Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32059645›Full record

ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2020

The modular nature of protein evolution: domain rearrangement rates across eukaryotic life.

Elias Dohmen, Steffen Klasberg, Erich Bornberg-Bauer, Sören Perrey, Carsten Kemena

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Evolutionary dynamics of the arthropod molting machinery.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026
    Review
  3. Evolutionary innovation through fusion of sequences from across the tree of life.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Protein Structural Phylogenetics.Genome biology and evolution · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Elias Dohmen *Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity, University of Münster, Hüfferstrasse 1, Münster, 48149, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7203-2314
Steffen Klasberg *Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity, University of Münster, Hüfferstrasse 1, Münster, 48149, Germany.
Erich Bornberg-BauerInstitute for Evolution and Biodiversity, University of Münster, Hüfferstrasse 1, Münster, 48149, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1826-3576
Sören PerreyInstitute for Bioinformatics and Chemoinformatics, Westphalian University of Applied Sciences, August-Schmidt-Ring 10, Recklinghausen, 45665, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6505-1752
Carsten KemenaInstitute for Evolution and Biodiversity, University of Münster, Hüfferstrasse 1, Münster, 48149, Germany. c.kemena@wwu.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2416-9842

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModularity is important for evolutionary innovation. The recombination of existing units to form larger complexes with new functionalities spares the need to create novel elements from scratch. In proteins, this principle can be observed at the level of protein domains, functional subunits which are regularly rearranged to acquire new functions.

resultsIn this study we analyse the mechanisms leading to new domain arrangements in five major eukaryotic clades (vertebrates, insects, fungi, monocots and eudicots) at unprecedented depth and breadth. This allows, for the first time, to directly compare rates of rearrangements between different clades and identify both lineage specific and general patterns of evolution in the context of domain rearrangements. We analyse arrangement changes along phylogenetic trees by reconstructing ancestral domain content in combination with feasible single step events, such as fusion or fission. Using this approach we explain up to 70% of all rearrangements by tracing them back to their precursors. We find that rates in general and the ratio between these rates for a given clade in particular, are highly consistent across all clades. In agreement with previous studies, fusions are the most frequent event leading to new domain arrangements. A lineage specific pattern in fungi reveals exceptionally high loss rates compared to other clades, supporting recent studies highlighting the importance of loss for evolutionary innovation. Furthermore, our methodology allows us to link domain emergences at specific nodes in the phylogenetic tree to important functional developments, such as the origin of hair in mammals.

conclusionsOur results demonstrate that domain rearrangements are based on a canonical set of mutational events with rates which lie within a relatively narrow and consistent range. In addition, gained knowledge about these rates provides a basis for advanced domain-based methodologies for phylogenetics and homology analysis which complement current sequence-based methods.

Indexed as

EukaryotaEvolution, MolecularAnimalsBeesDisease ResistanceEukaryotic CellsFungiGene OntologyMutationPhylogenyPlant DiseasesProteinsProtein Structure, TertiarySocial BehaviorVertebratesProteinsAncestral reconstructionEvolutionary historyProtein domainProteome analysisRearrangement rates

Identifiers

PMID32059645
PMCPMC7023805

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.