fgf8a / fgf8b

fgf8a / fgf8b

Back to pairs

Bottom line: PARTITION (subfunctionalization) at the expression level, and a lopsided one.
The two proteins look equivalent: fgf8b acts like fgf8a when injected. fgf8a kept most of the
ancestral FGF8 expression domains: the gastrula, the heart, the telencephalon, the pharyngeal
arches and the fin bud. fgf8b is expressed only in a subset of them (the midbrain-hindbrain
boundary, somites and ear), and only from mid-somitogenesis. The two copies have different sets of
conserved non-coding elements, and stickleback split the heart domain the opposite way. Both facts
fit reciprocal, lineage-specific loss of regulatory elements. In zebrafish, however, no domain
unique to fgf8b has been reported, and fgf8b has never been knocked out. Whether fgf8b does anything
that fgf8a cannot is therefore untested.

fgf8a fgf8b
UniProt O57341 (Swiss-Prot) Q805B2 (Swiss-Prot)
Human ortholog FGF8 FGF8
Former names fgf8, acerebellar (ace) fgf17, fgf17a
Chromosome 13 1
Length 210 aa 212 aa
Review genes/DANRE/fgf8a genes/DANRE/fgf8b

1. Evidence the pair comes from the TGD

PANTHER. The row in panther_tgd_pairs.tsv is:

tgd_call branch class family human orthologs (a / b) gar co-orthologs medaka co-orthologs medaka parallel dup
TGD_tree_no_gar Euteleostomi|Teleostei 1:1 PTHR11486 (FIBROBLAST GROWTH FACTOR) FGF8(LDO) / FGF8(O) 0 (no gar gene in the tree) 2 (blank; not assessed for this call)

PANTHER places the duplication on a branch that ends at Teleostei. Because the tree contains no gar
fgf8, it cannot show directly that the duplication came after the gar split. The two medaka
co-orthologues fit a duplication shared by teleosts.

Naming history. fgf8b was first described as zebrafish fgf17, and was then reassigned as an
FGF8 duplicate:

Synteny and phylogeny (established).

(Jovelin et al. call the TGD "R3".)

Status. The TGD origin is established by double-conserved synteny with human and stickleback,
together with teleost-wide retention. The gar orthology bridge has not been applied to this pair in
the sources found, and PANTHER has no gar fgf8 in the tree.

2. Protein-level comparison

Does each copy keep the ancestral molecular function? Probably yes. The protein domains are
intact, and fgf8b behaves like fgf8a in the injection assay. That rests on one gain-of-function
experiment, not on cross-rescue of the ace mutant. The GO molecular-function terms (FGFR binding,
growth factor activity) are therefore kept on both copies.

3. Expression

4. Experimental evidence of function

fgf8a (about 120 GOA rows; most rest on the ace mutant or on morpholinos)

fgf8b

Both copies

Compensation. No direct evidence either way. ace ti282a is a PTC allele, so transcriptional
adaptation (upregulation of fgf8b) is possible in principle, but it has not been tested. It is
limited in any case because fgf8b expression at the MHB depends on fgf8a (above). No RNA-less
fgf8a allele and no fgf8b allele exist in the literature found.

5. Fate classification

PARTITION (subfunctionalization), at the expression level. Confidence: moderate.

Established

Inferred, not shown

Not supported

What would change the call

6. GO annotation consistency across the pair

Source: annotation-comparison.md, after both reviews.

Shared, and correctly so. The molecular function terms are accepted for both copies: growth
factor activity (GO:0008083) and FGFR1/FGFR2 binding (GO:0005105, GO:0005111), plus fibroblast
growth factor receptor binding (GO:0005104, NAS) on fgf8b. So are the FGF receptor signaling pathway
(GO:0008543), positive regulation of the MAPK cascade (GO:0043410) and the extracellular region
(GO:0005576). The broad IBA process terms (neurogenesis, regulation of cell migration, positive
regulation of cell population proliferation) are kept as non-core on both. The cytoplasm IBA is
marked as over-annotated on both, because both are secreted ligands with signal peptides; this
matches the human FGF8 review. For these terms, treating the copies as equivalent is right.

Asymmetric, and correctly so.

Asymmetries caused by which copy was studied. The MHB, cerebellum, somite/muscle and otic
terms (all ACCEPTed or kept on fgf8a) rest on fgf8a loss of function alone. fgf8b shares the
MHB, somite and otic vesicle expression, but has no loss-of-function data. On fgf8b, MHB
development (GO:0030917) is kept as non-core from the NAS. No other shared-domain terms were added
to fgf8b as NEW. With no loss-of-function data, adding them would assert a participation that has
not been tested.

Should be copy-specific: heart, gastrula (D/V, mesendoderm) and fin/pharyngeal terms belong to
fgf8a.

Should be shared: molecular function, the FGFR pathway, and the extracellular location. MHB and
somite roles may be shared once fgf8b is tested.

Other review notes. Three fgf8a rows were left UNDECIDED because the cached abstracts do not
support them: positive regulation of Wnt signaling (PMID:14757644) and two rows from an Fgf19
paper (PMID:16256099). One IDA row, endoderm development (PMID:17026981), was modified to
GO:0042664.

7. Open questions

References

PMID:9609821, PMID:10603341, PMID:11091072, PMID:12843251, PMID:14651935, PMID:15151985,
PMID:15932752, PMID:16961592, PMID:17239227, PMID:17387144, PMID:17448458, PMID:17522161,
PMID:17708537, PMID:19562753, PMID:19782672, PMID:24677486, PMID:28873404. Also the files
panther_tgd_pairs.tsv and annotation-comparison.md, and the gene
notes genes/DANRE/fgf8a/fgf8a-notes.md and genes/DANRE/fgf8b/fgf8b-notes.md.