ArticlePloS one2018
Comparative genomic analysis of mollicutes with and without a chaperonin system.
Article in PloS one, 2018. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pseudogenization of the chaperonin system in 'Microbial genomics · 2026Article
- The Role of Heat Shock Protein (Hsp) Chaperones in Environmental Stress Adaptation and Virulence of Plant Pathogenic Bacteria.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Synonymous and non-synonymous codon substitutions can alleviate dependence on GroEL for folding.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2024Article
- Review
- Reconciling the controversy regarding the functional importance of bullet- and football-shaped GroE complexes.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2019Article
- Omnipresent Maxwell's demons orchestrate information management in living cells.Microbial biotechnology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The GroE chaperonin system, which comprises GroEL and GroES, assists protein folding in vivo and in vitro. It is conserved in all prokaryotes except in most, but not all, members of the class of mollicutes. In Escherichia coli, about 60 proteins were found to be obligatory clients of the GroE system. Here, we describe the properties of the homologs of these GroE clients in mollicutes and the evolution of chaperonins in this class of bacteria. Comparing the properties of these homologs in mollicutes with and without chaperonins enabled us to search for features correlated with the presence of GroE. Interestingly, no sequence-based features of proteins such as average length, amino acid composition and predicted folding/disorder propensity were found to be affected by the absence of GroE. Other properties such as genome size and number of proteins were also found to not differ between mollicute species with and without GroE. Our data suggest that two clades of mollicutes re-acquired the GroE system, thereby supporting the view that gaining the system occurred polyphyletically and not monophyletically, as previously debated. Our data also suggest that there might have been three isolated cases of lateral gene transfer from specific bacterial sources. Taken together, our data indicate that loss of GroE does not involve crossing a high evolutionary barrier and can be compensated for by a small number of changes within the few dozen client proteins.
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.