Evolutionary transitions in protein fold space

Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 354-361

  Taylor, William R ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA POLYMERASE; RNA POLYMERASE;

AMINO TERMINAL SEQUENCE; CARBOXY TERMINAL SEQUENCE; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENOMICS; INTRON; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; POPULATION SIZE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN DOMAIN; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN SECONDARY STRUCTURE; REVIEW;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; HUMANS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEINS;

EID: 34347383961     PISSN: 0959440X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2007.06.002     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. Kendrew J.C. Nobel lecture: myoglobin and the structure of proteins. Nobel Lectures, Chemistry 1942-1962 (1964), Elsevier, Amsterdam
2. Orengo C.A., Flores T.P., Taylor W.R., and Thornton J.M. Identification and classification of protein fold families. Protein Eng 6 (1993) 485-500
3. Holm L., and Sander C. Touring protein fold space with Dali/FSSP. Nucleic Acids Res 26 (1998) 316-319
4. Hou J., Sims G.E., Zhang C., and Kim S.-H. A global representation of protein fold space. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100 (2003) 2386-2390
5. Kim S.H., Shin D.H., Liu J., Oganesyan V., Chen S., Xu Q.S., Kim J.S., Das D., Schulze-Gahmen U., and Holbrook S.R. Structural genomics of minimal organisms and protein fold space. J Struct Funct Genomics 6 (2005) 63-70
6. Choi I.-G., and Kim S.-H. Evolution of protein structural classes and protein sequence families. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103 (2006) 14056-14061. Common structural ancestors (CSAs) are estimated for protein families and the age of the CSA plotted in fold space. This shows the β/α class to be the most ancient. Although there is debate about the methods used to estimate age, the ancient nature of the β/α proteins is clear but not unexpected, as many other functional properties suggest their antiquity.
7. Murzin A.G., Brenner S.E., Hubbard T., and Chothia C. SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. J Mol Biol 247 (1995) 536-540
8. Orengo C.A., Michie A.D., Jones S., Jones D.T., Swindells M.B., and Thornton J.M. CATH - a hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure 5 (1997) 1093-1108
9. Greene L.H., Lewis T.E., Addou S., Cuff A., Dallman T., Dibley M., Redfern O., Pearl F., Nambudiry R., Reid A., et al. The CATH domain structure database: new protocols and classification levels give a more comprehensive resource for exploring evolution. Nucleic Acids Res 35 (2006) D291-D297. A technical paper giving insight into how the CATH database is constructed. It contains some useful summary statistics, for example, the percentage of new folds has been steady at 7% for the past decade.
10. Reeves G.A., Dallman T.J., Redfern O.C., Akpor A., and Orengo C.A. Structural diversity of domain superfamilies in the CATH database. J Mol Biol 360 (2006) 725-741. A more structural view of the CATH database, with useful examples of duplications and embellishments. It tends to reconfirm known processes, but does so consistently across a large data set.
11. Dokholyan N.V., Shakhnovich B., and Shakhnovich E.I. Expanding protein universe and its origin from the biological Big Bang. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99 (2002) 14132-14136
12. Hadley C., and Jones D.T. A systematic comparison of protein structure classifications SCOP, CATH and FSSP. Structure 7 (1995) 1099-1112
13. Gelly J.C., de Brevern A.G., and Hazout S. 'Protein peeling': an approach for splitting a 3D protein structure into compact fragments. Bioinformatics 22 (2006) 129-133
14. Veretnik S., Bourne P.E., Alexandrov N.N., and Shindyalov I.N. Towards consistent assignment of structural domains in proteins. J Mol Biol 339 (2004) 647-678
15. Holland T.A., Veretnik S., Shindyalov I.N., and Bourne P.E. Partitioning protein structures into domains: why is it so difficult?. J Mol Biol 361 (2006) 562-590. The authors compare four automated methods for domain definition (parsing) from structure. It probably doesn't need such a large paper to tell us that this is a difficult task, but it is good to have the different performances compared - even if only as a warning or challenge to those who follow.
16. Rose G.D. Hierarchic organisation of domains in globular proteins. J Mol Biol 234 (1979) 447-470
17. Taylor W.R. Protein structure domain identification. Protein Eng 12 (1999) 203-216
18. Kim D.E., Chivian D., Malmstrom L., and Baker D. Automated prediction of domain boundaries in CASP6 targets using Ginzu and RosettaDOM. Proteins 61 suppl 7 (2005) 193-200
19. Chivian D., Kim D.E., Malmstrom L., Schonbrun J., Rohl C.A., and Baker D. Prediction of CASP-6 structures using automated Robetta protocols. Proteins 61 suppl 7 (2005) 157-166
20. Taylor W.R., Lin K., Klose D., Fraternali F., and Jonassen I. Dynamic domain threading. Proteins 64 (2006) 601-614
21. Shindyalov I.N., and Bourne P.E. An alternative view of protein fold space. Proteins 38 (2001) 247-260
22. Harrison A., Pearl F., Mott R., Thornton J., and Orengo C. Quantifying the similarities within fold space. J Mol Biol 323 (2002) 909-926
23. Taylor W.R. A deeply knotted protein and how it might fold. Nature 406 (2000) 916-919
24. Efimov A.V. Structural trees for protein superfamilies. Proteins 28 (1997) 241-260
25. Zhang J. Evolution by gene duplication: an update. Trends Ecol Evol 18 (2003) 292-298
26. Hughes A.L. Gene duplication and the origin of novel proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 (2005) 8791-8792
27. Katju V., and Lynch M. On the formation of novel genes by duplication in the Caenorhabditus elegans genome. Mol Biol Evol 23 (2006) 1056-1067
28. Krishna S.S., and Grishin N.V. Structural drift: a possible path to protein fold change. Bioinformatics 21 (2005) 1308-1310
29. Pan J.L., and Bardwell J.C.A. The origami of thioredoxin-like folds. Protein Sci 15 (2006) 2217-2227. Concentrating on fold variation within a single divergent family can make it easier to focus on the mechanisms.
30. Lupas A.N., Ponting C.P., and Russell R.B. On the evolution of protein folds: are similar motifs in different protein folds the result of convergence, insertion or relics of an ancient peptide world?. J Struct Biol 134 (2001) 191-203
31. Aravind L., Lakshminarayan M.I., and Koonin E.V. Comparative genomics and structural biology of the molecular innovations of eukaryotes. Curr Opin Struct Biol 16 (2006) 409-419
32. Andreeva A., and Murzin A.G. Evolution of protein fold in the presence of functional constraints. Curr Opin Struct Biol 16 (2006) 399-408. Examples are provided for a variety of molecular processes, including duplication, swapping and deletion events. Of particular interest are those that have given rise to the knotted topology found in the PGDH-like oxidoreductases, illustrating how far protein topology can shift under a few simple rearrangements.
33. Hausrath A.C., and Goriely A. Repeat protein architectures predicted by a continuum representation of fold space. Protein Sci 15 (2006) 753-760. The repetitive structures that consist of a superhelix of α helices enable the different folds to be represented in the parameter space of the superhelical geometry. Areas where there are no steric clashes were plotted in this space and revealed transition pathways from one fold to another other, while some folds remain as isolated islands. Generalisation to the more discrete geometry of β-sheet-containing proteins may not be so simple.
34. Taylor W.R. A periodic table for protein structure. Nature 416 (2002) 657-660
35. Taylor W.R., and Aszódi A. Protein Geometry, Classification, Topology and Symmetry (2005), CRC Press
36. Johannissen L.O., and Taylor W.R. Protein fold comparison by the alignment of topological strings. Protein Eng 16 (2004) 949-955
37. Mushegian A.R., and Koonin E.V. A minimal gene set for cellular life derived by comparison of complete bacterial genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93 (1996) 10268-10273
38. Koonin E.V. Comparative genomics, minimal gene-sets and the last universal common ancestor. Nat Rev Microbiol 1 (2003) 127-136
39. Carbone A. Computational prediction of genomic functional cores specific to different microbes. J Mol Evol 63 (2006) 733-746
40. Winstanley H.F., Abeln S., and Deane C.M. How old is your fold?. Bioinformatics 21 suppl 1 (2005) i449-i485
41. Taylor W.R. Topological accessibility shows a distinct asymmetry in the folds of βα proteins. FEBS Lett 580 (2006) 5263-5267
42. Salgado P.S., Koivunen M.R.L., Makeyev E.V., Bamford D.H., Stuart D.I., and Grimes J.M. The structure of an RNAi polymerase links RNA silencing and transcription. PLoS Biol 4 (2006) 2274-2281. The similarity of RNAi polymerase to DNA polymerases suggests a link back to an ancient time when RNA was the genetic material. The core fold is all-β, whereas most ancient enzymes are of the β/α class.
43. Jones R. RNA silencing sheds light on the RNA world. PLoS Biol 4 (2006) e448
44. Taylor W.R. Evolution and relationships of protein families. In: Bishop M.J., and Rawlings C.J. (Eds). Nucleic Acid and Protein Sequence Analysis: A Practical Approach, edn 2 (1997), Oxford University Press 313-340
45. Orengo C.A., and Thornton J.M. Protein families and their evolution - a structural perspective. Annu Rev Biochem 74 (2005) 867-900
46. Chothia C., Gough J., Vogel C., and Teichmann S.A. Evolution of the protein repertoire. Science 300 (2003) 1701-1703
47. Vogel C., and Chothia C. Protein family expansions and biological complexity. PLoS Comput Biol 2 (2006) 370-382. A comprehensive analysis of protein superfamilies from a phylogenetic perspective related to duplication events.
48. Bashton M., and Chothia C. The generation of new protein functions by the combination of domains. Structure 15 (2007) 85-99. A comprehensive survey of this important mechanism for generating novel function. Equivalent domains are compared in their isolated form to where they are found in combination with other domains in larger proteins.
49. Fong J.H., Geer L.Y., Panchenko A.R., and Bryant S.H. Modeling the evolution of protein domain architectures using maximum parsimony. J Mol Biol 366 (2007) 307-315. Over long periods of evolution, the order in which domains may have been added and deleted is often not obvious to the eye. The authors define a set of domain transition rules and use a dynamic programming algorithm to find the minimal cost transition between proteins. The example of the C2-WW-HECTc core domain combination spans the whole of the eukaryotic kingdom.
50. Cheng H., and Grishin N.V. DOM-fold: a structure with crossing loops found in DmpA, ornithine acetyltransferase, and molybdenum cofactor-binding protein domain. Protein Sci 14 (2005) 1902-1910. A detailed examination of three related domains (designated D, O and M) with the same four-layer α/β/β/α architecture and fold (called the DOM fold). The 'M' protein is a new addition to the fold, extending it from a homologous family (D and O proteins) to a wider superfamily. The duplication and swapping operations relating these proteins are described, as well as their potential relationship to the Ntn hydrolases, which have the same architecture but a different fold.
51. Theobald D.L., and Wuttke D.S. Divergent evolution within protein superfolds inferred from profile-based phylogenetics. J Mol Biol 354 (2006) 722-737
52. Gough J. Convergent evolution of domain architectures (is rare). Bioinformatics 21 (2005) 1464-1471
53. Taylor W.R. Decoy models for protein structure score normalisation. J Mol Biol 357 (2006) 676-699
54. Taylor W.R. Protein knots and fold complexity: some new twists. Comp Biol Chem 31 (2007) 151-162. A current review of knots found in proteins, with some discussion on their utility and formation and speculation on the likelihood of further knots being found.
55. Weiner J., Thomas G., and Bornberg-Bauer E. Rapid motif-based prediction of circular permutations in multi-domain proteins. Bioinformatics 21 (2005) 932-937. An investigation of CP based on sequence similarity. This tends to restrict the examples to events based on larger distinct domains. See [56] for a similar exercise based on structure.
56. Vesterstrom J., and Taylor W.R. Flexible secondary structure based protein structure comparison applied to the detection of circular permutation. J. Comput Biol 13 (2006) 43-62
57. Kolodny R., Petery D., and Honig B. Protein structure comparison: implications for the nature of 'fold space', and structure and function prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 16 (2006) 393-398
58. Lecomte J.T.J., Vuletich D.A., and Lesk A.M. Structural divergence and distant relationships in proteins: evolution of the globins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 15 (2005) 290-301
59. Luz H., and Vingron M. Family specific rates of protein evolution. Bioinformatics 22 (2006) 1106-1171
60. Bofkin L., and Goldman N. Variation in evolutionary processes at different codon positions. Mol Biol Evol 24 (2007) 513-521
61. Whamond G.S., and Thornton J.M. An analysis of intron positions in relation to nucleotides, amino acids, and protein secondary structure. J Mol Biol 359 (2006) 238-247
62. Street T.O., Rose G.D., and Barrick D. The role of introns in repeat protein gene formation. J Mol Biol 360 (2006) 258-266. A useful survey of intron location from the viewpoint of domain duplication. Repeat boundaries are found to be preferentially associated with introns in eukaryotes.
63. de Roos A.D. Origins of introns based on the definition of exon modules and their conserved interfaces. Bioinformatics 21 (2005) 2-9
64. Lynch M., O'Hely M., Walsh B., and Force A. The probability of preservation of a newly arisen gene duplication. Genetics 159 (2001) 1789-1804
65. Lynch M. Gene duplication and evolution. Science 297 (2002) 945-947
66. Roth C., Rastogi S., Arvestad L., Dittmar K., Light S., Ekman D., and Liberles D.A. Evolution after gene duplication: models, mechanisms, sequences, systems and organisms. J Exp Zoolog B Mol Dev Evol 308 (2007) 58-73
67. Lukatsky D.B., Shakhnovich B.E., Mintseris J., and Shakhnovich E.I. Structural similarity enhances interaction propensity of proteins. J Mol Biol 365 (2007) 1596-1606. It is not intuitively obvious that patterns of interacting sites on the surface of proteins should favour the formation of homodimers (as distinct from any other protein interaction partner). This finding provides a mechanism that would add a boost to gene duplication as the favoured mechanism in the evolution of protein diversity.
68. Deeds E.J., Dokholyan N.V., and Shakhnovich E.I. Protein evolution within a structural space. Biophys J 85 (2003) 2962-2972
69. Zeldovich K.B., Berezovsky I.N., and Shakhnovich E.I. Physical origins of protein superfamilies. J Mol Biol 357 (2006) 1335-1343
70. Deeds E.J., and Shakhnovich E.I. A structure-centric view of protein evolution, design and adaptation. Adv Enzymol Relat Areas Mol Biol 75 (2007) 133-191. A comprehensive and comprehensible review of the statistical mechanics approach to the evolution of simple lattice model proteins. These models often provide surprisingly relevant insight into the more complex world of real proteins.
71. Zhang Y., and Skolnick J. The protein structure prediction problem could be solved using the current PDB library. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 (2005) 1029-1034
72. Taylor W.R. Protein structure alignment using iterated double dynamic programming. Protein Sci 8 (1999) 654-665