ArticleBMC genomics2010
Comparative evolutionary analysis of protein complexes in E. coli and yeast.
Article in BMC genomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diverging co-translational protein complex assembly pathways are governed by interface energy distribution.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Mechanisms of Cotranslational Protein Maturation in Bacteria.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2021Review
- Identification of protein complexes and functional modules in E. coli PPI networks.BMC microbiology · 2020Article
- Protein Melting Temperature Cannot Fully Assess Whether Protein Folding Free Energy Underlies the Universal Abundance-Evolutionary Rate Correlation Seen in Proteins.Molecular biology and evolution · 2019Article
- Diversity in protein domain superfamilies.Current opinion in genetics & development · 2015Review
- Functional site plasticity in domain superfamilies.Biochimica et biophysica acta · 2013Article
- Evolutionary, physicochemical, and functional mechanisms of protein homooligomerization.Progress in molecular biology and translational science · 2013Review
- The evolution of multimeric protein assemblages.Molecular biology and evolution · 2012Article
- Caught in self-interaction: evolutionary and functional mechanisms of protein homooligomerization.Physical biology · 2011Review
- The repatterning of eukaryotic genomes by random genetic drift.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2011Review
- Mechanisms of protein oligomerization, the critical role of insertions and deletions in maintaining different oligomeric states.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2010Article
- Coverage of protein domain families with structural protein-protein interactions: current progress and future trends.Progress in biophysics and molecular biologyReview
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
Abstract
backgroundProteins do not act in isolation; they frequently act together in protein complexes to carry out concerted cellular functions. The evolution of complexes is poorly understood, especially in organisms other than yeast, where little experimental data has been available.
resultsWe generated accurate, high coverage datasets of protein complexes for E. coli and yeast in order to study differences in the evolution of complexes between these two species. We show that substantial differences exist in how complexes have evolved between these organisms. A previously proposed model of complex evolution identified complexes with cores of interacting homologues. We support findings of the relative importance of this mode of evolution in yeast, but find that it is much less common in E. coli. Additionally it is shown that those homologues which do cluster in complexes are involved in eukaryote-specific functions. Furthermore we identify correlated pairs of non-homologous domains which occur in multiple protein complexes. These were identified in both yeast and E. coli and we present evidence that these too may represent complex cores in yeast but not those of E. coli.
conclusionsOur results suggest that there are differences in the way protein complexes have evolved in E. coli and yeast. Whereas some yeast complexes have evolved by recruiting paralogues, this is not apparent in E. coli. Furthermore, such complexes are involved in eukaryotic-specific functions. This implies that the increase in gene family sizes seen in eukaryotes in part reflects multiple family members being used within complexes. However, in general, in both E. coli and yeast, homologous domains are used in different complexes.
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.