4.8 Article

Dual-Targeted Proteins Tend to be More Evolutionarily Conserved

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 31, 期 10, 页码 2770-2779

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msu221

关键词

protein conservation; dual targeting; mitochondrial import

资金

  1. Israel Science Foundation (ISF)
  2. Israel Cancer Research Fund (ICRF)
  3. USA-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF)
  4. CREATE project of the National Research Foundation of Singapore
  5. Ori Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In eukaryotic cells, identical proteins can be located in more than a single subcellular compartment, a phenomenon termed dual targeting. We hypothesized that dual-targeted proteins should be more evolutionary conserved than exclusive mitochondrial proteins, due to separate selective pressures administered by the different compartments to maintain the functions associated with the protein sequences. We employed codon usage bias, propensity for gene loss, phylogenetic relationships, conservation analysis at the DNA level, and gene expression, to test our hypothesis. Our findings indicate that, indeed, dual-targeted proteins are significantly more conserved than their exclusively targeted counterparts. We then used this trait of gene conservation, together with previously identified traits of dual-targeted proteins (such as protein net charge and mitochondrial targeting sequence strength) to 1) create, for the first time (due to addition of conservation parameters), a tool for the prediction of dual-targeted mitochondrial proteins based on protein and mRNA sequences, and 2) show that molecular mechanisms involving one versus two translation products are not correlated with specific dual-targeting parameters. Finally, we discuss what evolutionary pressure maintains protein dual targeting in eukaryotes and deduce, as we initially hypothesized, that it is the discrete functions of these proteins in the different subcellular compartments, regardless of their dual-targeting mechanism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据