Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36826345›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Chemical Society2023

Early Selection of the Amino Acid Alphabet Was Adaptively Shaped by Biophysical Constraints of Foldability.

Mikhail Makarov, Alma C Sanchez Rocha, Robin Krystufek, Ivan Cherepashuk, Volha Dzmitruk, Tatsiana Charnavets, Anneliese M Faustino, Michal Lebl, Kosuke Fujishima, Stephen D Fried and 1 more

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Protopeptide backbone affects assembly in aqueous solutions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. In silico evolution of globular protein folds from random sequences.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

11 authors.

Mikhail MakarovDepartment of Cell Biology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, BIOCEV, Prague 12843, Czech Republic.
Alma C Sanchez RochaDepartment of Cell Biology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, BIOCEV, Prague 12843, Czech Republic.
Robin KrystufekDepartment of Physical Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague 12843, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-4096-1159
Ivan CherepashukDepartment of Cell Biology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, BIOCEV, Prague 12843, Czech Republic.
Volha DzmitrukInstitute of Biotechnology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, BIOCEV, Vestec 25250, Czech Republic.
Tatsiana CharnavetsInstitute of Biotechnology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, BIOCEV, Vestec 25250, Czech Republic.
Anneliese M FaustinoDepartment of Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States.
Michal LeblInstitute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague 16610, Czech Republic.
Kosuke FujishimaEarth-Life Science Institute, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo 1528550, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-8844-812X
Stephen D FriedDepartment of Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2494-2193
Klara HlouchovaDepartment of Cell Biology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, BIOCEV, Prague 12843, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-5651-4874

Funding

Watching Proteins Fold (or Misfold) in vivo with Mass SpectrometryDP2GM140926 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FRIED, STEPHEN DAVID · 2020 to 2020
$2.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS DP2 GM140926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whereas modern proteins rely on a quasi-universal repertoire of 20 canonical amino acids (AAs), numerous lines of evidence suggest that ancient proteins relied on a limited alphabet of 10 "early" AAs and that the 10 "late" AAs were products of biosynthetic pathways. However, many nonproteinogenic AAs were also prebiotically available, which begs two fundamental questions: Why do we have the current modern amino acid alphabet and would proteins be able to fold into globular structures as well if different amino acids comprised the genetic code? Here, we experimentally evaluate the solubility and secondary structure propensities of several prebiotically relevant amino acids in the context of synthetic combinatorial 25-mer peptide libraries. The most prebiotically abundant linear aliphatic and basic residues were incorporated along with or in place of other early amino acids to explore these alternative sequence spaces. The results show that foldability was likely a critical factor in the selection of the canonical alphabet. Unbranched aliphatic amino acids were purged from the proteinogenic alphabet despite their high prebiotic abundance because they generate polypeptides that are oversolubilized and have low packing efficiency. Surprisingly, we find that the inclusion of a short-chain basic amino acid also decreases polypeptides' secondary structure potential, for which we suggest a biophysical model. Our results support the view that, despite lacking basic residues, the early canonical alphabet was remarkably adaptive at supporting protein folding and explain why basic residues were only incorporated at a later stage of protein evolution.

Indexed as

Amino AcidsProteinsPeptide LibraryPeptidesProtein FoldingAmino AcidsPeptide LibraryPeptidesProteins

Identifiers

PMID36826345
PMCPMC10017022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read45
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.