Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8336670›Full record

ReviewMicrobiological reviews1993

Structural, functional, and evolutionary relationships among extracellular solute-binding receptors of bacteria.

R Tam, M H Saier

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microbiological reviews, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 286 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
286citing papers in PubMed
14.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

286 citing papers in PubMed, 707 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Microbiome research reports · 2023
    Review
  20. Article

226 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R TamDepartment of Biology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla 92093-0116.
M H Saier
University of California San Diego · US

Funding

MECHANISM OF CARBOHYDRATE TRANSPORT IN BACTERIAR01AI014176 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO · PI SAIER, MILTON H. · 1986 to 2000
$294k
ATP-DEPENDENT PROTEIN KINASES IN STREPTOCOCCIR01AI021702 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO · PI SAIER, MILTON H. · 1985 to 1996
–
NIAID NIH HHS 2RO1AI14176NIAID NIH HHS 5RO1AI21702
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extracellular solute-binding proteins of bacteria serve as chemoreceptors, recognition constituents of transport systems, and initiators of signal transduction pathways. Over 50 sequenced periplasmic solute-binding proteins of gram-negative bacteria and homologous extracytoplasmic lipoproteins of gram-positive bacteria have been analyzed for sequence similarities, and their degrees of relatedness have been determined. Some of these proteins are homologous to cytoplasmic transcriptional regulatory proteins of bacteria; however, with the sole exception of the vitamin B12-binding protein of Escherichia coli, which is homologous to human glutathione peroxidase, they are not demonstrably homologous to any of the several thousand sequenced eukaryotic proteins. Most of these proteins fall into eight distinct clusters as follows. Cluster 1 solute-binding proteins are specific for malto-oligosaccharides, multiple oligosaccharides, glycerol 3-phosphate, and iron. Cluster 2 proteins are specific for galactose, ribose, arabinose, and multiple monosaccharides, and they are homologous to a number of transcriptional regulatory proteins including the lactose, galactose, and fructose repressors of E. coli. Cluster 3 proteins are specific for histidine, lysine-arginine-ornithine, glutamine, octopine, nopaline, and basic amino acids. Cluster 4 proteins are specific for leucine and leucine-isoleucine-valine, and they are homologous to the aliphatic amidase transcriptional repressor, AmiC, of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Cluster 5 proteins are specific for dipeptides and oligopeptides as well as nickel. Cluster 6 proteins are specific for sulfate, thiosulfate, and possibly phosphate. Cluster 7 proteins are specific for dicarboxylates and tricarboxylates, but these two proteins exhibit insufficient sequence similarity to establish homology. Finally, cluster 8 proteins are specific for iron complexes and possibly vitamin B12. Members of each cluster of binding proteins exhibit greater sequence conservation in their N-terminal domains than in their C-terminal domains. Signature sequences for these eight protein families are presented. The results reveal that binding proteins specific for the same solute from different bacteria are generally more closely related to each other than are binding proteins specific for different solutes from the same organism, although exceptions exist. They also suggest that a requirement for high-affinity solute binding imposes severe structural constraints on a protein. The occurrence of two distinct classes of bacterial cytoplasmic repressor proteins which are homologous to two different clusters of periplasmic binding proteins suggests that the gene-splicing events which allowed functional conversion of these proteins with retention of domain structure have occurred repeatedly during evolutionary history.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Indexed as

Amino Acid SequenceBacteriaBacterial ProteinsBiological EvolutionBiological TransportCarrier ProteinsMolecular Sequence DataStructure-Activity RelationshipBacterial ProteinsCarrier Proteins

Identifiers

PMID8336670
PMCPMC372912
OpenAlexW2116128404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.