4.5 Review

Comparative genomics and bioenergetics

Journal

BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-BIOENERGETICS
Volume 1506, Issue 3, Pages 147-162

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0005-2728(01)00227-4

Keywords

genomics; aerobic respiration; anaerobic respiration; photosynthesis; last universal ancestor; molecular evolution

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bacterial and archaeal complete genome sequences have been obtained from a wide range of evolutionary lines, which allows some general conclusions about the phylogenetic distribution and evolution of bioenergetic pathways to be drawn. In particular, I searched in the complete genomes for key enzymes involved in aerobic and anaerobic respiratory pathways and in photosynthesis, and mapped them into an rRNA tree of sequenced species. The phylogenetic distribution of these enzymes is very irregular, and clearly shows the diverse strategies of energy conservation used by prokaryotes. In addition, a thorough phylogenetic analysis of other bioenergetic protein families of wide distribution reveals a complex evolutionary history for the respective genes. A parsimonious explanation for these complex phylogenetic patterns and for the irregular distribution of metabolic pathways is that the last common ancestor of Bacteria and Archaea contained several members of every gene family as a consequence of previous gene or genome duplications, while different patterns of gene loss occurred during the evolution of every gene family. This would imply that the last universal ancestor was a bioenergetically sophisticated organism. Finally, important steps that occurred during the evolution of energetic machineries, such as the early evolution of aerobic respiration and the acquisition of eukaryotic mitochondria from a proteobacterium ancestor, are supported by the analysis of the complete genome sequences. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available