ReviewThe Biochemical journal2003
Archaeal protein kinases and protein phosphatases: insights from genomics and biochemistry.
Review in The Biochemical journal, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
42 citing papers in PubMed.
- An atlas of bacterial serine-threonine kinases reveals functional diversity and key distinctions from eukaryotic kinases.Science signaling · 2025Article
- Illuminating understudied kinases: a generalizable biosensor development method applied to protein kinase N.Communications biology · 2025Article
- The S-component fold: a link between bacterial transporters and receptors.Communications biology · 2024Article
- The biology of thermoacidophilic archaea from the order Sulfolobales.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2021Article
- Origin of the Phosphoprotein Phosphatase (PPP) sequence family in Bacteria: Critical ancestral sequence changes, radiation patterns and substrate binding features.BBA advances · 2021Article
- Identification and functional analysis of five genes that encode distinct isoforms of protein phosphatase 1 in Nilaparvata lugens.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Post-Translational Modifications Aid Archaeal Survival.Biomolecules · 2020Review
- Hanks-Type Serine/Threonine Protein Kinases and Phosphatases in Bacteria: Roles in Signaling and Adaptation to Various Environments.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018Review
- Autophosphorylation and Cross-Phosphorylation of Protein Kinases from the CrenarchaeonFrontiers in microbiology · 2017Article
- Protein phosphorylation and its role in archaeal signal transduction.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2016Review
- Phosphoproteomic analysis of Methanohalophilus portucalensis FDF1(T) identified the role of protein phosphorylation in methanogenesis and osmoregulation.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Ten things you should know about protein kinases: IUPHAR Review 14.British journal of pharmacology · 2015Review
- A novel mechanism for regulating the activity of proliferating cell nuclear antigen by a small protein.Nucleic acids research · 2014Article
- Protein Ser/Thr/Tyr phosphorylation in the Archaea.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2014Review
- Carbohydrate metabolism in Archaea: current insights into unusual enzymes and pathways and their regulation.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2014Review
- Archaeal signal transduction: impact of protein phosphatase deletions on cell size, motility, and energy metabolism in Sulfolobus acidocaldarius.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2013Article
- Post-translation modification in Archaea: lessons from Haloferax volcanii and other haloarchaea.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2013Review
- Structural basis of the substrate specificity of bifunctional isocitrate dehydrogenase kinase/phosphatase.Biochemistry · 2011Article
- Signal processing by protein tyrosine phosphorylation in plants.Plant signaling & behavior · 2011Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protein phosphorylation/dephosphorylation has long been considered a recent addition to Nature's regulatory arsenal. Early studies indicated that this molecular regulatory mechanism existed only in higher eukaryotes, suggesting that protein phosphorylation/dephosphorylation had emerged to meet the particular signal-transduction requirements of multicellular organisms. Although it has since become apparent that simple eukaryotes and even bacteria are sites of protein phosphorylation/dephosphorylation, the perception widely persists that this molecular regulatory mechanism emerged late in evolution, i.e. after the divergence of the contemporary phylogenetic domains. Only highly developed cells, it was reasoned, could afford the high 'overhead' costs inherent in the acquisition of dedicated protein kinases and protein phosphatases. The advent of genome sequencing has provided an opportunity to exploit Nature's phylogenetic diversity as a vehicle for critically examining this hypothesis. In tracing the origins and evolution of protein phosphorylation/dephosphorylation, the members of the Archaea, the so-called 'third domain of life', will play a critical role. Whereas several studies have demonstrated that archaeal proteins are subject to modification by covalent phosphorylation, relatively little is known concerning the identities of the proteins affected, the impact on their functional properties, or the enzymes that catalyse these events. However, examination of several archaeal genomes has revealed the widespread presence of several ostensibly 'eukaryotic' and 'bacterial' protein kinase and protein phosphatase paradigms. Similar findings of 'phylogenetic trespass' in members of the Eucarya (eukaryotes) and the Bacteria suggest that this versatile molecular regulatory mechanism emerged at an unexpectedly early point in development of 'life as we know it'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.