ArticleGenome biology and evolution2025
Cell Compartment is a Predictor of Protein Rate of Evolution, but not in the Manner Expected: Evidence Against the Extended Complexity Hypothesis.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiple molecular and cellular properties jointly affect protein and site-specific evolutionary rates.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Genome-centric metagenomics reveals electroactive syntrophs in a conductive particle-dependent consortium from coastal sediments.Nature communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
What accounts for the variation between proteins in their rate of evolution per synonymous substitution (i.e. dN/dS, alias ω)? Previous analyses suggested that cell location is predictive, with intracellular proteins evolving slower than membrane proteins, a result considered supportive of the extended complexity hypothesis. However, as they occur in 3D space, cytoplasmic proteins are expected to be more abundant. As the level of gene expression is the strongest predictor of ω, and many predictors of protein rate variation are explained by covariance with it, here we ask whether the cell compartment effect is explained by covariates. We employ two single-celled species for which there exist exceptional data, the bacterium (Escherichia coli) and the eukaryote (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). For both, we establish informative species trios to determine branch-specific ω values. In both species, in the absence of covariate control, cytoplasmic proteins evolve relatively slowly, while membrane proteins evolve fast, as originally claimed. After controlling for protein abundance, however, membrane proteins have the lowest rates, this inversion being resilient to multiple alternative abundance control methods. The effect size of the cell compartment as a predictor is of a comparable magnitude to the essentiality effect and remains when allowing for essentiality. We conclude that the effects of the cell compartments are real, but their direction is dependent on the presence or absence of abundance control. These results question any model, such as the extended complexity hypothesis, that claims support from a slower evolution of cytoplasmic proteins and underscore the importance of covariate control.
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.