A single determinant dominates the rate of yeast protein evolution

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 327-337

  Drummond, D Allan ^a   Raval, Alpan ^b,c   Wilke, Claus O ^d  

^a CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b KECK GRADUATE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c CLAREMONT GRADUATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Dispensability; Evolutionary rate; Gene expression; Protein protein interactions; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Translational selection

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CODON; EVOLUTION; EVOLUTIONARY RATE; GENE EXPRESSION; NONHUMAN; PREDICTION; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; YEAST;

AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; POINT MUTATION; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE PROTEINS; TRANSCRIPTION, GENETIC;

SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE;

EID: 30744441602     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: 15371719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msj038     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Agrafioti, I., J. Swire, J. Abbott, D. Huntley, S. Butcher, and M. P. Stumpf. 2005. Comparative analysis of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Caenorhabditis elegans protein interaction networks. BMC Evol. Biol. 5:23.
2. Akashi, H. 1994. Synonymous codon usage in Drosophila melanogaster: natural selection and translational accuracy. Genetics 136:927-935.
3. _. 2001. Gene expression and molecular evolution. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 11:660-666.
4. _. 2003. Translational selection and yeast proteome evolution. Genetics 164:1291-1303.
5. Bernstein, J. A., A. B. Khodursky, P. H. Lin, S. Lin-Chao, and S. N. Cohen. 2002. Global analysis of mRNA decay and abundance in Escherichia coli at single-gene resolution using two-color fluorescent DNA microarrays. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:9697-9702.
6. Bloom, J. D., and C. Adami. 2003. Apparent dependence of protein evolutionary rate on number of interactions is linked to biases in protein-protein interactions data sets. BMC Evol. Biol. 3:21.
7. _. 2004. Evolutionary rate depends on number of protein-protein interactions independently of gene expression level: response. BMC Evol. Biol. 4:14.
8. Cho, R. J., M. J. Campbell, E. A. Winzeler et al. (11 co-authors). 1998. A genome-wide transcriptional analysis of the mitotic cell cycle. Mol. Cell 2:65-73.
9. Coghlan, A., and K. H. Wolfe. 2000. Relationship of codon bias to mRNA concentration and protein length in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 16:1131-1145.
10. Drummond, D. A., J. D. Bloom, C. Adami, C. O. Wilke, and F. H. Arnold. 2005. Why highly expressed proteins evolve slowly. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102:14338-14343.
11. Duret, L., and D. Mouchiroud. 2000. Determinants of substitution rates in mammalian genes: expression pattern affects selection intensity but not mutation rate. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:68-74.
12. Fraser, H. B. 2005. Modularity and evolutionary constraint on proteins. Nat. Genet. 37:351-352.
13. Fraser, H. B., and A. E. Hirsh. 2004. Evolutionary rate depends on number of protein-protein interactions independently of gene expression level. BMC Evol. Biol. 4:13.
14. Fraser, H. B., A. E. Hirsh, L. M. Steinmetz, C. Scharfe, and M. W. Feldman. 2002. Evolutionary rate in the protein interaction network. Science 296:750-752.
15. Ghaemmaghami, S., W. K. Huh, K. Bower, R. W. Howson, A. Belle, N. Dephoure, E. K. O'Shea, and J. S. Weissman. 2003. Global analysis of protein expression in yeast. Nature 425:737-741.
16. Goldberg, A. L. 2003. Protein degradation and protection against misfolded or damaged proteins. Nature 426:895-899.
17. Gu, Z., L. M. Steinmetz, X. Gu, C. Scharfe, R. W. Davis, and W. H. Li. 2003. Role of duplicate genes in genetic robustness against null mutations. Nature 421:63-66.
18. Gunst, R. F., and R. L. Mason. 1977a. Advantages of examining multicollinearities in regression analysis. Biometrics 33:249-260.
19. _. 1977b. Biased estimation in regression:an evaluation using mean squared error. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 72:616-628.
20. Hahn, M. W., and A. D. Kern. 2005. Comparative genomics of centrality and essentiality in three eukaryotic protein-interaction networks. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:803-806.
21. Han, J. D., N. Bertin, T. Hao et al. (11 co-authors). 2004. Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein-protein interaction network. Nature 430:88-93.
22. Hirsh, A. E., and H. B. Fraser. 2001. Protein dispensability and rate of evolution. Nature 411:1046-1049.
23. _. 2003. Rate of evolution and gene dispensability: reply. Nature 421:497-498.
24. Hirsh, A. E., H. B. Fraser, and D. P. Wall. 2005. Adjusting for selection on synonymous sites in estimates of evolutionary distance. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:174-177.
25. Ihaka, R., and R. Gentleman. 1996. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 5:299-314.
26. Ikemura, T. 1985. Codon usage and tRNA content in unicellular and multicellular organisms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2:13-34.
27. Kurtzman, C. P., and C. J. Robnett. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships among yeasts of the 'Saccharomyces complex' determined from multigene sequence analyses. FEMS Yeast Res. 3:417-432.
28. Lemos, B., B. R. Bettencourt, C. D. Meiklejohn, and D. L. Hartl. 2005. Evolution of proteins and gene expression levels are coupled in Drosophila and are independently associated with mRNA abundance, protein length, and number of protein-protein interactions. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:1345-1354.
29. Mandel, J. 1982. Use of the singular value decomposition in regression analysis. Am. Stat. 36:15-24.
30. Marais, G., and L. Duret. 2001. Synonymous codon usage, accuracy of translation, and gene length in Caenorhabditis elegans. J. Mol. Evol. 52:275-280.
31. Naes, T., and H. Martens. 1988. Principal component regression in NIR analysis: viewpoints, background details, and selection of components. J. Chemometrics 2:155-167.
32. Nei, M., and S. Kumar. 2000. Molecular evolution and phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, New York.
33. Pál, C., B. Papp, and L. D. Hurst. 2001. Highly expressed genes in yeast evolve slowly. Genetics 158:927-931.
34. _. 2003. Genomic function: rate of evolution and gene dispensability. Nature 421:496-497[discussion 497-498].
35. Peterson, J. D., L. A. Umayam, T. Dickinson, E. K. Hickey, and O. White. 2001. The comprehensive microbial resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 29:123-125.
36. Rocha, E. P., and A. Danchin. 2004. An analysis of determinants of amino acids substitution rates in bacterial proteins. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:108-116.
37. Subramanian, S., and S. Kumar. 2004. Gene expression intensity shapes evolutionary rates of the proteins encoded by the vertebrate genome. Genetics 168:373-381.
38. Wall, D. P., H. B. Fraser, and A. E. Hirsh. 2003. Detecting putative orthologs. Bioinformatics 19:1710-1711.
39. Wall, D. P., A. E. Hirsh, H. B. Fraser, J. Kumm, G. Giaever, M. B. Eisen, and M. W. Feldman. 2005. Functional genomic analysis of the rates of protein evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102:5483-5488.
40. Wright, S. I., C. B. Yau, M. Looseley, and B. C. Meyers. 2004. Effects of gene expression on molecular evolution in Arabidopsis thaliana and Arabidopsis lyrata. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1719-1726.
41. Yang, J., Z. Gu, and W. H. Li. 2003. Rate of protein evolution versus fitness effect of gene deletion. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20:772-774.
42. Zhang, J., and X. He. 2005. Significant impact of protein dispensability on the instantaneous rate of protein evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:1147-1155.