ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2009
Evolutionary flexibility of protein complexes.
Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Assessment of Quaternary Structure Functionality in Homomer Protein Complexes.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Increased Sampling and Intracomplex Homologies Favor Vertical Over Horizontal Inheritance of the Dam1 Complex.Genome biology and evolution · 2023Article
- emb-1 encodes the APC16 subunit of the Caenorhabditis elegans anaphase-promoting complex.Genetics · 2011Article
- The phylogenomic analysis of the anaphase promoting complex and its targets points to complex and modern-like control of the cell cycle in the last common ancestor of eukaryotes.BMC evolutionary biology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProteins play a key role in cellular life. They do not act alone but are organised in complexes. Throughout the life of a cell, complexes are dynamic in their composition due to attachments and shared components. Experimental and computational evidence indicate that consecutive addition and secondary losses of components played a major role in the evolution of some complexes, mostly without affecting the core function. Here, we analysed in a large scale approach whether this flexibility in evolution is only limited to a distinct number of complexes or represents a more general trend.
resultsFocussing on human protein complexes, we based our analysis on a manually curated dataset from HPRD. In total, 1,060 complexes with 6,136 proteins from 2,187 unique genes were considered. We computed interologs in 25 different species and predicted the composition of complexes. Over the analysed species, the composition of most complexes was highly flexible and only 25% of all genes were never lost. Even if one component was lost at a particular point in time, the fraction of observed second, independent losses of additional components was high (75% of all complexes affected). Still, loss of whole complexes happened rarely. This biological signal deviated significantly from random models. We exemplified this trend on the anaphase promoting complex (APC) where a core is highly conserved throughout all metazoans, but flexibility in certain components is observable.
conclusionConsecutive additions and losses of distinct units is a fundamental process in the evolution of protein complexes. These evolutionary events affecting genes coding for units in human protein complexes showed a significantly different phylogenetic pattern compared to randomly selected genes. Determination of taxon specific attachments or losses might be linked to specific cellular or morphological features. Thus, protein complexes contain not only structural and functional, but also evolutionary cores.
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.