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

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

Funds: 

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant 386466

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant 06538

the Human Frontier Science Program RGP0062/2016

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    Kenneth C. Welch Jr., Kenneth.welchjr@utoronto.ca

  • Alexander M. Myrka and Tooba Shah co-first authors

  • Received Date: 16 Apr 2020
  • Accepted Date: 27 Oct 2020
  • Available Online: 24 Apr 2022
  • Publish Date: 05 Nov 2020
  • Background 

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

    Methods 

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

    Results 

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

    Conclusion 

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

  • The Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater; Figs. 1 and 2) is the only widespread brood parasite in the United States and Canada. The Bronzed Cowbird (M. aeneus) is restricted to the southern United States (Peer and Sealy, 1999a; Ellison and Lowther, 2009) and the Shiny Cowbird (M. bonariensis) is found in limited numbers in the southeastern United States (Reetz et al., 2010; Post and Sykes, 2011). It was believed that the Shiny Cowbird would rapidly invade and spread into the southeastern states (Cruz et al., 1998; 2000), but their range expansion has stalled for reasons that are unclear. The Bronzed and Shiny Cowbirds are found primarily in the Neotropics and this region also has the remaining two species in the parasitic cowbird clade, the Giant (M. oryzivorus) and Screaming (M. rufoaxillaris) Cowbirds. The latter is one of the most special-ized brood parasites in the world, primarily parasitizing a single species and on occasion four other species (DiGiacomo et al., 2010). In contrast, the Shiny Cowbird (266 hosts), followed closely by the Brown-headed Cowbird (247 hosts; Lowther, 2012), has the largest number of known host species of any brood parasite.

    Figure  1.  A female (left) and male (right) Brown-headed Cowbird (photo by J. Rivers)
    Figure  2.  A Brown-headed Cowbird nestling in a Bell's Vireo nest. This host species typically raises only a cowbird and none of its own young when parasitized (photo by J. Rivers).

    Cowbirds are considered grassland and edge species, but they also search for host nests in forested habitats. Brown-headed Cowbirds (hereafter cowbirds) commute large distances (7–15 km) on a daily basis between breeding and foraging locations (Dufty, 1982; Rothstein et al., 1984; Thompson, 1994; Curson et al., 2000). Their foraging habitat includes grasslands and pastures where they feed on seeds and invertebrates (Ortega, 1998), and they show a distinct preference for foraging in association with livestock which flush insects in these areas (Ortega, 1998). Historically, cowbirds followed and foraged in association with bison (Bison bison) herds (Mayfield, 1965). Their preference of open habitats has also impacted the evolution of host defenses, because all hosts known to eject cowbird eggs mostly nest in grasslands or open areas along edges apparently due to the fact these hosts have had the longest period of time to evolve defenses (Peer and Sealy, 2004).

    The cowbird is a host generalist and usually parasitizes open-cup nesting species and avoids those that nest in cavities (Ortega, 1998; but see Peer et al., 2006; Hoover and Robinson, 2007). Cowbirds use hosts that feed their young insects (Ortega, 1998), but they also parasitize those with diets of seed and fruit despite the fact their young do not survive on such diets (Rothstein, 1976; Middleton, 1991; Kozlovic et al., 1996). Parasitism frequencies vary regionally, within hosts, and seasonally. For example in the fragmented forests of Illinois, parasitism frequencies are often 100% (Robinson, 1992; Fig. 3). Birds nesting at forest edges and in shrublands are parasitized at intermediate frequencies and those nesting in grasslands in the same region are rarely parasitized (Peer et al., 2000). In contrast, in the center of the cowbird's historic range in Kansas where the landscape consists almost wholly of grasslands, grassland species are parasitized at high frequencies (Elliott, 1978; Rivers et al., 2010). Parasitism of some host species, notably the Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and Dickcissel (Spiza americana), also vary geographically (Linz and Bolin, 1982; Jensen and Cully, 1995; Searcy and Yasukawa, 1995) possibly due to alternative host choices within given avian communities (e.g., Barber and Martin, 1997).

    Figure  3.  A Wood Thrush nest parasitized with a single cowbird egg. In parts of its range, 100% of Wood Thrush nests are parasitized by cowbirds (photo by B. Peer).

    Individual female cowbirds sometimes specialize on a particular host species and in other cases use multiple hosts (Alderson et al., 1999; Strausberger and Ashley, 2005), and host usage by individual female cowbirds is an area in need of further research. Estimates of the numbers of eggs laid by individual females in the wild range from 13 to more than 40 (Scott and Ankney, 1983; Fleischer et al., 1987; Alderson et al., 1999; see also Holford and Roby, 1993), but there is some consensus that cowbirds lay eggs on about 70–80% of the days during their breeding season (Fleischer et al., 1987). Multiple parasitism is relatively common in cowbirds (Robinson, 1992; Rivers et al., 2010; Fig. 4) and can result from multiple females parasitizing a nest or indi-vidual females laying multiple eggs within a single nest (Alderson et al., 1999; McLaren et al., 2003; Rivers et al., 2012).

    Figure  4.  A multiply parasitized Dickcissel nest with five host eggs (blue) and four cowbird eggs (white with brown spots) (photo by J. Rivers)

    In comparison to other brood parasite-host systems, cowbirds and their hosts have interacted for a relatively short time; the Molothrus clade is only 2.8–3.8 million years old (Rothstein et al., 2002). Perhaps as a result, the Brown-headed Cowbird lacks some adaptations possessed by other brood parasites (Mermoz and Ornelas, 2004) including mimicry of host eggs (Rothstein and Robinson, 1998; but see Peer et al. 2002), or evidence of specialized nestling adaptations such as directly killing nestmates (Lichtenstein and Sealy, 1998; Peer et al., 2013). Among the adaptations possessed by cowbird are that females have a larger hippocampus to remember where host nests are located (Sherry et al., 2003); laying eggs rapidly and before sunrise to avoid detection by hosts (Scott, 1991; Sealy et al., 1995; see also Peer and Sealy, 1999b); thick eggshells presumably to withstand puncture-ejection by hosts (Picman, 1989); greater pore diameter in their eggshells for increased embryonic respiration and shorter incubation periods (Jaeckle et al., 2012; see also Briskie and Sealy, 1990); removal of host eggs by females in conjunction with parasitism to enhance incubation efficiency (Peer and Bollinger, 1997; 2000) and for nutrition (Sealy, 1992); egg puncture and killing nestlings to force hosts to renest providing additional chances for parasitism (Arcese et al., 1996; Elliott, 1999; Hoover and Robinson, 2007; Dubina and Peer, 2013); and possibly forcing hosts to accept parasitism through mafia enforcement tactics (Hoover and Robinson, 2007).

    Likewise, host defenses against cowbird parasitism appear to be relatively unsophisticated. For example, many hosts aggressively defend their nests against cowbirds, but the success of this strategy in preventing parasitism is limited (Sealy et al., 1998). Only approximately 10% of hosts reject cowbird eggs (Peer and Sealy, 2004; Fig. 5) and there is a bimodal response in that most hosts either accept or reject 100% of the time (Rothstein, 1975; Peer and Sealy, 2004), although more intermediate rejecters have been recently discovered (Peer et al., 2000, 2002, 2006). Smaller hosts are more likely to desert parasitized nests likely due to bill-size constraints that prevent egg ejection or simply because nest desertion evolves more easily than egg ejection (Hosoi and Rothstein, 2000). One host, the Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petchia), is unique because it often buries cowbird eggs in a new nest lining (Sealy, 1995) and it also has a specific referential call for cowbirds (Gill and Sealy, 2004). The lack of adaptive response to parasitism in newly parasitized hosts and some others appears to be due to an evolutionary lag (Rothstein, 1975; Peer and Sealy, 2004). Hosts with small bills that have difficulty in removing the cowbird egg or those with eggs that resemble cowbird eggs and may mistake them for their own may be in an evolutionary equilibrium (e.g., Rohwer and Spaw, 1988), but there is no compelling evidence of equilibrium among cowbird hosts to date (Peer and Sealy, 2004).

    Figure  5.  A Gray Catbird nest parasitized by a cowbird. The catbird is a rejecter species but is still at least occasionally parasitized (photo by B. Peer)

    The Brown-headed Cowbird, and to a lesser extent the Shiny Cowbird, is unique among brood parasites because there are control programs designed to aid endangered species by culling cowbirds. To some extent, these control measures have been implemented based on misconceptions concerning impacts cowbirds have at the level of host populations and on incorrectly assuming that cowbirds rather than anthropogenic habitat destruction are limiting host populations (Rothstein and Peer, 2005). Unfortunately, there is no indication that control measures will cease despite some host populations having surpassed mandated minimum population goals and the expenditure of scarce management funds that could be put to better use (Hammer, 2011, unpubl. report). The management debate is exacerbated by the negative attitudes directed towards cowbirds by both birdwatchers and scientists (Ortega, 1998; see Peer et al., 2013, pers. observ.) that is not as apparent in other brood parasites. For example, an article in a North American journal solicited cowbird recipes (Schram, 1994)! In contrast, there is concern in Europe over the decline of the Common Cuckoo (Douglas et al., 2010). Birdwatchers and even some ornithologists in North America would likely rejoice if such declines occurred in the cowbird. This unfortunate attitude and scapegoating of the cowbird are detrimental to the conservation of endangered songbird species because it diverts attention from more important factors such as the anthropogenic habitat degradation underlying the declines of these species.

  • Ali RS, Morag FD, Muhammad S, Sarver D, Hou L, Wong GW, et al. Glucose transporter expression and regulation following a fast in the ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris. J Exp Biol. 2020; 22: 9989. .
    Baker HG, Baker I, Hodges SA. Sugar composition of nectars and fruits consumed by birds and bats in the tropics and subtropics. Biotropica. 1998; 30: 559–86.
    Benson DA, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, Wheeler DL. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005; 33: D34–8.
    Beuchat CA, Chong CR. Hyperglycemia in hummingbirds and its consequences for hemoglobin glycation. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 1998; 120: 409–16.
    Blem CR. Patterns of lipid storage and utilization in birds. Integr Comp Biol. 1976; 16: 671–84.
    Braun EJ, Sweazea KL. Glucose regulation in birds. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 2008; 151: 1–9.
    Burns KJ, Hackett SJ, Klein NK. Phylogenetic relationships of Neotropical honeycreepers and the evolution of feeding morphology. J Avian Biol. 2003; 34: 360–70.
    Byers M, Bohannon-Stewart A, Khwatenge C, Alqureish C, Alhathlol A, Nahashon S, et al. Absolute quantification of tissue specific expression of glucose transporters in chickens. J Mol Cell Biol. 2018; 1: 1–8.
    Carver FM, Shibley IA Jr, Pennington JS, Pennington SN. Differential expression of glucose transporters during chick embryogenesis. Cell Mol Life Sci CMLS. 2001; 58: 645–52.
    Duchêne S, Audouin E, Crochet S, Duclos MJ, Dupont J, Tesseraud S. Involvement of the ERK1/2 MAPK pathway in insulin-induced S6K1 activation in avian cells. Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2008; 34: 63–73.
    Dupont J, Dagou C, Derouet M, Simon J, Taouis M. Early steps of insulin receptor signaling in chicken and rat: apparent refractoriness in chicken muscle. Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2004; 26: 127–42.
    Dupont J, Tesseraud S, Simon J. Insulin signaling in chicken liver and muscle. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2009; 163: 52–7.
    Gasteiger E, Gattiker A, Hoogland C, Ivanyi I, Appel RD, Bairoch A. ExPASy: the proteomics server for in-depth protein knowledge and analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003; 31: 3784–8.
    Gaster M, Handberg A, Beck-Nielsen H, Schroder HD. Glucose transporter expression in human skeletal muscle fibers. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2000; 279: E529–38.
    Guillemain G, Loizeau M, Pincon-Raymond M, Girard J, Leturque A. The large intracytoplasmic loop of the glucose transporter GLUT2 is involved in glucose signaling in hepatic cells. J Cell Sci. 2000; 113: 841–7.
    Hackett SJ, Kimball RT, Reddy S, Bowie RCK, Braun EL, Braun MJ, et al. A phylogenomic study of birds reveals their evolutionary history. Science. 2008; 320: 1763–8.
    Hazelwood RL. The avian endocrine pancreas. Am Zool. 1973; 13: 699–709.
    Hedges SB, Kumar S. The timetree of life. New York: OUP Oxford; 2009.
    Huang S, Czech MP. The GLUT4 glucose transporter. Cell Metab. 2007; 5: 237–52.
    Irestedt M, Ohlson JI. The division of the major songbird radiation into Passerida and 'core Corvoidea' (Aves: Passeriformes)— the species tree vs. gene trees. Zool Scr. 2008; 37: 305–13.
    Jetz W, Thomas GM, Joy JB, Hartmann K, Mooers AO. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature. 2012; 491: 444–8.
    Jønsson KA, Bowie RCK, Moyle RG, Irestedt M, Norman JA, Fjeldså J. Phylogeny and biogeography of Oriolidae (Aves: Passeriformes). Ecography. 2010; 33: 232–41.
    Katagiri H, Asano T, Ishihara H, Tsukuda K, Lin JL, Inukai K, et al. Replacement of intracellular C-terminal domain of GLUT1 glucose transporter with that of GLUT2 increases Vmax and Km of transport activity. J Biol Chem. 1992; 267: 22550–5.
    Kono T, Nishida M, Nishiki Y, Seki Y, Sato K, Akiba Y. Characterisation of glucose transporter (GLUT) gene expression in broiler chickens. Br Poult Sci. 2005; 46: 510–5.
    Leturque A, Brot-Laroche E, Gall ML. GLUT2 mutations, translocation, and receptor function in diet sugar managing. Am J Physiol-Endocrinol Metab. 2009; 296: E985–92.
    Long W, Cheeseman CI. Structure of, and functional insight into the GLUT family of membrane transporters. Cell Health Cytoskeleton. 2015; 7: 167–83.
    MacDonald JR, Ziman R, Yuen RKC, Feuk L, Scherer SW. The database of genomic variants: a curated collection of structural variation in the human genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42: D986–92.
    Maddison WP, Maddison DR. Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 3.61. 2019. .
    Moyle R, Taylor S, Oliveros C, Lim H, Haines CL, Abdul Rahman M, et al. Diversification of an endemic Southeast Asian genus: phylogenetic relationships of the spiderhunters (Nectariniidae: Arachnothera). Auk. 2011; 128: 777–88.
    Mueckler M, Thorens B. The SlC2 (GLUT) family of membrane transporters. Mol Aspects Med. 2013; 34: 121–38.
    Nicolson SW, Fleming PA. Nectar as food for birds: the physiological consequences of drinking dilute sugar solutions. Plant Syst Evol. 2003; 238: 139–53.
    OsorIo-Fuentealba C, Contreras-Ferrat AE, Altamirano F, Espinosa A, Li Q, Niu W, et al. Electrical stimuli release ATP to increase GLUT4 translocation and glucose uptake via PI3K[gamma]-Akt-AS160 in skeletal muscle cells. Diabetes. 2013; 62: 1519–26.
    Polakof S, Mommsen TP, Soengas JL. Glucosensing and glucose homeostasis: from fish to mammals. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 2011; 160: 123–49.
    R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
    Reding DM, Foster JT, James HF, Pratt HD, Fleischer RC. Convergent evolution of 'creepers' in the Hawaiian honeycreeper radiation. Biol Lett. 2009; 5: 221–4.
    Rideau N, Derouet M, Grimsby J, Simon J. Glucokinase activation induces potent hypoglycemia without recruiting insulin and inhibits food intake in chicken. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2010; 169: 276–83.
    Roberts MW. Hummingbirds' nectar concentration preferences at low volume: the importance of time scale. Anim Behav. 1996; 52: 361–70.
    Schuchmann K-L. Handbook of the birds of the world. Barcelona: Lynx Editions; 2015.
    Seatter MJ, De la Rue SA, Porter LM, Gould GW. QLS motif in transmembrane helix Ⅶ of the glucose transporter family interacts with the C-1 position of D-glucose and is involved in substrate selection at the exofacial binding site. Biochemistry. 1998; 37: 1322–6.
    Sedano RE, Burns KJ. Are the Northern Andes a species pump for Neotropical birds? Phylogenetics and biogeography of a clade of Neotropical tanagers (Aves: Thraupini). J Biogeogr. 2010; 37: 325–43.
    Seki Y, Sato K, Kono T, Abe H, Akiba Y. Broiler chickens (Ross strain) lack insulin-responsive glucose transporter GLUT4 and have GLUT8 cDNA. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2003; 133: 80–7.
    Shen B, Han X, Zhang J, Rossiter SJ, Zhang S. Adaptive evolution in the glucose transporter 4 gene Slc2a4 in Old World fruit bats (family: Pteropodidae). PLoS ONE. 2012; 7: e33197.
    Shepherd PR, Kahn BB. Glucose transporters and insulin action— implications for insulin resistance and diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341: 248–57.
    Sweazea KL, Braun EJ. Glucose transporter expression in English sparrows (Passer domesticus). Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 2006; 144: 263–70.
    Taniguchi CM, Emanuelli B, Kahn CR. Critical nodes in signalling pathways: insights into insulin action. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006; 7: 85–96.
    Thorens B. Glucose transporters in the regulation of intestinal, renal, and liver glucose fluxes. Am J Physiol-Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 1996; 270: G541–53.
    Thorens B. GLUT2 glucose sensing and glucose homeostasis. Diabetologia. 2015; 58: 221–32.
    Thorens B, Mueckler M. Glucose transporters in the 21st Century. Am J Physiol-Endocrinol Metab. 2010; 298: E141–5.
    Uldry M, Thorens B. The SLC2 family of facilitated hexose and polyol transporters. Pflüg Arch. 2004; 447: 480–9.
    Wals PA, Katz J. Glucokinase in bird liver a membrane bound enzyme. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1981; 100: 1543–8.
    Warren BH, Bermingham E, Prys-Jones RP, Thébaud C. Immigration, species radiation and extinction in a highly diverse songbird lineage: white-eyes on Indian Ocean islands. Mol Ecol. 2006; 15: 3769–86.
    Weir JT, Bermingham E, Schluter D. The Great American Biotic Interchange in birds. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009; 106: 21737–42.
    Witteveen M, Brown M, Downs CT. Does sugar content matter? Blood plasma glucose levels in an occasional and specialist avian nectarivore. Comp Biochem Physiol Part A Mol Integr Physiol. 2014; 167: 40–4.
    Workman RE, Myrka AM, Wong GW, Tseng E, Welch KC, Timp W. Single-molecule, full-length transcript sequencing provides insight into the extreme metabolism of the ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris. GigaScience. 2018; 7: 1–12.
    Wright TF, Schirtzinger EE, Matsumoto T, Eberhard JR, Graves JR, Sanchez JJ. A multilocus molecular phylogeny of the parrots (Psittaciformes): support for a Gondwanan origin during the Cretaceous. Mol Biol Evol. 2008; 25: 2141–56.
    Wu L, Fritz JD, Powers AC. Different functional domains of GLUT2 glucose transporter are required for glucose affinity and substrate specificity. Endocrinology. 1998; 139: 4205–12.
    Zhang S, Yang L, Yang X, Yang J. Molecular phylogeny of the yuhinas (Sylviidae: Yuhina): A paraphyletic group of babblers including Zosterops and Philippine Stachyris. J Ornithol. 2007; 148: 417–26.
    Zhang W, Sumners LH, Siegel PB, Cline MA, Gilbert ER. Quantity of glucose transporter and appetite-associated factor mRNA in various tissues after insulin injection in chickens selected for low or high body weight. Physiol Genomics. 2013; 45: 1084–94.
    Zhao F-Q, Keating AF. Functional properties and genomics of glucose transporters. Curr Genomics. 2007; 8: 113–28.
    Zuker M. Mfold web server for nucleic acid folding and hybridization prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003; 31: 3406–15.
  • Related Articles

Catalog

    Figures(1)  /  Tables(2)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (172) PDF downloads (11) Cited by()

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return