ArticlePloS one2010
Evolution of DNA replication protein complexes in eukaryotes and Archaea.
Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- New groups of highly divergent proteins in families as old as cellular life with important biological functions in the ocean.Environmental microbiome · 2025Article
- Evolution of the Drosophila melanogaster Chromatin Landscape and Its Associated Proteins.Genome biology and evolution · 2019Article
- A proteome view of structural, functional, and taxonomic characteristics of major protein domain clusters.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Identification of host cellular proteins that interact with the M protein of a highly pathogenic porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus vaccine strain.Virology journal · 2017Article
- Structure and regulatory role of the C-terminal winged helix domain of the archaeal minichromosome maintenance complex.Nucleic acids research · 2015Article
- Global phylogenomic analysis disentangles the complex evolutionary history of DNA replication in archaea.Genome biology and evolution · 2014Article
- Crystal structure of the shrimp proliferating cell nuclear antigen: structural complementarity with WSSV DNA polymerase PIP-box.PloS one · 2014Article
- Archaeology of eukaryotic DNA replication.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2013Review
- Thermococcus kodakarensis has two functional PCNA homologs but only one is required for viability.Extremophiles : life under extreme conditions · 2013Article
- Crystallization and X-ray diffraction studies of crustacean proliferating cell nuclear antigen.Acta crystallographica. Section F, Structural biology and crystallization communications · 2012Article
- The CMG (CDC45/RecJ, MCM, GINS) complex is a conserved component of the DNA replication system in all archaea and eukaryotes.Biology direct · 2012Article
- Rings in the extreme: PCNA interactions and adaptations in the archaea.Archaea (Vancouver, B.C.) · 2012Review
- DNA binding in high salt: analysing the salt dependence of replication protein A3 from the halophile Haloferax volcanii.Archaea (Vancouver, B.C.) · 2012Article
- Genetic and Biochemical Identification of a Novel Single-Stranded DNA-Binding Complex in Haloferax volcanii.Frontiers in microbiology · 2012Article
- Thermococcus kodakarensis encodes three MCM homologs but only one is essential.Nucleic acids research · 2011Article
- Article
- Evolution of replication machines.Critical reviews in biochemistry 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe replication of DNA in Archaea and eukaryotes requires several ancillary complexes, including proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), replication factor C (RFC), and the minichromosome maintenance (MCM) complex. Bacterial DNA replication utilizes comparable proteins, but these are distantly related phylogenetically to their archaeal and eukaryotic counterparts at best. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWhile the structures of each of the complexes do not differ significantly between the archaeal and eukaryotic versions thereof, the evolutionary dynamic in the two cases does. The number of subunits in each complex is constant across all taxa. However, they vary subtly with regard to composition. In some taxa the subunits are all identical in sequence, while in others some are homologous rather than identical. In the case of eukaryotes, there is no phylogenetic variation in the makeup of each complex-all appear to derive from a common eukaryotic ancestor. This is not the case in Archaea, where the relationship between the subunits within each complex varies taxon-to-taxon. We have performed a detailed phylogenetic analysis of these relationships in order to better understand the gene duplications and divergences that gave rise to the homologous subunits in Archaea. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This domain level difference in evolution suggests that different forces have driven the evolution of DNA replication proteins in each of these two domains. In addition, the phylogenies of all three gene families support the distinctiveness of the proposed archaeal phylum Thaumarchaeota.
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.