A Phylogenetic Framework to Simulate Synthetic Interspecies RNA-Seq Data

Evaluating the Performance of Widely Used Phylogenetic Models for Gene Expression Evolution

Phylogenetic comparative methods are increasingly used to test hypotheses about the evolutionary processes that drive divergence in gene expression among species. However, it is unknown whether the distributional assumptions of phylogenetic models designed for quantitative phenotypic traits are realistic for expression data and importantly, the reliability of conclusions of phylogenetic comparative studies of gene expression may depend on whether the data is well described by the chosen model. To evaluate this, we first fit several phylogenetic models of trait evolution to 8 previously published comparative expression datasets, comprising a total of 54,774 genes with 145,927 unique gene-tissue combinations. Using a previously developed approach, we then assessed how well the best model of the set described the data in an absolute (not just relative) sense. First, we find that Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models, in which expression values are constrained around an optimum, were the preferred models for 66% of gene-tissue combinations. Second, we find that for 61% of gene-tissue combinations, the best-fit model of the set was found to perform well; the rest were found to be performing poorly by at least one of the test statistics we examined. Third, we find that when simple models do not perform well, this appears to be typically a consequence of failing to fully account for heterogeneity in the rate of the evolution. We advocate that assessment of model performance should become a routine component of phylogenetic comparative expression studies; doing so can improve the reliability of inferences and inspire the development of novel models.

Dex-Benchmark: datasets and code to evaluate algorithms for transcriptomics data analysis

Many tools and algorithms are available for analyzing transcriptomics data. These include algorithms for performing sequence alignment, data normalization and imputation, clustering, identifying differentially expressed genes, and performing gene set enrichment analysis. To make the best choice about which tools to use, objective benchmarks can be developed to compare the quality of different algorithms to extract biological knowledge maximally and accurately from these data. The Dexamethasone Benchmark (Dex-Benchmark) resource aims to fill this need by providing the community with datasets and code templates for benchmarking different gene expression analysis tools and algorithms. The resource provides access to a collection of curated RNA-seq, L1000, and ChIP-seq data from dexamethasone treatment as well as genetic perturbations of its known targets. In addition, the website provides Jupyter Notebooks that use these pre-processed curated datasets to demonstrate how to benchmark the different steps in gene expression analysis. By comparing two independent data sources and data types with some expected concordance, we can assess which tools and algorithms best recover such associations. To demonstrate the usefulness of the resource for discovering novel drug targets, we applied it to optimize data processing strategies for the chemical perturbations and CRISPR single gene knockouts from the L1000 transcriptomics data from the Library of Integrated Network Cellular Signatures (LINCS) program, with a focus on understudied proteins from the Illuminating the Druggable Genome (IDG) program. Overall, the Dex-Benchmark resource can be utilized to assess the quality of transcriptomics and other related bioinformatics data analysis workflows. The resource is available from: https://maayanlab.github.io/dex-benchmark.

Facing lethal temperatures: Heat-shock response in desert and temperate ants

Global climate changes may cause profound effects on species adaptation, particularly in ectotherms for whom even moderate warmer temperatures can lead to disproportionate heat failure. Still, several organisms evolved to endure high desert temperatures. Here, we describe the thermal tolerance survival and the transcriptomic heat stress response of three genera of desert (Cataglyphis, Melophorus, and Ocymyrmex) and two of temperate ants (Formica and Myrmica) and explore convergent and specific adaptations. We found heat stress led to either a reactive or a constitutive response in desert ants: Cataglyphis holgerseni and Melophorus bagoti differentially regulated very few transcripts in response to heat (0.12% and 0.14%, respectively), while Cataglyphis bombycina and Ocymyrmex robustior responded with greater expression alterations (respectively affecting 0.6% and 1.53% of their transcriptomes). These two responsive mechanisms-reactive and constitutive-were related to individual thermal tolerance survival and convergently evolved in distinct desert ant genera. Moreover, in comparison with desert species, the two temperate ants differentially expressed thousands of transcripts more in response to heat stress (affecting 8% and 12.71% of F. fusca and Myr. sabuleti transcriptomes). In summary, we show that heat adaptation in thermophilic ants involved changes in the expression response. Overall, desert ants show reduced transcriptional alterations even when under high thermal stress, and their expression response may be either constitutive or reactive to temperature increase.

Evaluating the Performance of Widely Used Phylogenetic Models for Gene Expression Evolution

Phylogenetic comparative methods are increasingly used to test hypotheses about the evolutionary processes that drive divergence in gene expression among species. However, it is unknown whether the distributional assumptions of phylogenetic models designed for quantitative phenotypic traits are realistic for expression data and importantly, the reliability of conclusions of phylogenetic comparative studies of gene expression may depend on whether the data is well-described by the chosen model. To evaluate this, we first fit several phylogenetic models of trait evolution to 8 previously published comparative expression datasets, comprising a total of 54,774 genes with 145,927 unique gene-tissue combinations. Using a previously developed approach, we then assessed how well the best model of the set described the data in an absolute (not just relative) sense. First, we find that Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models, in which expression values are constrained around an optimum, were the preferred model for 66% of gene-tissue combinations. Second, we find that for 61% of gene-tissue combinations, the best fit model of the set was found to perform well; the rest were found to be performing poorly by at least one of the test statistics we examined. Third, we find that when simple models do not perform well, this appears to be typically a consequence of failing to fully account for heterogeneity in the rate of the evolution. We advocate that assessment of model performance should become a routine component of phylogenetic comparative expression studies; doing so can improve the reliability of inferences and inspire the development of novel models.