Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12379152›Full record

ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2002

Birth and death of protein domains: a simple model of evolution explains power law behavior.

Georgy P Karev, Yuri I Wolf, Andrey Y Rzhetsky, Faina S Berezovskaya, Eugene V Koonin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A generative model for bipartite gene-sharing networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Diversity, evolution, and classification of the RNA-guided nucleases TnpB and Cas12.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Simulating domain architecture evolution.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Grammar of protein domain architectures.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  12. Angiosperm-Wide and Family-Level Analyses ofFrontiers in plant science · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Disentangling the effects of selection and loss bias on gene dynamics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  16. Inevitability of Genetic Parasites.Genome biology and evolution · 2016
    Article
  17. Article
  18. A Dynamic Model for the Evolution of Protein Structure.Journal of molecular evolution · 2016
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Georgy P KarevNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA. karev@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Yuri I Wolf
Andrey Y Rzhetsky
Faina S Berezovskaya
Eugene V Koonin

Funding

Comparative Analysis Of Completely Sequenced GenomesZIALM000073 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI KOONIN, EUGENE V · 2009 to 2025
$43.1M
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPLETELY SEQUENCED GENOMESZ01LM000073 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI KOONIN, EUGENE V · 1996 to 2008
$1.2M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPower distributions appear in numerous biological, physical and other contexts, which appear to be fundamentally different. In biology, power laws have been claimed to describe the distributions of the connections of enzymes and metabolites in metabolic networks, the number of interactions partners of a given protein, the number of members in paralogous families, and other quantities. In network analysis, power laws imply evolution of the network with preferential attachment, i.e. a greater likelihood of nodes being added to pre-existing hubs. Exploration of different types of evolutionary models in an attempt to determine which of them lead to power law distributions has the potential of revealing non-trivial aspects of genome evolution.

resultsA simple model of evolution of the domain composition of proteomes was developed, with the following elementary processes: i) domain birth (duplication with divergence), ii) death (inactivation and/or deletion), and iii) innovation (emergence from non-coding or non-globular sequences or acquisition via horizontal gene transfer). This formalism can be described as a birth, death and innovation model (BDIM). The formulas for equilibrium frequencies of domain families of different size and the total number of families at equilibrium are derived for a general BDIM. All asymptotics of equilibrium frequencies of domain families possible for the given type of models are found and their appearance depending on model parameters is investigated. It is proved that the power law asymptotics appears if, and only if, the model is balanced, i.e. domain duplication and deletion rates are asymptotically equal up to the second order. It is further proved that any power asymptotic with the degree not equal to -1 can appear only if the hypothesis of independence of the duplication/deletion rates on the size of a domain family is rejected. Specific cases of BDIMs, namely simple, linear, polynomial and rational models, are considered in details and the distributions of the equilibrium frequencies of domain families of different size are determined for each case. We apply the BDIM formalism to the analysis of the domain family size distributions in prokaryotic and eukaryotic proteomes and show an excellent fit between these empirical data and a particular form of the model, the second-order balanced linear BDIM. Calculation of the parameters of these models suggests surprisingly high innovation rates, comparable to the total domain birth (duplication) and elimination rates, particularly for prokaryotic genomes.

conclusionsWe show that a straightforward model of genome evolution, which does not explicitly include selection, is sufficient to explain the observed distributions of domain family sizes, in which power laws appear as asymptotic. However, for the model to be compatible with the data, there has to be a precise balance between domain birth, death and innovation rates, and this is likely to be maintained by selection. The developed approach is oriented at a mathematical description of evolution of domain composition of proteomes, but a simple reformulation could be applied to models of other evolving networks with preferential attachment.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionMathematical ComputingModels, BiologicalAnimalsArabidopsisBacillus subtilisCaenorhabditis elegansComputer SimulationDeathDrosophila melanogasterEscherichia coliGenetic VariationHumansMethanobacteriaceaeParturitionProtein Structure, Tertiary

Identifiers

PMID12379152
PMCPMC137606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.