ArticleGenome biology and evolution2013
Evolutionary rate heterogeneity of core and attachment proteins in yeast protein complexes.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Link clustering explains non-central and contextually essential genes in protein interaction networks.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Modular Organization of Residue-Level Contacts Shapes the Selection Pressure on Individual Amino Acid Sites of Ribosomal Proteins.Genome biology and evolution · 2017Article
- Systematic Analyses and Prediction of Human Drug Side Effect Associated Proteins from the Perspective of Protein Evolution.Genome biology and evolution · 2017Article
- Global analysis of human duplicated genes reveals the relative importance of whole-genome duplicates originated in the early vertebrate evolution.BMC genomics · 2016Article
- Elucidating the genotype-phenotype relationships and network perturbations of human shared and specific disease genes from an evolutionary perspective.Genome biology and evolution · 2014Article
- GECluster: a novel protein complex prediction method.Biotechnology, biotechnological equipment · 2014Article
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
In general, proteins do not work alone; they form macromolecular complexes to play fundamental roles in diverse cellular functions. On the basis of their iterative clustering procedure and frequency of occurrence in the macromolecular complexes, the protein subunits have been categorized as core and attachment. Core protein subunits are the main functional elements, whereas attachment proteins act as modifiers or activators in protein complexes. In this article, using the current data set of yeast protein complexes, we found that core proteins are evolving at a faster rate than attachment proteins in spite of their functional importance. Interestingly, our investigation revealed that attachment proteins are present in a higher number of macromolecular complexes than core proteins. We also observed that the protein complex number (defined as the number of protein complexes in which a protein subunit belongs) has a stronger influence on gene/protein essentiality than multifunctionality. Finally, our results suggest that the observed differences in the rates of protein evolution between core and attachment proteins are due to differences in protein complex number and expression level. Moreover, we conclude that proteins which are present in higher numbers of macromolecular complexes enhance their overall expression level by increasing their transcription rate as well as translation rate, and thus the protein complex number imposes a strong selection pressure on the evolution of yeast proteome.
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.