4.5 Article

Relative Contributions of Intrinsic Structural-Functional Constraints and Translation Rate to the Evolution of Protein-Coding Genes

期刊

GENOME BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 2, 期 -, 页码 190-199

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evq010

关键词

protein evolution; structural-functional constraints; misfolding; protein abundance

资金

  1. Department of Health and Human Services (National Library of Medicine and National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health)
  2. NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE [ZIALM000077, ZIALM000073, ZIALM000061] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A long-standing assumption in evolutionary biology is that the evolution rate of protein-coding genes depends, largely, on specific constraints that affect the function of the given protein. However, recent research in evolutionary systems biology revealed unexpected, significant correlations between evolution rate and characteristics of genes or proteins that are not directly related to specific protein functions, such as expression level and protein-protein interactions. The strongest connections were consistently detected between protein sequence evolution rate and the expression level of the respective gene. A recent genome-wide proteomic study revealed an extremely strong correlation between the abundances of orthologous proteins in distantly related animals, the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans and the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. We used the extensive protein abundance data from this study along with short-term evolutionary rates (ERs) of orthologous genes in nematodes and flies to estimate the relative contributions of structural-functional constraints and the translation rate to the evolution rate of protein-coding genes. Together the intrinsic constraints and translation rate account for approximately 50% of the variance of the ERs. The contribution of constraints is estimated to be 3-to 5-fold greater than the contribution of translation rate.

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

4.5
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