4.7 Article

Multi-domain proteins in the three kingdoms of life:: Orphan domains and other unassigned regions

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Volume 348, Issue 1, Pages 231-243

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2005.02.007

Keywords

protein domains; multi-domain protein; comparative genomics; kingdoms of life; proteome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Comparative studies of the proteomes from different organisms have provided valuable information about protein domain distribution in the kingdoms of life. Earlier studies have been limited by the fact that only about 50% of the proteomes could be matched to a domain. Here, we have extended these studies by including less well-defined domain definitions, Pfam-B and clustered domains, MAS, in addition to Pfam-A and SCOP domains. It was found that a significant fraction of these domain families are homologous to Pfam-A or SCOP domains. Further, we show that all regions that do not match a Pfam-A or SCOP domain contain a significantly higher fraction of disordered structure. These unstructured regions may be contained within orphan domains or function as linkers between structured domains. Using several different definitions we have re-estimated the number of multi-domain proteins in different organisms and found that several methods all predict that eukaryotes have approximately 65% multi-domain proteins, while the prokaryotes consist of approximately 40% multi-domain proteins. However, these numbers are strongly dependent on the exact choice of cut-off for domains in unassigned regions. In conclusion, all eukaryotes have similar fractions of multidomain proteins and disorder, whereas a high fraction of repeating domain is distinguished only in multicellular eukaryotes. This implies a role for repeats in cell-cell contacts while the other two features are important for intracellular functions. (c) 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available