Quaternary structure constraints on evolutionary sequence divergence

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 349-351

  Fornasari, María Silvina ^a   Parisi, Gustavo ^a   Echave, Julián ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE QUILMES   (Argentina)

^b UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE LA PLATA   (Argentina)

Author keywords

Quaternary structure; SCPE; Sequence divergence

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID; OLIGOMER; PROTEIN;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ARTICLE; EVOLUTION; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE;

ALGORITHMS; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ANIMALS; BASE SEQUENCE; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, QUATERNARY; PROTEINS;

EID: 33846850375     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: 15371719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msl181     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Aloy P, Ceulemans H, Stark A, Russell RB. 2003. The relationship between sequence and interaction divergence in proteins. J Mol Biol. 332:989-998.
2. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE. 2000. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28:235-242.
3. Berrera M, Molinari H, Fogolari F. 2003. Amino acid empirical contact energy definitions for fold recognition in the space of contact maps. BMC Bioinformatics. 4:8.
4. Caffrey DR, Somaroo S, Hughes JD, Mintseris J, Huang ES. 2004. Are protein-protein interfaces more conserved in sequence than the rest of the protein surface? Protein Sci. 13:190-202.
5. Felsenstein J. 1993. PHYLIP (phylogeny inference package). Version 3.5c. Distributed by the author. Seattle (WA): Department of Genetics, University of Washington.
6. Fornasari MS, Parisi G, Echave J. 2002. Site-specific amino acid replacement matrices from structurally constrained protein evolution simulations. Mol Biol Evol. 19:352-356.
7. Goldman N. 1993. Simple diagnostic statistical tests of models for DNA substitution. J Mol Evol. 37:650-661.
8. Halperin I, Wolfson, Nussinov R. 2004. Protein-protein interactions; coupling of structurally conserved residues and of hot spots across interfaces. Implications for docking. Structure. 12:1027-1038.
9. Hasegawa M, Kishino H, Yano T. 1985. Dating of the human-ape splitting by molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J Mol Biol. 22:160-174.
10. Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM. 1992. The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences. Comput Appl Biosci. 8:275-282.
11. Jones S, Thornton JM. 1996. Principles of protein-protein interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 93:13-20.
12. Lattman EE, Fiebig KM, Dill KA. 1994. Modeling compact denatured states of proteins. Biochemistry. 33:6158-6166.
13. Li X, Keskin O, Ma B, Nussinov R, Liang J. 2004. Protein-protein interactions: hot spots and structurally conserved residues often locate in complemented pockets that pre-organized in the unbound states: implications for docking. J Mol Biol. 344:781-795.
14. Lim WA, Sauer RT. 1991. The role of internal packing interactions in determining the structure and stability of a protein. J Mol Biol. 219:359-376.
15. Mintseris J, Weng Z. 2005. Structure, function, and evolution of transient and obligate protein-protein interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 102:10930-10935.
16. Murzin AG, Brenner SE, Hubbard T, Chothia C. 1995. SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. J Mol Biol. 247:536-540.
17. Nooren IM, Thornton JM. 2003. Diversity of protein-protein interactions. EMBO J. 22:3486-3492.
18. Ofran Y, Rost B. 2003. Analysing six types of protein-protein interfaces. J Mol Biol. 325:377-387.
19. Overington J. 1992. Structural constraints on residue substitution. Genet Eng. 14:231-249.
20. Overington J, Johnson MS, Sali A, Blundell TL. 1990. Tertiary structural constraints on protein evolutionary diversity: templates, key residues and structure prediction. Proc Biol Sci. 241:132-145.
21. Parisi G, Echave J. 2001. Structural constraints and emergence of sequence patterns in protein evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 18:750-756.
22. Parisi G, Echave J. 2004. The structurally constrained protein evolution model accounts for sequence patterns of the LbetaH superfamily. BMC Evol Biol. 4:41.
23. Parisi G, Echave J. 2005. Generality of the structurally constrained protein evolution model: assessment on representatives of the four main fold classes. Gene. 345:45-53.
24. Pollock DD, Taylor WR. 1997. Effectiveness of correlation analysis in identifying protein residues undergoing correlated evolution. Protein Eng. 10:647-657.
25. Pond SL, Frost SD, Muse SV. 2005. HyPhy: hypothesis testing using phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 21:676-679.
26. Russell RB, Barton GJ. 1994. Structural features can be unconserved in proteins with similar folds. An analysis of side-chain to side-chain contacts secondary structure and accessibility. J Mol Biol. 244:332-350.
27. Sali A, Overington JP. 1994. Derivation of rules for comparative protein modeling from a protein structure alignments. Protein Sci. 3:1582-1596.
28. Vendruscolo M, Mirny LA, Shakhnovich EI, Domany E. 2000. Comparison of two optimization methods to derive energy parameters for protein folding: perceptron and Z score. Proteins. 41:192-201.
29. Xu J, Baase WA, Baldwin E, Matthews BW. 1998. The response of T4 lysozyme to large-to-small substitutions within the core and its relation to the hydrophobic effect. Protein Sci. 7:158-177.