ArticleJournal of molecular evolution2007
Combinations of ancestral modules in proteins.
Article in Journal of molecular evolution, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Switching an active site helix in dihydrofolate reductase reveals limits to subdomain modularity.Biophysical journal · 2021Article
- Defining structural and evolutionary modules in proteins: a community detection approach to explore sub-domain architecture.BMC structural biology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Twenty-seven protein sequence elements, six to nine amino acids long, were extracted from 15 phylogenetically diverse complete prokaryotic proteomes. The elements are present in all of these proteomes, with at least one copy each (omnipresent elements), and have presumably been conserved since the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). All these omnipresent elements are identified in crystallized protein structures as parts of highly conserved closed loops, 25-30 residues long, thus representing the closed-loop modules discovered in 2000 by Berezovsky et al. The omnipresent peptides make up seven distinct groups, of which the largest groups, Aleph and Beth, contain 18 and four elements, respectively, which are related but different, while five other groups are represented by only one element each. The LUCA modules appear with one or several copies per protein molecule in a variety of combinations depending on the functional identity of the corresponding protein. The functional involvement of individual LUCA modules is outlined on the basis of known protein annotations. Analyses of all the related sequences in a large, formatted protein sequence space suggest that many, if not all, of the 27 omnipresent elements have a common sequence origin. This sequence space network analysis may lead to elucidation of the earliest stages of protein evolution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18026890What 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.