Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28082600›Full record

ArticleGenome biology and evolution2017

Evolution of Chaperonin Gene Duplication in Stigonematalean Cyanobacteria (Subsection V).

Julia Weissenbach, Judith Ilhan, David Bogumil, Nils Hülter, Karina Stucken, Tal Dagan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julia WeissenbachInstitute of General Microbiology, Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel, Am Botanischen Garten 11, Kiel, Germany.
Judith IlhanInstitute of General Microbiology, Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel, Am Botanischen Garten 11, Kiel, Germany.
David BogumilInstitute of General Microbiology, Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel, Am Botanischen Garten 11, Kiel, Germany.
Nils HülterInstitute of General Microbiology, Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel, Am Botanischen Garten 11, Kiel, Germany.
Karina StuckenInstitute of General Microbiology, Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel, Am Botanischen Garten 11, Kiel, Germany.
Tal DaganInstitute of General Microbiology, Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel, Am Botanischen Garten 11, Kiel, Germany.
Kiel University · DE

Funding

European Research Council 281357
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chaperonins promote protein folding and are known to play a role in the maintenance of cellular stability under stress conditions. The group I bacterial chaperonin complex comprises GroEL, that forms a barrel-like oligomer, and GroES that forms the lid. In most eubacteria the GroES/GroEL chaperonin is encoded by a single-copy bicistronic operon, whereas in cyanobacteria up to three groES/groEL paralogs have been documented. Here we study the evolution and functional diversification of chaperonin paralogs in the heterocystous, multi-seriate filament forming cyanobacterium Chlorogloeopsis fritschii PCC 6912. The genome of C. fritschii encodes two groES/groEL operons (groESL1, groESL1.2) and a monocistronic groEL gene (groEL2). A phylogenetic reconstruction reveals that the groEL2 duplication is as ancient as cyanobacteria, whereas the groESL1.2 duplication occurred at the ancestor of heterocystous cyanobacteria. A comparison of the groEL paralogs transcription levels under different growth conditions shows that they have adapted distinct transcriptional regulation. Our results reveal that groEL1 and groEL1.2 are upregulated during diazotrophic conditions and the localization of their promoter activity points towards a role in heterocyst differentiation. Furthermore, protein-protein interaction assays suggest that paralogs encoded in the two operons assemble into hybrid complexes. The monocistronic encoded GroEL2 is not forming oligomers nor does it interact with the co-chaperonins. Interaction between GroES1.2 and GroEL1.2 could not be documented, suggesting that the groESL1.2 operon does not encode a functional chaperonin complex. Functional complementation experiments in Escherichia coli show that only GroES1/GroEL1 and GroES1/GroEL1.2 can substitute the native operon. In summary, the evolutionary consequences of chaperonin duplication in cyanobacteria include the retention of groESL1 as a housekeeping gene, subfunctionalization of groESL1.2 and neofunctionalization of the monocistronic groEL2 paralog.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGene DuplicationBacterial ProteinsChaperoninsCyanobacteriaGene Expression Regulation, BacterialGenome, BacterialPhylogenyBacterial ProteinsChaperoninsgroEL/groESheterocystHsp60/Hsp10

Identifiers

PMID28082600
PMCPMC5381637
OpenAlexW2578846016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.