Divergent and convergent evolution underlie the cocoon-spinning diversity

Yong Cui; Gang-Qi Fang; Jian Zhong; Xing-Rong Bai; Han Xue; Mei-Yan Yi; Bao-Zhen Chen; Ya-Nan Zhu; Wen Wang; Yan-Qun Liu; Shuai Zhan; Hui Xiang

doi:10.59717/j.xinn-life.2025.100144

The Innovation Life > 2025 Vol. 3 > No. 3 > 100144

Next Article Previous Article

ARTICLE Open Access

Cite PDF

Divergent and convergent evolution underlie the cocoon-spinning diversity

1.
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Insect Developmental Biology and Applied Technology, Institute of Insect Science and Technology, Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Insect Development Regulation and Application Research, Institute of Insect Science and Technology, School of Life Sciences, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China
2.
Key Laboratory of Plant Design, CAS Center for Excellence in Molecular Plant Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 200032, China
3.
Sericultural and Apicultural Research Institute, Yunnan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Mengzi 661101, China
4.
State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Kunming 650201, China
5.
School of Ecology and Environment, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China
6.
College of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China
7.
Guangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Guangzhou 510642, China
8.
Key Laboratory of Economic Plants and Biotechnology, Kunming Institute of Botany, Kunming 650204, China
9.
College of Animal Science and Technology, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China
10.
These authors contributed equally to this work

Show all affliationsShow less

More Information

Corresponding authors: xianghui@m.scnu.edu.cn (H.X.); szhan@sibs.ac.cn (S.Z.); liuyanqun@syau.edu.cn (Y.-Q.L.)
Received Date: December 18, 2024

Accepted Date: June 17, 2025

Published Online: June 30, 2025

The Innovation Life 3(3), https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-life.2025.100144 | Cite this article

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

DownLoad: Full size image

PUBLIC SUMMARY

PUBLIC SUMMARY
1. The Saturniid lineage diverged from Sphingids but convergently evolved silk-spinning cocoons with Bombycids.
  
  The two lineages differ in expression and functions of lineage-specific, positively selected, silk gland–specific genes.
  
  Bombycoidea retain diverse silk proteins; cocoon-silk lineages converge in fibroin regulation unlike non-cocoon ones.

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

Silk production and use are widespread and highly diversified in insects, yet the evolution and molecular bases underlying this diversity remain enigmatic. The Bombycoidea insects consist of sublineages that spin large cocoons (silk lineages) and non-silk cocoons, providing an ideal model system to study how cocoon-spinning behaviors rapidly diversify between species. By analyzing 11 Bombycoidea genomes, this study explored the genomic and transcriptomic divergence underlying the differences in silk traits between sublineages. Specific genes presented in silk lineage Saturniids exhibit biased expression and genes under selection in Saturniids are related to silk production, which contrasts with those in the non-silk-cocoon lineage Sphingids. Moreover, the gene repertoires of silk glands in the silk lineage species were dominated by genes with specialized expression and enriched in amino acid metabolism. We further characterized a highly dynamic catalog of silk protein genes within Bombycoidea, particularly including an extreme diversity of fibroin sequences across species, as well as the convergent regulation of fibroin expression between the Bombycoidea sublineages that spin large cocoons. This study suggests that the silk lineage Saturniid may diverge from its sister non-silk-cocoon lineage Sphingid, but converge with the outgroup Bombycid in spinning silk cocoons and uncovers a comprehensive scenario in which diversifying and convergent selection act on different processes of silk use, jointly shaping the diversity of ecological adaptations in insects.

FullText(HTML)

REFERENCES

[1]	Sutherland T.D., Young J.H., Weisman S., et al. (2010). Insect silk: One name, many materials. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 55:171−188. DOI:10.1146/annurev-ento-112408-085401 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[2]	Mitter C., Davis D.R. and Cummings, M.P. (2017). Phylogeny and evolution of lepidoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 62:265−283. DOI:10.1146/annurev-ento-031616-035125 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[3]	Yu T.T., Chang Z., Dong Z.W., et al. (2022). A glimpse into the biodiversity of insects in Yunnan: An updated and annotated checklist of butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea). Zool. Res. 43:1009−1010. DOI:10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2022.313 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[4]	Xia Q., Li S. and Feng, Q. (2014). Advances in silkworm studies accelerated by the genome sequencing of Bombyx mori. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 59:513−536. DOI:10.1146/annurev-ento-011613-161940 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[5]	Yi M.Y., Yang X., Wang M., et al. (2025). Consistency, distinction, and potential metabolic crosstalk of nitrogen mobilization-related genes in silk production and silk gland biology. Zool. Res. 46:446−458. DOI:10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2024.391 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[6]	Yukuhiro K., Sezutsu H., Tsubota T., et al. (2016). Insect silks and cocoons: Structural and molecular aspects. E. Cohen and B. Moussian (eds). Extracellular Composite Matrices in Arthropods (Springer International Publishing ), pp. 515-555. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-40740-1_14. View in Article Google Scholar
[7]	Dong Y., Dai F., Ren Y., et al. (2015). Comparative transcriptome analyses on silk glands of six silkmoths imply the genetic basis of silk structure and coloration. BMC Genomics 16:203. DOI:10.1186/s12864-015-1420-9 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[8]	Lee J., Nishiyama T., Shigenobu S., et al. (2021). The genome sequence of Samia ricini, a new model species of lepidopteran insect. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2:327−339. DOI:10.1111/1755-0998.13259 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[9]	Zhou C.Z., Confalonieri F., Medina N., et al. (2000). Fine organization of Bombyx mori fibroin heavy chain gene. Nucleic Acids Res. 28:2413−2419. DOI:10.1093/nar/28.12.2413 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[10]	Sezutsu H. and Yukuhiro K. (2015). The complete nucleotide sequence of the Eri-silkworm (samia cynthia ricini) fibroin gene. J. Insect Biotechnol. 83:59−70. DOI:10.11416/jibs.83.3_059 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[11]	Koren S., Walenz B.P., Berlin K., et al. (2017). Canu: Scalable and accurate long-read assembly via adaptive k-mer weighting and repeat separation. Genome Res. 27:722−736. DOI:10.1101/gr.215087.116 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[12]	Liu H., Wu S., Li A., et al. (2021). SMARTdenovo:A de novo assembler using long noisy reads. GigaByte 2021:gigabyte15. DOI:10.46471/gigabyte.15 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[13]	Chin C.S., Alexander D.H., Marks P., et al. (2013). Nonhybrid, finished microbial genome assemblies from long-read SMRT sequencing data. Nat. Methods 10:563−569. DOI:10.1038/nmeth.2474 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[14]	Walker B.J., Abeel T., Shea T., et al. (2014). Pilon: An integrated tool for comprehensive microbial variant detection and genome assembly improvement. PLoS One 9:e112963. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0112963 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[15]	Roach M.J., Schmidt S.A. and Borneman A.R. (2018). Purge Haplotigs: Allelic contig reassignment for third-gen diploid genome assemblies. BMC Bioinformatics 19:460. DOI:10.1186/s12859-018-2485-7 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[16]	Vaser R., Sovic I., Nagarajan N., et al. (2017). Fast and accurate de novo genome assembly from long uncorrected reads. Genome Res 27(5):737−746. DOI:10.1101/gr.214270.116 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[17]	Kajitani R., Toshimoto K., Noguchi H., et al. (2014). Efficient de novo assembly of highly heterozygous genomes from whole-genome shotgun short reads. Genome Res. 24:1384−1395. DOI:10.1101/gr.170720.113 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[18]	Love R.R., Weisenfeld N.I., Jaffe D.B., et al. (2016). Evaluation of DISCOVAR de novo using a mosquito sample for cost-effective short-read genome assembly. BMC Genomics 17:187. DOI:10.1186/s12864-016-2531-7 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[19]	Mandric I. and Zelikovsky A. (2015). ScaffMatch: Scaffolding algorithm based on maximum weight matching. Bioinformatics 31:2632−2638. DOI:10.1093/bioinformatics/btv211 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[20]	Luo R., Liu B., Xie Y., et al. (2012). SOAPdenovo2: An empirically improved memory-efficient short-read de novo assembler. Gigascience 1(1):18. DOI:10.1186/2047-217X-1-18 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[21]	Durand N.C., Shamim M.S., Machol I., et al. (2016). Juicer provides a one-click system for analyzing loop-resolution Hi-C experiments. Cell Syst. 3:95−98. DOI:10.1016/j.cels.2016.07.002 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[22]	Dudchenko O., Batra S.S., Omer A.D., et al. (2017). De novo assembly of the Aedes aegypti genome using Hi-C yields chromosome-length scaffolds. Science 356:92−95. DOI:10.1126/science.aal3327 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[23]	Alonge M., Lebeigle L., Kirsche M., et al. (2022). Automated assembly scaffolding using RagTag elevates a new tomato system for high-throughput genome editing. Genome Biol. 23:258. DOI:10.1186/s13059-022-02823-7 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[24]	Waterhouse R.M., Seppey M., Simao F.A., et al. (2019). Using BUSCO to assess insect genomic resources. Methods Mol. Biol. 1858:59−74. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4939-8775-7_6 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[25]	Li H. (2012). seqtk Toolkit for processing sequences in FASTA/Q formats. https://github.com/lh3/seqtk. View in Article Google Scholar
[26]	Wang Y., Tang H., Debarry J.D., et al. (2012). MCScanX: A toolkit for detection and evolutionary analysis of gene synteny and collinearity. Nucleic Acids Res. 40:e49. DOI:10.1093/nar/gkr1293 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[27]	Tarailo-Graovac M. and Chen N. (2009). Using RepeatMasker to identify repetitive elements in genomic sequences. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 25:4.10.11−14.10.14. DOI:10.1002/0471250953.bi0410s25 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[28]	Hoff K.J. and Stanke M. (2013). WebAUGUSTUS--a web service for training AUGUSTUS and predicting genes in eukaryotes. Nucleic Acids Res. 41:W123-128. DOI:10.1093/nar/gkt418. View in Article Google Scholar
[29]	Dobin A., Davis C.A., Schlesinger F., et al. (2013). STAR: Ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics 29:15−21. DOI:10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[30]	Pertea M., Pertea G.M., Antonescu C.M., et al. (2015). StringTie enables improved reconstruction of a transcriptome from RNA-seq reads. Nat. Biotechnol. 33:290−295. DOI:10.1038/nbt.3122 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[31]	Haas B.J., Salzberg S.L., Zhu W., et al. (2008). Automated eukaryotic gene structure annotation using EVidenceModeler and the Program to Assemble Spliced Alignments. Genome Biol 9:R7. DOI:10.1186/gb-2008-9-1-r7 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[32]	Emms D.M. and Kelly, S. (2019). OrthoFinder: Phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics. Genome Biol. 20:238. DOI:10.1186/s13059-019-1832-y View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[33]	Lu F., Wei Z., Luo Y., et al. (2020). SilkDB 3.0: Visualizing and exploring multiple levels of data for silkworm. Nucleic Acids Res. 48:D749-D755. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkz919. View in Article Google Scholar
[34]	Duan J., Li Y., Du J., et al. (2020). A chromosome-scale genome assembly of Antheraea pernyi (Saturniidae, Lepidoptera). Mol. Ecol. Resour. 20:1372−1383. DOI:10.1111/1755-0998.13199 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[35]	Pippel M., Jebb D., Patzold F., et al. (2020). A highly contiguous genome assembly of the bat hawkmoth Hyles vespertilio (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). Gigascience 9. DOI:10.1093/gigascience/giaa001. View in Article Google Scholar
[36]	Kanost M.R., Arrese E.L., Cao X., et al. (2016). Multifaceted biological insights from a draft genome sequence of the tobacco hornworm moth, Manduca sexta. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 76:118−147. DOI:10.1016/j.ibmb.2016.07.005 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[37]	Xiang H., Liu X., Li M., et al. (2018). The evolutionary road from wild moth to domestic silkworm. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2:1268−1279. DOI:10.1038/s41559-018-0593-4 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[38]	Wu N.N., Zhang S.F., Li X.W., et al. (2019). Fall webworm genomes yield insights into rapid adaptation of invasive species. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3:105−115. DOI:10.1038/s41559-018-0746-5 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[39]	Cheng T., Wu J., Wu Y., et al. (2017). Genomic adaptation to polyphagy and insecticides in a major East Asian noctuid pest. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1:1747−1756. DOI:10.1038/s41559-017-0314-4 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[40]	Stamatakis A. (2014). RAxML version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30:1312−1313. DOI:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[41]	Sanderson M.J. (2003). R8s: inferring absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times in the absence of a molecular clock. Bioinformatics 19:301−302. DOI:10.1093/bioinformatics/19.2.301 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[42]	Kumar S., Stecher G., Suleski M., et al. (2017). TimeTree: A resource for timelines, timetrees, and divergence times. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34:1812−1819. DOI:10.1093/molbev/msx116 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[43]	Li H. (2023). Protein-to-genome alignment with miniprot. Bioinformatics 39:btad014. DOI:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad014 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[44]	De Bie T., Cristianini N., Demuth J.P., et al. (2006). CAFE: A computational tool for the study of gene family evolution. Bioinformatics 22:1269−1271. DOI:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl097 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[45]	Revell L.J. (2024). Phytools 2.0: An updated R ecosystem for phylogenetic comparative methods (and other things). PeerJ 12:e16505. DOI:10.7717/peerj.16505. View in Article Google Scholar
[46]	Li B. and Dewey, C.N. (2011). RSEM: Accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. BMC Bioinformatics 12:323. DOI:10.1186/1471-2105-12-323 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[47]	Yanai I., Benjamin H., Shmoish M., et al. (2005). Genome-wide midrange transcription profiles reveal expression level relationships in human tissue specification. Bioinformatics 21:650−659. DOI:10.1093/bioinformatics/bti042 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[48]	Yang Z. (1997). PAML: A program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13:555−556. DOI:10.1093/bioinformatics/13.5.555 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[49]	Yang Z. (2007). PAML 4: Phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24:1586−1591. DOI:10.1093/molbev/msm088 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[50]	Yang Z. (1998). Likelihood ratio tests for detecting positive selection and application to primate lysozyme evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15:568−573. DOI:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025957 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[51]	Yang Z. and Nielsen, R. (2002). Codon-substitution models for detecting molecular adaptation at individual sites along specific lineages. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:908−917. DOI:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004148 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[52]	Yang, Z. Wong W.S. and Nielsen, R. (2005). Bayes empirical bayes inference of amino acid sites under positive selection. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:1107−1118. DOI:10.1093/molbev/msi097 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[53]	Zhang J., Nielsen R. and Yang, Z. (2005). Evaluation of an improved branch-site likelihood method for detecting positive selection at the molecular level. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:2472−2479. DOI:10.1093/molbev/msi237 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[54]	Sun X., Yang Q. and Xia, X. (2013). An improved implementation of effective number of codons (nc). Mol. Biol. Evol. 30:191−196. DOI:10.1093/molbev/mss201 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[55]	Chan P.P., Lin B.Y., Mak A.J., et al. (2021). tRNAscan-SE 2.0: improved detection and functional classification of transfer RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 49:9077-9096. DOI:10.1093/nar/gkab688. View in Article Google Scholar
[56]	Kim S.R., Kwak W., Kim H., et al. (2018). Genome sequence of the Japanese oak silk moth, Antheraea yamamai: the first draft genome in the family Saturniidae. Gigascience 7:1−11. DOI:10.1093/gigascience/gix113 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[57]	Walker J.M., van der Heijden E.S.M., Maulana A., et al. (2024). Common misconceptions of speciation. Evol. J. Linn. Soc. 3:kzae029. DOI:10.1093/evolinnean/kzae029 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[58]	Zwick A., Regier J.C., Mitter C., et al. (2011). Increased gene sampling yields robust support for higher-level clades within Bombycoidea (Lepidoptera). Syst. Entomol. 36:31−43. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-3113.2010.00543.x View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[59]	Hamilton C.A., St Laurent R.A., Dexter K., et al. (2019). Phylogenomics resolves major relationships and reveals significant diversification rate shifts in the evolution of silk moths and relatives. BMC Evol. Biol. 19:182. DOI:10.1186/s12862-019-1505-1 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[60]	Yoshioka Y., Suzuki G., Zayasu Y., et al. (2022). Comparative genomics highlight the importance of lineage-specific gene families in evolutionary divergence of the coral genus, Montipora. BMC Ecol. Evol. 22:71. DOI:10.1186/s12862-022-02023-8 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[61]	Ma L., Xu H., Zhu J., et al. (2011). Ras1(CA) overexpression in the posterior silk gland improves silk yield. Cell Res. 21:934−943. DOI:10.1038/cr.2011.36 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[62]	Ma L., Ma Q., Li X., et al. (2014). Transcriptomic analysis of differentially expressed genes in the Ras1(CA)-overexpressed and wildtype posterior silk glands. BMC Genomics 15:182. DOI:10.1186/1471-2164-15-182 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[63]	Craig C.L. (1997). Evolution of arthropod silks. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 42:231−267. DOI:10.1146/annurev.ento.42.1.231 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[64]	Bricteux-Gregoire S., Dewandre A. and Florkin M. (1960). Contributions to silkworm biochemistry. XVI. Conversion of threonine into the glycine, serine and alanine of silk fibroin. Arch. Int. Physiol. Biochim. 68:281−284. DOI:10.3109/13813456009083549 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[65]	Sun L., Sun B., Chen L., et al. (2024). Identification of genes associated with the silk gland size using multi-omics in silkworm (Bombyx mori). Insect Mol. Biol. 33:1−16. DOI:10.1111/imb.12870 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[66]	Hu W., Chen Y., Lin Y., et al. (2019). Developmental and transcriptomic features characterize defects of silk gland growth and silk production in silkworm naked pupa mutant. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 111:103175. DOI:10.1016/j.ibmb.2019.05.010 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[67]	Cui Y., Zhu Y.A., Lin Y.J., et al. (2018). New insight into the mechanism underlying the silk gland biological process by knocking out fibroin heavy chain in the silkworm. Bmc Genomics 19. DOI:ARTN 21510.1186/s12864-018-4602-4. View in Article Google Scholar
[68]	Hu W., Wang X., Ma S., et al. (2021). CRISPR-mediated endogenous activation of fibroin heavy chain gene triggers cellular stress responses in Bombyx mori embryonic cells. Insects 12:552. DOI:10.3390/insects12060552 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[69]	Dong Z., Zhao P., Wang C., et al. (2013). Comparative proteomics reveal diverse functions and dynamic changes of Bombyx mori silk proteins spun from different development stages. J. Proteome. Res. 12:5213−5222. DOI:10.1021/pr4005772 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[70]	Hwang J.S., Lee J.S., Goo T.W., et al. (2001). Cloning of the fibroin gene from the oak silkworm, Antheraea yamamai and its complete sequence. Biotechnol. Lett. 23:1321−1326. DOI:10.1023/A:1010542011150 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[71]	Sezutsu H. and Yukuhiro K. (2000). Dynamic rearrangement within the Antheraea pernyi silk fibroin gene is associated with four types of repetitive units. J. Mol. Evol. 51:329−338. DOI:10.1007/s002390010095 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[72]	Zhou S.Y., Dong Q.L., Zhu K.S., et al. (2021). Long-read transcriptomic analysis of orb-weaving spider Araneus ventricosus indicates transcriptional diversity of spidroins. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 168:395−402. DOI:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.11.182 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[73]	Garel J. (1976). Quantitative adaptation of isoacceptor tRNAs to mRNA codons of alanine, glycine and serine. Nature 260:805−806. DOI:10.1038/260805a0 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[74]	Garel J.P., Mandel P., Chavancy G., et al. (1970). Functional adaptation of tRNAs to fibroin biosynthesis in the silkgland of Bombyx mori L. FEBS Lett. 7:327−329. DOI:10.1016/0014-5793(70)80196-x View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[75]	Inoue S., Tanaka K., Arisaka F., et al. (2000). Silk fibroin of Bombyx mori is secreted, assembling a high molecular mass elementary unit consisting of H-chain, L-chain, and P25, with a 6 : 6 : 1 molar ratio. J. Biol. Chem. 275:40517−40528. DOI:10.1074/jbc.M006897200 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[76]	Shimizu K., Ogawa S., Hino R., et al. (2007). Structure and function of 5'-flanking regions of Bombyx mori fibroin heavy chain gene: identification of a novel transcription enhancing element with a homeodomain protein-binding motif. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 37:713−725. DOI:10.1016/j.ibmb.2007.03.016 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[77]	Takiya S., Kokubo H. and Suzuki Y. (1997). Transcriptional regulatory elements in the upstream and intron of the fibroin gene bind three specific factors POU-M1, Bm Fkh and FMBP-1. Biochem J 321:645−653. DOI:10.1042/bj3210645 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[78]	Zhao A., Zhao T., Zhang Y., et al. (2010). New and highly efficient expression systems for expressing selectively foreign protein in the silk glands of transgenic silkworm. Transgenic Res. 19:29−44. DOI:10.1007/s11248-009-9295-7 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[79]	Castillo-Davis C.I., Mekhedov S.L., Hartl D.L., et al. (2002). Selection for short introns in highly expressed genes. Nat. Genet. 31:415−418. DOI:10.1038/ng940 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[80]	Pickrell J.K., Pai A.A., Gilad Y., et al. (2010). Noisy splicing drives mRNA isoform diversity in human cells. Plos Genet. 6:e1001236. DOI:10.1371/journal.pgen.1001236 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[81]	Tanaka K. and Mizuno S. (2001). Homologues of fibroin L-chain and P25 of Bombyx mori are present in Dendrolimus spectabilis and Papilio xuthus but not detectable in Antheraea yamamai. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 31:665−677. DOI:10.1016/s0965-1748(00)00173-9 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[82]	Hakimi O., Knight D.P., Vollrath F., et al. (2007). Spider and mulberry silkworm silks as compatible biomaterials. Compos. Part B-Eng. 38:324−337. DOI:10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.06.012 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[83]	Shao Z., and Vollrath F. (2002). Surprising strength of silkworm silk. Nature 418:741. DOI:10.1038/418741a View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[84]	Li X., Zhao L., Jiang H., et al. (2009). Short homologous sequences are strongly associated with the generation of chimeric RNAs in eukaryotes. J. Mol. Evol. 68:56−65. DOI:10.1007/s00239-008-9187-0 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[85]	Tautz D. and Renz M. (1984). Simple sequences are ubiquitous repetitive components of eukaryotic genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 12:4127−4138. DOI:10.1093/nar/12.10.4127 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[86]	Lower S.E., Dion-Cote A.M., Clark A.G., et al. (2019). Special Issue: Repetitive DNA sequences. Genes (Basel) 10:896. DOI:10.3390/genes10110896 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[87]	Lovett S.T. (2004). Encoded errors: Mutations and rearrangements mediated by misalignment at repetitive DNA sequences. Mol. Microbiol. 52:1243−1253. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04076.x View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[88]	Osanai M., Okudaira M., Naito J., et al. (2000). Biosynthesis of L-alanine, a major amino acid of fibroin in Samia cynthia ricini. Insect Biochem Mol. Biol. 30:225−232. DOI:10.1016/s0965-1748(99)00120-4 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[89]	Shinbo H., Konno K. and Hirayama C. (1997). The pathway of ammonia assimilation in the silkworm, Bombyx mori. J. Insect Physiol. 43:959−964. DOI:10.1016/s0022-1910(97)00045-0 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[90]	Hu D., Wang W., Zhao X., et al. (2023). Expression pattern of glutaminase informs the dynamics of glutamine metabolism. The Innovation Life 3:100128. DOI:10.59717/j.xinn-life.2024.100128 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[91]	Hunt B.G., Ometto L., Wurm Y., et al. (2011). Relaxed selection is a precursor to the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108:15936−15941. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1104825108 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[92]	Zhu H. and Wang, L. (1996). Lepidoptera: Bombycidae, saturniidae and Thyrididae. Fauna Sinica Insecta, A.S. (Science Press), pp:299. View in Article Google Scholar
[93]	Zhu H. and Wang L. (1997). Lepidoptera Sphingidae. Fauna Sinica Insecta, A.S. (Science Press), pp:436. View in Article Google Scholar

Cited by

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

Cite this article:

Cui Y., Fang G.-Q., Zhong J., et al. (2025). Divergent and convergent evolution underlie the cocoon-spinning diversity. The Innovation Life 3:100144. https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-life.2025.100144

Cui Y., Fang G.-Q., Zhong J., et al. (2025). Divergent and convergent evolution underlie the cocoon-spinning diversity. The Innovation Life 3:100144. https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-life.2025.100144

Welcome!

To request copyright permission to republish or share portions of our works, please visit Copyright Clearance Center's (CCC) Marketplace website at marketplace.copyright.com.

Standard PDF

Extended PDF

Figures(6) Tables(1)

Supplementary Information

download_supplementary
Datasets

Article Metrics

Article views(6469) PDF downloads(1446)

Divergent and convergent evolution underlie the cocoon-spinning diversity

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

PUBLIC SUMMARY

ABSTRACT