (Is), Limulus polyphemus (Lp),
Marpissa muscosa (Mm), Mesobuthus martensii (Me), Parasteatoda tepidariorum
(Pt), Pardosa amentata (Pa), Pardosa pseudoannulata (Pan), Phalangium opilio
(Po), Pholcus phalangioides (Pp), Phoxichildium femoratum (Pf), Stegodyphus
dumicola (Sd), Strigamia maritima (Sm), Tetranychus urticae (Tu), and Tribolium
castaneum (Tc). Node labels indicate ultrafast bootstrap support values. See
Supplementary File1 for accession numbers and Supplementary File 11 for
alignments
52 Harper et al. bioRxiv preprint
Table 1. Assembly metrics for transcriptomes of Charinus acosta, Euphrynichus bacillifer, Marpissa muscosa and was notcertifiedbypeerreview)istheauthor/funder.Allrightsreserved.Noreuseallowedwithoutpermission. doi:
Pardosa amentata. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725
* Based on longest isoform per gene
** Same as contig N50 but based on top most highly expressed genes that represent 90% of the total normalized expression data
*** The number of genes for which Ex90N50 is calculated
1 10 species, n=2934 BUSCOs; C=Complete [D=Duplicated], F=Fragmented, M=Missing.
2 90 species, n=1013 BUSCOs; C=Complete [D=Duplicated], F=Fragmented, M=Missing. ; this versionpostedApril26,2021.
Processed #Trinity #Trinity Contig N50 Ex90N50 #Ex90N50 Arachnid BUSCO Arthropod BUSCO Species Raw Reads Reads Genes Isoforms (bases)* (bases)** genes*** Scores (C[D],F,M)1 Scores (C[D],F,M)2 C. acosta 272,844,971 260,853,757 237,678 334,267 896 2406 31,012 94.9%[12.9%],1.0%,4.1% 93.2%[9.5%],1.5%,5.3%,
E. bacillifer 249,938,618 239,034,000 184,142 285,861 978 2671 22,647 93.8%[7.1%],1.5%,4.7% 92.9%[3.5%],0.7%,6.4%
P. amentata 266,764,548 256,911,378 316,021 542,344 652 1758 38,423 95.4%[5.3%],0.9%,3.7% 92.9%[4.5%],1.2%,5.9%
M. muscosa 222,479,664 211,848,357 276,943 473,878 592 1461 46,196 94.7%[6.1%],1.3%,4.0% 90.8%[3.9%],1.9%,7.3% The copyrightholderforthispreprint(which
53 Harper et al. lab pb Hox3 Dfd Scr ftz AntpUbx abdAAbdB bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725Marpissa; this version muscosa posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. RTA WGD Pardosa amentata
Pardosa pseudoannulata
Entelegynae Stegodyphus dumicola
Parasteatoda tepidariorum Araneae Synspermiata Pholcus phalangioides
Mygalomorphae Acanthoscurria geniculata Arachnopulmonata Euphrynichus bacillifer Amblypygi
Charinus acosta
Arachnida Mesobuthus martensii Scorpiones Centruroides sculpturatus Eucherlicerata Opiliones
Cherlicerata Phalangium opilio
Parasitiformes Ixodes scapularis
Arthropoda Acariformes Tetranychus urticae Xiphosura Limulus polyphemus 5 Pycnogonida Phoxichilidium femoratum bcd zen Diptera Drosophila melanogaster Shx Lepidoptera Insecta Bombyx mori 16 Coleoptera Tribolium castaneum Mandibulata Crustacea Daphnia pulex
Myriapoda Strigamia maritima
Onychophora Euperipatoides kanangrensis Dm_NP_001303472.1_AbdB
Bm_XP_012549559.1_AbdB
Tc_NP_001034519.1_AbdB
92
90 Dp_EFX86798.1_AbdB
99 AbdB
Antp Pf_TRINITY_DN25812_c0_g1_i1_AbdB 98
Pt_XP_015911312.1_Hox3-a
Pan_SBLA01092602.1-1228036-1228266_AbdB_partial
98 Pa_TRINITY_DN10063_c0_g1_i9_AbdBMm_TRINITY_DN71971_c0_g1_i3_AbdB
98 Is_EEC15619.1_AbdB
Mm_TRINITY_DN34604_c0_g1_i1_Antp
Sd_XM_035362693.1_AbdB Pa_TRINITY_DN6307_c0_g1_i2_Antp 97 Ag_TRINITY_DN75690_c2_g1_i1_Antp Pp_c97115_g1_i1_AbdB
100 Pt_XP_015930562.1_AbdB_b Po_CCH51009.1_AbdB_partial 94
100
Pp_c103414_g2_i2_Antp Pt_NP_001310750.1_Antp-a Eb_TRINITY_DN4365_c0_g1_i1_Antp Po_CCH51006.1_Antp_partial Ca_TRINITY_DN3152_c0_g1_i6_Antp Ca_TRINITY_DN1632_c2_g1_i9_AbdB Sd_XM_035371268.1_Antp Eb_TRINITY_DN8255_c0_g1_i1_AbdB Lp_XP_022236342.1_AbdB Lp_XP_022245288.1_AbdB Mm_TRINITY_DN17582_c0_g1_i5_Antp Lp_XP_022237377.1_AbdB Cs_XP_023230594.1_Antp-a sI 100
_ 100 Ek_CCK73379.1_AbdB 93 Me_MMa29074_AbdB _PX_mB 97 Pa_TRINITY_DN5299_c0_g1_i7_Antp 100 100 Me_MMa46051_Antp-2 Tu_tetur20g02440_Antp-2
Lp_XP_022237372.1_Antp
Ca_TRINITY_DN20061_c0_g1_i1_Antp 100 Eb_TRINITY_DN662_c2_g1_i2_Antp Sm_SMAR004172_AbdB Pp_c105467_g2_i4_AntpPt_XP_015917912.1_Antp-bSd_XM_035363059.1_AntpCs_XP_023234920.1_Antp-b 20_PX
489 Cs_XP_023221400.1_AbdB-b
310_PX_pL 82
rc 77 89 Ca_TRINITY_DN45919_c0_g1_i1_AbdB 852 49 _ 1.5 6 5 9 4 5 2 1 0 Eb_TRINITY_DN15836_c0_g1_i1_AbdB 68 S_1 .1 Tc_NP_001034505.1_ptl
tnA
.37337KCC 100 p
100 100 94 _1.1276
100 ptnA_2
100 70 96
ptnA
100
001
ptn 100 100 Pa_TRINITY_DN7867_c0_g1_i1_AbdB 99 100 94 54 _k A_4614 Mm_TRINITY_DN7491_c0_g1_i1_AbdB 100 97
100 p
E 91 tnA_1.408 94 60 84 51 Pt_XP_015930590.1_AbdB_a 100 100 77 100
9
0 Sd_XM_035353428.1_AbdBPp_c106591_g2_i1_AbdB
8
0R 100 99
AM
Ek_CCK73375.2_Antp
68XFE_pD 97 Ag_TRINITY_DN77332_c0_g2_i1_AbdB
Dp_EFX86805.1_ftz S_
Tu_XP_015790206.1_Antp-1 100
mS
001 Cs_XP_023228868.1_AbdB-a 94 Scr Dm_NP_996167.1_Antp Me_MMa42819_AbdB
96
94
Mm_TRINITY_DN13983_c0_g1_i2_Scr
94 Pa_TRINITY_DN3878_c0_g2_i1_Scr Eb_TRINITY_DN4365_c0_g2_i1_Scr Ca_TRINITY_DN11320_c2_g1_i3_Scr
Eb_TRINITY_DN888_c2_g1_i1_ScrPt_XP_015921994.1_Scr-aCs_XP_023230598.1_Scr-a Dm_NP_001368995.1_Scr Pp_c109150_g1_i2_Scr
Me_MMa55596_Scr Cs_XP_023234859.1_Scr-b Dp_EFX86806.1_Scr Lp_XP_022244131.1_Scr Ag_TRINITY_DN103185_c0_g1_i1_Scr_partialCa_TRINITY_DN776_c4_g1_i1_ScrBm_NP_001037339.1_Scr Lp_XP_013792672.2_Scr Po_comp168984_c0_seq1_Scr_partialTc_NP_001034523.1_Cx Mm_TRINITY_DN3338_c1_g1_i3_Scr Pf_TRINITY_DN7017_c0_g1_i1_Scr Lp_XP_013794100.2_Scr Pan_SBLA01129491.1-734218-734517_Scr_partial Pa_TRINITY_DN3156_c0_g1_i4_ScrIs_XP_002406405.2_Scr
Me_MMa52910_Scr Pt_XP_021004339.1_Scr-bSd_XM_035368749.1_Scr 7
8 Pan_SBLA01591915.1-c93378-93118_Scr_partial 26
Tu_XP_015790203.1_Scr Sm_Scr 93 Pp_c101195_g2_i1_Scr 100 100
68 98 100 89 100 98 100 98 Dm_NP_477201.1_Dfd 92 85 39 80 96 64 53 Pan_SBLA01293003.1-c769617-769336_Antp_partial93 61 95 98 5165 46 51 Po_CCH51003.1_Dfd_partial Pan_SBLA01416513.1-c2731412-2731164_Antp_partialAg_TRINITY_DN43429_c0_g1_i1_Antp_partial93 57 Me_MMa42999_Antp-1 87 48 92 99 88 Tc_NP_001034510.1_Dfd 93 Pan_SBLA01529937.1-766703-767212_Dfd_partialBm_NP_001037341.1_Dfd Pa_TRINITY_DN17053_c0_g1_i7_Dfd 90 97 Ag_TRINITY_DN78131_c2_g1_i1_Dfd Pf_TRINITY_DN24197_c0_g1_i1_Antp 74 100 94 Tu_XP_015790154.1_AbdB Cs_XP_023235027.1_Ubx-a100 80 93 Ek_CCK73376.1_Ubx Is_XP_029842579.1_Ubx Tu_XP_015790291.1_Ubx100 Sd_XM_035352116.1_Dfd91 Dfd 100 Dp_EFX86808.1_Dfd Lp_XP_022237375.1_Ubx Pp_c96808_g3_i2_Dfd Pan_SBLA01093126.1-57593-58009_Dfd_partial 96 91 100Pa_TRINITY_DN1357_c1_g1_i4_Dfd Ag_TRINITY_DN59883_c0_g1_i1_UbxPp_c111834_g6_i1_Ubx 100 Mm_TRINITY_DN3338_c0_g1_i3_Dfd 93 Pt_NP_001310749.1_Dfd-a 98 83 100 100Sd_XM_035377715.1_Dfd Sd_XM_035349894.1_Ubx 89 Ag_TRINITY_DN54692_c0_g1_i1_Dfd 92 61 100 Pa_TRINITY_DN14147_c0_g1_i7_UbxPt_XP_021004342.1_Ubx-b Pp_c95663_g1_i1_Dfd 100 100 Ca_TRINITY_DN120_c1_g4_i1_Dfd 100 Eb_TRINITY_DN1861_c7_g1_i1_Dfd 100 Cs_XP_023234845.1_Dfd-bMe_MMa11633_Dfd Ca_TRINITY_DN6462_c0_g2_i1_Ubx100 97 99 99 Is_XP_029832119.2_Dfd 91 80 Pf_TRINITY_DN11690_c0_g1_i2_Dfd 100 38 84 Eb_TRINITY_DN61_c0_g2_i4_Ubx 80 Ca_TRINITY_DN31049_c1_g1_i2_DfdEk_CCK73372.1_Dfd 100 Eb_TRINITY_DN93116_c0_g2_i3_Dfd100 Ca_TRINITY_DN120_c1_g1_i3_Ubx 68 Sm_SMAR004162_Dfd 100 Lp_XP_022243396.1_Dfd 100 76 Lp_XP_022235204.1_Dfd Me_MMa46055_Ubx 99 100 99 86 Cs_XP_023228870.1_Ubx-b 61 100 Lp_XP_013784402.2_Dfd 100 92 100 Lp_XP_013776725.2_Dfd Po_CCH51007.1_Ubx_partial 86 Lp_XP_013792158.2_Dfd 88 Ubx Dp_EFX86802.1_Ubx 92 98 97 Cs_XP_023230593.1_Dfd-a 100Me_MMa55595_Dfd Dm_NP_732173.1_Ubx 95 73 Mm_TRINITY_DN3338_c0_g3_i1_Dfd Tc_NP_001034497.1_Ubx 52 100 100Pt_XP_015913685.1_Dfd-b 100 Bm_NP_001107632.1_Ubx 75 Tu_XP_015790214.1_Dfd 100 92 Tu_XP_015790202.1_ftz-2 Tu_XP_015790297.1_ftz-1 Sm_SMAR004167_Ubx 79 61 Tu_XP_015787094.1_lab 100 Ag_TRINITY_DN82983_c3_g1_i3_Ubx 98 100 Bm_XP_037867477.1_lab Pp_c109150_g2_i4_Ubx 99 Tc_NP_001107762.1_lab 64 Dp_EFX86813.1_lab Sd_XM_035374807.1_Ubx100 100 Pan_SBLA01081258.1-c516943-516560_lab_partial 100 100 Pt_XP_015922008.1_Ubx-a 95Pa_TRINITY_DN11046_c0_g1_i1_lab 100 93Mm_TRINITY_DN2945_c0_g1_i1_lab Mm_TRINITY_DN28_c7_g1_i11_Ubx 100 94Sd_XM_035351786.1_lab Pa_TRINITY_DN5810_c0_g1_i1_Ubx 93 Pt_XP_015909180.1_lab-b 98 70 94 Me_MMa34599_Ubx Pp_c103960_g6_i1_lab Pan_SBLA01416538.1-c964848-964513_Ubx_partial96 Ag_TRINITY_DN71545_c1_g1_i1_lab 100 Me_MMa06611_abdA Ca_TRINITY_DN92496_c0_g1_i1_lab Mm_TRINITY_DN14602_c0_g1_i4_Ubx 100 99 89 Eb_TRINITY_DN21631_c1_g1_i1_lab 99 99 99 67 Pan_SBLA01092602.1-2176019-2176390_Ubx_partial Lp_XP_022244576.1_lab 100Ca_TRINITY_DN106247_c0_g1_i1_lab 44 89 100 Eb_TRINITY_DN16164_c0_g1_i2_lab Po_CCH51008.1_abdA_partial 82
Ek_CCK73377.1_abdA 68 94 Ag_TRINITY_DN80520_c5_g2_i2_lab 87 100 76 Ag_TRINITY_DN37887_c0_g1_i1_abdA_partial Pan_SBLA01123087.1-982556-982924_abdA_partialDm_NP_732176.1_abdADp_EFX86800.1_abdA 98 100
62 94 Tc_NP_001034518.1_abdA 94 80 76 Po_CCH51000.1_lab_partial 41 89 67 Lab Bm_NP_001166808.1_abdA 7 Sm_SMAR004168_abdA 9 100 98 Is_XP_029832157.1_lab 82 Pf_TRINITY_DN16093_c4_g7_i1_lab 76 69 Cs_XP_023222468.1_lab-b Ek_CCK73369.1_lab 100 100 94 Is_XP_029842575.2_abdA Sm_SMAR004159_lab 100 99 Cs_XP_023221395.1_abdA-b 100 100 98 Me_MMa55584_labMe_MMa32532_lab 95 100 Sd_XM_035350663.1_lab Lp_XP_022243120.1_abdA 73 Cs_XP_023221625.1_lab-a 100 100 Lp_XP_013776095.1_lab Lp_XP_022237373.1_abdA Me_MMa41694_abdA 80 100 Dm_NP_476613.1_lab 100 87 88 Lp_XP_013790346.1_lab 100 100 100 Cs_XP_023228869.1_abdA-a 82 Pt_NP_001310763.1_lab-a Pp_c104286_g1_i3_abdA 95 Pa_TRINITY_DN3878_c0_g1_i1_lab 100 Mm_TRINITY_DN9126_c9_g1_i1_lab Ek_CCK73374.1_ftz 88 77 97 80 Pan_SBLA01017558.1-c82241-81996_lab_partial
100 97
Sd_XM_035357390.1_abdA 55 51 Mm_TRINITY_DN24857_c0_g2_i3_abdA 90
Pt_XP_015921999.1_abdA-a 100 66
65
100 99 59 97 78 Dp_EFX86809.1_Hox3 Pa_TRINITY_DN17976_c0_g1_i3_abdAEb_TRINITY_DN61_c0_g1_i9_abdA 96
100 84 Ca_TRINITY_DN690_c0_g1_i1_abdA 85 Pf_TRINITY_DN7386_c0_g1_i1_ftz 7 Eb_TRINITY_DN864_c6_g1_i2_abdA 8 Pp_c95590_g1_i1_abdA 99 97 Ca_TRINITY_DN776_c5_g1_i1_abdA abdA 97 Ag_TRINITY_DN79526_c1_g2_i6_abdAPt_XP_015930560.1_abdA-b Eb_TRINITY_DN14061_c0_g1_i2_ftzCa_TRINITY_DN8055_c0_g1_i1_ftz
Sd_XM_035349895.1_abdA Sm_SMAR004163_ftz 100 Lp_XP_013776722.2_ftz 82
100 79
77 Mm_TRINITY_DN26258_c0_g1_i1_abdA Pp_c107945_g3_i3_Hox3 84
99
75 Pa_TRINITY_DN11599_c0_g1_i1_abdA 100
94 97 Po_CCH51005.1_ftz_partialMe_MMa55597_ftz 79
71 93 Is_XP_002406403.2_ftz 99
97 38 99 Ca_TRINITY_DN6462_c0_g1_i1_ftz 94 Ca_TRINITY_DN4729_c0_g3_i1_Hox3
E
100 100
100 Pan_SBLA01263448.1-c839378-838266_Hox3_partial T_b Ag_TRINITY_DN80542_c8_g2_i1_Hox3 Pa_TRINITY_DN9253_c0_g1_i1_Hox3 67 Mm_TRINITY_DN55812_c0_g1_i10_Hox3 Pan_SBLA01079679.1-441501-443333_pb_partial R 96 Is_XP_029832131.2_Hox3 Sd_XM_035372716.1_Hox3 1 Me_MMa24497_ftz S 100 Pan_SBLA01092602.1-1773909-1774487_abdA-1_partial I 0
N
d 0 Lp_XP_022255072.1_Hox3 99 100Pa_TRINITY_DN4746_c0_g1_i1_pb Cs_Leit_et_al_2018_ftz-a Pt_XP_015909177.1_Hox3-b 3xoH_1.17337 98 Eb_TRINITY_DN45249_c0_g2_i1_ftz X_
YTI
M 99 99 Cs_XP_023234985.1_ftz-b _ 100 100
100 bE _ Mm_TRINITY_DN9011_c0_g1_i2_pb D 99
_ aC 3xoH_1i_1g_6 Sd_XM_035375931.1_pb
_ 30 Me_MMa55591_Hox3
1N T RT Pp_c92385_g1_i1_ftz 5 77 Pp_c101164_g7_i1_Hox3
Tc_NP_001034539.1_ftz Ag_TRINITY_DN3993_c0_g1_i1_ftz_partial R 3
Bm_XP_021206502.1_zen NI 54 Pt_XP_015928816.1_pb-a 5 Ag_TRINITY_DN77199_c7_g3_i1_pb Sd_XM_035376242.1_ftz I Eb_TRINITY_DN4025_c1_g1_i1_pb 85 N
2
Pt_XP_015917916.1_ftz TI 50 100
TI 71 Cs_XP_023230602.1_pb-a Pp_c104684_g3_i1_pb Y
_Y K 1 100
D _ .
CC_kE
1 0c_4
D Me_MMa55590_pb
0
_ _
0
N
5N g c_
1
9 6 1 oH
3xoH_6 4 77 786 x 100
1 i_ 3
_ _49 100 Pf_TRINITY_DN15728_c0_g1_i1_Hox3
_1
c c
77ND_ Pa_TRINITY_DN17477_c0_g1_i1_ftz 0 100 Lp_XP_013777106.2_pb Dp_NP_477498.1_ftz Lp_XP_022244577.1_Hox3 _ Tu_XP_015787097.1_pb 53 Lp_XP_022252679.1_Hox3
g g_0 76 Tc_NP_001036813.1_zen 5
3xoH
1
3
Bm_XP_021206595.2_ftz _ _1 55a Pan_SBLA01117046.1-2197441-2199468_pb_partial 74 Tc_NP_001038090.1_zen2 i Lp_XP_013786746.1_pb i YT 100 Lp_XP_013790991.2_pb
3 1 100
_ _ 99 Pa_TRINITY_DN12900_c0_g1_i1_pb I 100
H M 100 NI 100 Mm_TRINITY_DN53186_c0_g1_i1_pb
M_e
xo RT Sd_XM_035367140.1_pb Is_XP_029832076.2_pb
3xoH 3 Pt_XP_015909179.1_pb-b _gA
M
Cs_XP_023234869.1_Hox3 Pp_c104593_g1_i1_pb Pf_TRINITY_DN15726_c3_g7_i1_pb
Dp_EFX86812.1_pb Pan_SBLA01129491.1-550743-551141_ftz_partial 79
Dm_NP_476793.1_zen
Mm_TRINITY_DN93371_c0_g1_i1_ftz_partial Cs_XP_023234832.1_pb-b 100 100 Me_MMa35910_pb Sm_SMAR015657_Hox3
Dm_NP_476794.1_zen2 99 Sm_SMAR004160_pb
Ftz Bm_XP_021206544.1_pb Tc_NP_001107807.1_mxp Ek_CCK73370.1_pb
100
Ca_TRINITY_DN34129_c2_g1_i1_pb Dm_NP_996163.1_pb
Po_CCH51002.1_Hox3_partial
Po_comp92303_c0_seq2_pb_partial bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Pb Hox3
Dm_NP_731111.1_bcd
2.0 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Wnt1Wnt2Wnt3Wnt4Wnt5Wnt6Wnt7Wnt8Wnt9Wnt10Wnt11Wnt16WntA Marpissa muscosa RTA
WGD Pardosa amentata
Pardosa pseudoannulata
Entelegynae Stegodyphus dumicola
Parasteatoda tepidariorum Araneae Synspermiata Pholcus phalangioides
Mygalomorphae Acanthoscurria geniculata Arachnopulmonata Euphrynichus bacillifer Amblypygi
Charinus acosta
Arachnida Mesobuthus martensii Scorpiones
Centruroides sculpturatus Eucherlicerata Opiliones
Cherlicerata Phalangium opilio
Parasitiformes Ixodes scapularis
Arthropoda Acariformes Tetranychus urticae Xiphosura Limulus polyphemus 6 6 4 4 5 Pycnogonida Phoxichilidium femoratum
Diptera Drosophila melanogaster
Lepidoptera Insecta Bombyx mori
Coleoptera Tribolium castaneum Mandibulata Crustacea Daphnia pulex
Myriapoda Strigamia maritima
Onychophora Euperipatoides kanangrensis Ca_TRINITY_DN14514_c0_g4_i1_Wnt6
Pf_TRINITY_DN16671_c6_g1_i15_Wnt6
Is_XP_029850753.1_Wnt6
Lp_XP_013790949.2_Wnt6_partial Wnt6
Ca_TRINITY_DN148921_c0_g1_i1_Wnt6-1
Eb_TRINITY_DN25532_c0_g1_i1_Wnt6
Mm_TRINITY_DN111554_c0_g2_i1_Wnt6
Ag_TRINITY_DN68596_c0_g1_i1_Wnt6
Pan_SBLA01575378.1_Wnt6_partial Sd_XP_035218275.1_Wnt6 Cs_XP_023219342.1_Wnt6 Po_Wnt6_clone
Pa_TRINITY_DN3753_c0_g1_i6_Wnt6 Pt_XP_015906156.1_Wnt6 Pp_c111740_g4_i1_Wnt6 Cs_XP_023228802.1_Wnt6 Wnt4 Me_MMa17732_Wnt6
Dm_NP_609108.3_Wnt6
Me_MMa40874_Wnt6
Ag_TRINITY_DN82741_c1_g1_i2_Wnt1
Tu_XP_015786865.1_Wnt6
Pf_TRINITY_DN16597_c4_g3_i1_Wnt1 Tc_NP_001107822.1_Wnt1
Bm_NP_001037315.1_Wnt1
Pan_SBLA01274480.1_Wnt4_partial
Tc_XP_015835201.1_Wnt6 100 Dm_NP_523502.1_Wnt1
100 Sm_SMAR002921_Wnt6
Pa_TRINITY_DN18193_c0_g1_i1_Wnt4
100 100
Dp_EFX86167.1_Wnt6 94 Bm_XP_037866642.1_Wnt6 100 Mm_TRINITY_DN9777_c1_g1_i4_Wnt4 Wnt1 100 100 94 Pan_SBLA01315990.1_Wnt11_partial
100 Ca_TRINITY_DN76533_c0_g1_i1_Wnt1 98 100 Sm_SMAR002920_Wnt1
98
Sd_XP_035206636.1_Wnt4 Eb_TRINITY_DN40663_c0_g1_i1_Wnt1 Pan_SBLA01282435.1_Wnt4-partial
Ek_CDI40102.1_Wnt6 Pa_TRINITY_DN19987_c0_g2_i1_Wnt4 Pa_TRINITY_DN83378_c0_g1_i1_Wnt11 Cs_XP_023228816.1_Wnt1 57 100 88 Pt_BBD75281.1_Wnt4 Tu_XP_015783539.1_Wnt4 Me_MMa40875_Wnt1 Ek_ABY60732.1_Wnt1 Mm_TRINITY_DN2819_c0_g2_i1_Wnt4 100 Dp_EFX86386.1_Wnt1 100 Ag_TRINITY_DN22838_c0_g1_i1_Wnt4
52 Mm_TRINITY_DN171_c19_g2_i4_Wnt11
Is_XP_002407192.2_Wnt1 50 Me_MMa16104_Wnt4
84 100 Ag_TRINITY_DN98907_c0_g1_i1_Wnt1 87 Is_XP_002436043.2_Wnt4 88 Sd_XP_035208146.1_Wnt4 Lp_XP_013788136.1_Wnt1_partial 100
73
Ag_TRINITY_DN66402_c1_g1_i1_Wnt4 95 92 Pt_XP_015920222.1_Wnt11-1 100 100 Eb_TRINITY_DN25384_c0_g2_i3_Wnt4Ca_TRINITY_DN9561_c0_g1_i3_Wnt4 Cs_XP_023219341.1_Wnt1 Sd_XM_035378341.1_Wnt11 76 100 100 54 Cs_XP_023222233.1_Wnt4 91 Pp_c104722_g2_i2_Wnt4 100
Ca_TRINITY_DN2244_c14_g1_i1_Wnt1Po_Wnt1_clone 76 100 100 Me_MMa13725_Wnt1 Ca_TRINITY_DN7758_c0_g1_i1_Wnt4 100 Eb_TRINITY_DN32332_c8_g1_i1_Wnt1 Eb_TRINITY_DN25384_c0_g1_i1_Wnt4 100 100
100 100 Pan_SBLA01551669.1_Wnt1_partialMm_TRINITY_DN19470_c0_g1_i5_Wnt1 100 Pf_TRINITY_DN14285_c0_g1_i1_Wnt4 Pt_XP_015906154.1_Wnt1Pp_c104855_g3_i1_Wnt1 Lp_XP_022249841.1_Wnt4 Sd_XP_035218273.1_Wnt1 72 99 Ag_TRINITY_DN69200_c0_g2_i1_Wnt11 Pan_SBLA01068646.1_Wnt1_partial Pp_c545_g1_i1_Wnt11 100 95 70 71 58 100 98 Pan_SBLA01236476.1_Wnt11_partial T_aPR 91 60 Sm_SMAR013747_Wnt4 TINI 87 Y 100 84 70 100 98 56 Po_Wnt4_clone Pa_TRINITY_DN4436_c0_g1_i1_Wnt11 4986ND_ 68 100 c_ 87 85 Sd_XM_035371679.1_Wnt11 _mD _2 100 100 95 N 1g 100 82 Ca_TRINITY_DN124475_c0_g1_i1_Wnt1198 4_P i_ 87 100 Mm_TRINITY_DN2809_c0_g1_i5_Wnt11 967 74 99 Dp_EFX72339.1_Wnt4 24 Ek_CDI40100.1_Wnt4 .1 1tnW_1 100
W_ 92 n 96 Wnt11 5t Pt_XP_015916686.1_Wnt11
99 98 96 98 Pf 100 Pp_c110869_g1_i1_Wnt11 B _cTX X_mP 79_P4 100
0_3 6 1 N D _ Y TINIR T_ Me_MMa52170_Wnt11 87 0 7 _1.48W 103 80 17 c_3 3.1 5tn _0 100 _W Cs_XP_023228131.1_Wnt11 nt 100 Eb_TRINITY_DN25108_c0_g1_i1_Wnt11 5 Ca_TRINITY_DN84356_c0_g1_i1_Wnt11 Pf_TRINITY_DN16417_c3_g7_i1_Wnt11 nW_1i_1g 98 100 5t 4IDC_kE0 Ek_CDI40106.1_Wnt11 Lp_XP_022245914.1_Wnt5
W_1.101 Lp_XP_022246278.1_Wnt5_partialDp_EFX66479.1_Wnt569 5tn 98 Lp_XP_013792286.2_Wnt5_partial 70 Sm_SMAR008487_Wnt5 80 Lp_XP_022235854.1_Wnt11 Tu_XP_015794709.1_Wnt5 36 97 Lp_XP_022248877.1_Wnt11 98
64 Lp_XP_022250690.1_Wnt11 6 Lp_XP_022254081.1_Wnt11 7 57 100 100 65 100 100 1 00 80 Is_XP_002434188.1_Wnt11 Po_Wnt5_clone 100 100 Lp_XP_022240862.1_Wnt5 63 94 Po_Wnt11_202686_degenerate_rc_PRT Wnt5 Lp_XP_013792736.1_Wnt5 68 98 Me_MMa16972_Wnt11 99 Dp_EFX77586.1_Wnt11 Cs_XP_023240364.1_Wnt11 Bm_XP_004924665.2_Wnt11 Is_XP_029847985.1_Wnt5Lp_XP_013783628.2_Wnt5 100 100 99 93 71 Cs_XP_023215183.1_Wnt5 Tc_XP_015835988.1_Wnt11 100 72 99 Me_MMa45995_Wnt5 99 96 Ca_TRINITY_DN27029_c0_g1_i1_Wnt5100 100 Eb_TRINITY_DN1299_c0_g1_i1_Wnt5 100 98 Pa_TRINITY_DN5325_c0_g1_i4_Wnt7 90 100 Ag_TRINITY_DN64024_c0_g1_i1_Wnt5 Pan_SBLA01298555.1_Wnt7_partial 100 100 Pp_c100246_g1_i2_Wnt5 Mm_TRINITY_DN33882_c0_g1_i1_Wnt7 100 100 Sd_XP_035223051.1_Wnt5 100 Pt_NP_001310746.1_Wnt7-2 100 100 88 Sd_XM_035361740.1_Wnt7 Pt_NP_001310745.1_Wnt5 100 61 Pp_c103422_g2_i1_Wnt7 Mm_TRINITY_DN18793_c0_g1_i1_Wnt5 63 100 62 Ag_TRINITY_DN70434_c1_g2_i1_Wnt7 Pan_SBLA01507739.1_Wnt5_partial 100 Po_Wnt7_full_ORF 100 Eb_TRINITY_DN2459_c0_g2_i2_Wnt7 Pa_TRINITY_DN1669_c0_g1_i1_Wnt5 Ca_TRINITY_DN14295_c1_g2_i2_Wnt7 100 100 Tc_KYB26594.1_WntA Pa_TRINITY_DN18962_c0_g1_i5_Wnt7 93 100
Bm_XP_021209300.1_WntA 93 100 Pan_SBLA01420016.1_Wnt7_partial
96 100 Mm_TRINITY_DN18996_c1_g3_i3_Wnt7 Dp_EFX69968.1_WntA 96
97 50 99 100 Pt_NP_001310739.1_Wnt7-1 Pf_TRINITY_DN11305_c0_g1_i3_WntA 96 Eb_TRINITY_DN2459_c0_g1_i1_Wnt7 Sm_SMAR015773_WntA 100 Ag_TRINITY_DN75361_c0_g1_i1_Wnt7Pp_c47853_g1_i2_Wnt7 77 60 99 Ca_TRINITY_DN7933_c0_g1_i2_Wnt7 100 76 92 Sd_XP_035210859.1_Wnt7 Ek_CDI40108.1_WntA 72 Me_MMa04980_Wnt7 100 99 100 82 100 53 Is_XP_002402520.2_WntA 83 100 100 33 100 Cs_XP_023220709.1_Wnt7 100 78 100 Me_MMa17290_Wnt7
Cs_XP_023215187.1_Wnt7
100 83 98 100 0 Lp_XP_013773810.1_Wnt7 100 80 100 01 100 100 39 81 Tu_XP_015794728.1_WntALp_XP_022253065.1_WntA L 100 L _pX 99 56 _p P_ Lp_XP_022247569.1_WntA XP 02 kE 0_ 22 31 51 7 70 Lp_XP_022246203.1_WntA_partial 100 100 100 1.0 67 001 _ Lp_XP_022238400.1_WntA 0104IDC_ 3 W_1.73339nWt Po_WntA_zus n 7_ 97 87 t pa _7p itr 100 7tnW_1.001 a tr al 90 Sm_SMAR012534_Wnt7 lai 100 100 93 Lp_XP_013783194.2_WntA 100 Tc_XP_008196351.1_Wnt7 pL Wnt7 85 Dp_EFX66449.1_Wnt7 X_P Me_MMa47532_WntA 0_1 Cs_XP_023218523.1_WntA Ek_CDI40099.1_Wnt2 73
100 85 87 310_PX_pL78 66 100 Lp_XP_022257593.1_Wnt2Me_MMa37570_Wnt2 100 .7101 Cs_XP_023224164.1_Wnt2 025874 _ 100 100 nW 81 Pa_TRINITY_DN7884_c0_g1_i1_Wnt16 7t 100 99 100 100100 Pp_c100839_g1_i1_Wnt2 Ca_TRINITY_DN12906_c4_g1_i1_WntAPp_c105403_g1_i3_WntA Mm_TRINITY_DN35858_c0_g1_i7_Wnt16 95 95 100 Sm_SMAR004376_Wnt2 100 laitra p _ 7tn W _ 1. WntA Ag_TRINITY_DN70434_c1_g1_i1_Wnt2 Dp_EFX87200.1_Wnt2 100 Eb_TRINITY_DN7856_c0_g1_i1_WntA Pt_NP_001310769.1_Wnt16Pan_SBLA01200618.1_Wnt16_partialDm_NP_476810.1_Wnt7 100 Ag_TRINITY_DN60488_c0_g1_i1_Wnt16 laitra p _ 7tn W _ 1.7 0 0 9 8 7 3 1 0 _ P X _ p L Pt_NP_001310740.1_Wnt2 Pp_c111004_g2_i1_Wnt16 100Me_MMa00727_Wnt16 Pf_TRINITY_DN16576_c3_g2_i1_Wnt7 Cs_XP_023224171.1_Wnt16 99 100 Ag_TRINITY_DN70458_c0_g1_i1_WntA Eb_TRINITY_DN4235_c0_g1_i1_Wnt16 82 100 Bm_XP_021208534.1_Wnt7 Ca_TRINITY_DN22656_c0_g1_i2_Wnt16 Sd_XP_035205952.1_WntA Dp_EFX82994.1_Wnt16 89 Ek_CDI40107.1_Wnt16 Pa_TRINITY_DN22647_c0_g1_i5_Wnt2 Pt_XP_015915580.1_WntA 86 Is_EEC17948.1_Wnt7 Lp_XP_022249784.1_Wnt2 85 100
Eb_TRINITY_DN13499_c1_g1_i23_Wnt2 Pf_TRINITY_DN14850_c0_g1_i2_Wnt16 Pf_TRINITY_DN15706_c6_g1_i1_Wnt2
100 Lp_XP_022242527.1_Wnt16Lp_XP_013792115.1_Wnt16_partial Mm_TRINITY_DN24839_c0_g1_i2_Wnt2 Mm_TRINITY_DN193136_c0_g1_i1_WntA 100 Sd_XP_035225808.1_Wnt2 Ca_TRINITY_DN6257_c1_g1_i1_Wnt2 Po_Wnt16_clone Sd_XP_035210368.1_Wnt16 100 Lp_XP_022246054.1_Wnt16 Pan_SBLA01324069.1_Wnt2_partial Pan_SBLA01407515.1_WntA_partial 100
Pa_TRINITY_DN6044_c0_g1_i2_WntA 97
97 Pan_SBLA01407515.1_WntA_partial 100
100 96 Wnt2 100
86 Tu_XP_025017632.1_Wnt16
83
100
100
Ek_CDI40105.1_Wnt10 99
Dp_EFX86388.1_Wnt10
97 97 Is_XP_029828193.1_Wnt16
82 80
87
68 82 Wnt16 Po_Wnt10_clone Dm_NP_609109.3_Wnt10 94
Lp_XP_022252175.1_Wnt16
75
Ca_TRINITY_DN2407_c0_g1_i1_Wnt10 100
Tc_XP_008193179.1_Wnt10 100
Eb_TRINITY_DN12659_c0_g1_i4_Wnt10 100
Sm_SMAR002922_Wnt10 100
100
97
Lp_XP_013783076.2_Wnt8
Ag_TRINITY_DN77370_c0_g1_i1_Wnt8
100
Dp_EFX83364.1_Wnt8 Eb_TRINITY_DN15273_c0_g1_i1_Wnt8
Bm_XP_037866617.1_Wnt10 Sd_XP_035224391.1_Wnt8 Pa_TRINITY_DN49042_c0_g1_i3_Wnt8 100
100
Is_EEC10449.1_Wnt9 Ca_TRINITY_DN33459_c0_g1_i2_Wnt8 Ek_CDI40104.1_Wnt9
Mm_TRINITY_DN8243_c0_g1_i2_Wnt8
Dm_NP_476972.2_Wnt9
Tc_XP_971439.1_Wnt8 Pan_SBLA01132800.1_Wnt8_partial
Ca_TRINITY_DN65449_c0_g1_i1_Wnt9 Eb_TRINITY_DN135499_c0_g1_i1_Wnt9
Pp_c93728_g1_i2_Wnt8 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Dp_EFX86385.1_Wnt9
Pt_NP_001310760.1_Wnt8
Pf_TRINITY_DN12881_c0_g1_i2_Wnt8
Me_MMa40873_Wnt9 Po_Wnt8_clone Wnt10 Cs_XP_023228817.1_Wnt9
Tc_XP_015835609.1_Wnt9
Po_Wnt9_clone
Bm_XP_012548374.2_Wnt9
Pf_TRINITY_DN16417_c3_g13_i2_Wnt9_partial
Is_Janssen_et_al_2010_Wnt8
Sm_SMAR014558_Wnt9 Tu_XP_015790171.1_Wnt8 Wnt8 Wnt9
1.0 Dm_NP_650272.1_Wnt8 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
FzI FzII FzIIIFzIV Marpissa muscosa RTA
WGD Pardosa amentata
Pardosa pseudoannulata
Entelegynae Stegodyphus dumicola
Parasteatoda tepidariorum Araneae Synspermiata Pholcus phalangioides
Mygalomorphae Acanthoscurria geniculata Arachnopulmonata Euphrynichus bacillifer Amblypygi
Charinus acosta
Arachnida Mesobuthus martensii Scorpiones Centruroides sculpturatus Eucherlicerata Opiliones
Cherlicerata Phalangium opilio
Parasitiformes Ixodes scapularis
Arthropoda Acariformes Tetranychus urticae Xiphosura Limulus polyphemus 5 5 Pycnogonida Phoxichilidium femoratum
Diptera Drosophila melanogaster
Lepidoptera Insecta Bombyx mori
Coleoptera Tribolium castaneum Mandibulata Crustacea Daphnia pulex
Myriapoda Strigamia maritima
Onychophora Euperipatoides kanangrensis Tu_XP_015781163.1_Fz2 Tu_XP_015790096.1_Fz2
Lp_XP_022247003.1_Fz2 Mm_TRINITY_DN167403_c0_g1_i1_Fz2
Lp_XP_022253757.1_Fz2
Fz2 Lp_XP_022235618.1_Fz2 100
Lp_XP_022255782.1_Fz2
Po_comp186257_c1_seq1_Fz2
Lp_XP_022243301.1_Fz2
Eb_TRINITY_DN119144_c0_g1_i1_Fz2
Dp_EFX87638.1_fz2 Ca_TRINITY_DN28687_c0_g1_i1_Fz2 Bm_XP_021204477.1_Fz2
Cs_XP_023229226.1_Fz2 Ca_TRINITY_DN40043_c0_g1_i1_Fz2
Dm_NP_001262037.1_Fz2
Is_XP_029824354.1_Fz2
100 Mm_TRINITY_DN42824_c2_g1_i1_Fz2 100 Sd_XP_035216180.1_Fz2 Tc_EFA01325.1_Fz2
100 99
95
100 93 Ek_CRI73784.1_Fz1
Pa_TRINITY_DN36274_c0_g1_i1_Fz2Pan_SBLA01494123.1_Fz2 Sm_SMAR014833_Fz1Pp_c106393_g7_i1_Fz1Pt_XP_015922960.1_Fz1
95 93
100 82 Pa_TRINITY_DN8551_c0_g1_i1_Fz1
95 99 Pan_SBLA01061736.1_Fz1 96 91 79 99 98 100 100 Mm_TRINITY_DN207991_c0_g1_i1_Fz1 Sd_XP_035207990.1_Fz1_partial 93 99 Pt_XP_015922948.1_Fz2 86 99 Sd_XP_035219450.1_Fz1 Ag_TRINITY_DN79654_c0_g1_i1_Fz2 100 100 100 99 Fz1 83 79 Ag_TRINITY_DN36474_c0_g1_i1_Fz1
99 100 Ca_TRINITY_DN15108_c0_g1_i1_Fz1 Pf_TRINITY_DN16650_c1_g1_i1_Fz2Pp_c93104_g3_i1_Fz2 100 Eb_TRINITY_DN2020_c0_g1_i2_Fz1 54
82 Cs_XP_023229313.1_Fz1 93 Sm_SMAR012389_Fz2 100 100Me_AYEL01056881.1_Fz1Me_AYEL01067974.1_Fz1_partial 100
Tu_XP_025016759.1_Fz4 100 77 91 Ca_TRINITY_DN6276_c6_g1_i1_Fz1 Ek_CRI73785.1_Fz2 100 75 Eb_TRINITY_DN142670_c0_g1_i1_Fz1
Pf_TRINITY_DN1931_c0_g1_i1_Fz4 Po_comp184244_c0_seq2_Fz1 100 99 Is_XP_029849982.1_Fz1 97 100 4922 F_1.z1 Lp X__P013791589.1_Fz4 Lp_XP_01378 97 Lp_XP_013792939.1_Fz4 100 100 94 100Lp_XP_022252858.1_Fz1 100 88 z4 Lp X_P 0_1 737985 F_1.7 L 100 p_X _P0137863351.F_z1 91 100 Po_comp187854_c1_seq2_Fz4 Lp_XP_013788049.1_Fz1 100 76 Lp_XP_013788951.1_Fz1 Is_XP_002402968.1_Fz4 100 89 95 Me_AYEL01071131.1_Fz4 Dp_EFX86267.1_Fz1 82 100 99 Cs_XP_023220057.1_Fz4 Bm_XP_004929280.1_Fz1 100 100 100 98 Ek_CRI73786.1_Fz3 72 99 84 Me_AYEL01075372.1_Fz4 Pf_TRINITY_DN15944_c8_g3_i1_Fz1Tc_EFA04653.1_Fz1Dm_NP_001261836.1_Fz1 98 100 75 Cs_XP_023233147.1_Fz4 100 99 76 70 Sm_SMAR007293_Fz3 100 100 72 Eb_TRINITY_DN127241_c0_g1_i1_Fz4 100 100 98 Ca_TRINITY_DN158988_c0_g1_i1_Fz3 Ag_TRINITY_DN72984_c0_g1_i1_Fz3Pp_c111597_g3_i1_Fz3 66 Eb_TRINITY_DN7482_c0_g1_i1_Fz3 Cs_XP_023221477.1_Fz3 Ca_TRINITY_DN127345_c0_g1_i1_Fz4 79 100 Me_AYEL01075007.1_Fz3 93 100 100 Ek_CRI73787.1_Fz4 Ca_TRINITY_DN159346_c0_g1_i1_Fz3 Sd_XP_035206735.1_Fz4 100 100 Eb_TRINITY_DN1947_c0_g1_i1_Fz3
100 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.10.177725; this version posted April 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which 100 100 was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rightsPt_XP_015910102.1_Fz4-2 reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 100 Ag_TRINITY_DN82058_c5_g1_i1_Fz4 Lp_XP_022240618.1_Fz3 100 Is_XP_002400653.2_Fz3 Eb_TRINITY_DN17745_c0_g1_i1_Fz4 98
Lp_XP_013781532.1_Fz3Lp_XP_013778946.2_Fz3
Ca_TRINITY_DN24116_c0_g2_i1_Fz4
Sm_SMAR009650_Fz4
Pf_TRINITY_DN10278_c0_g1_i2_Fz3 Pp_c102918_g1_i1_Fz4 97 Pan_SBLA01585531.1_Fz4
Mm_TRINITY_DN150_c35_g1_i1_Fz4 Fz4 Sd_XP_035227549.1_Fz4
Pa_TRINITY_DN1229_c0_g1_i1_Fz4 Ag_TRINITY_DN81345_c1_g1_i1_Fz4
Pt_XP_015911110.1_Fz4-1
Tc_EFA09255.1_Fz4 Fz3
Bm_XP_012545937.1_Fz4
Dm_NP_511068.2_Fz4
Bm_XP_021202154.2_Fz3
Dm_NP_001096859.1_Fz3
0.8