Emerging methods in protein co-evolution

Nature Reviews Genetics

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 249-261

  De Juan, David ^a   Pazos, Florencio ^b   Valencia, Alfonso ^a  

^a Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncológicas   (Spain)

^b CENTRO NACIONAL DE BIOTECNOLOGÍA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID; PROTEIN;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; BIOSTATISTICS; COEVOLUTION; HYBRID; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENETIC TREE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

ANIMALS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; HUMANS; MODELS, GENETIC; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MUTATION; PHYLOGENY; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; PROTEINS;

EID: 84875225476     PISSN: 14710056     EISSN: 14710064     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrg3414     Document Type: Review

References (110)

1. Dobzhansky, T. Genetics of natural populations. XIX. Origin of heterosis through natural selection in populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 35, 288-302 (1950).
2. Wallace, B. On coadaptation in Drosophila. Am. Nat. 87, 343-358 (1953).
3. Ehrlich, P. & Raven, P. Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18, 586-608 (1964).
4. Thompson J. N. The Coevolutionary Process Univ. Chicago Press, 1994.
5. Burton, R. & Rawson, P. Genetic architecture of physiological phenotypes: empirical evidence for coadapted gene complexes. Amer. Zool. 39, 451-462 (1999).
6. Fitch, W. M. & Markowitz, E. An improved method for determining codon variability in a gene and its application to the rate of fixation of mutations in evolution. Biochem. Genet. 4, 579-593 (1970).
7. Göbel, U., Sander, C., Schneider, R. & Valencia, A. Correlated mutations and residue contacts in proteins. Proteins 18, 309-317 (1994).
8. Shindyalov, I. N., Kolchanov, N. A. & Sander, C. Can three-dimensional contacts in protein structures be predicted by analysis of correlated mutations? Protein Eng. 7, 349-358 (1994).
9. Taylor, W. R. & Hatrick, K. Compensating changes in protein multiple sequence alignments. Protein Eng. 7, 341-348 (1994).
10. Neher, E. How frequent are correlated changes in families of protein sequences? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 91, 98-102 (1994).
11. Pazos, F., Helmer-Citterich, M., Ausiello, G. & Valencia, A. Correlated mutations contain information about protein-protein interaction. J. Mol. Biol. 271, 511-523 (1997).
12. Tress, M. et al. Scoring docking models with evolutionary information. Proteins 60, 275-280 (2005).
13. Yeang, C.?H. & Haussler, D. Detecting coevolution in and among protein domains. PLoS Comp. Biol. 3, e211 (2007).
14. Burger, L. & van Nimwegen, E. Accurate prediction of protein-protein interactions from sequence alignments using a Bayesian method. Mol. Syst. Biol. 4, 165 (2008).
15. Weigt, M., White, R. A., Szurmant, H., Hoch, J. A. & Hwa, T. Identification of direct residue contacts in protein-protein interaction by message passing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 67-72 (2009).
16. Schug, A., Weigt, M., Onuchic, J. N., Hwa, T. & Szurmant, H. High-resolution protein complexes from integrating genomic information with molecular simulation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 22124-22129 (2009).
17. Dago, A. E. et al. Structural basis of histidine kinase autophosphorylation deduced by integrating genomics, molecular dynamics, and mutagenesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, E1733-E1742 (2012).
18. Casari, G., Sander, C. & Valencia, A. A method to predict functional residues in proteins. Nature Struct. Biol. 2, 171-178 (1995).
19. Lichtarge, O., Bourne, H. R. & Cohen, F. E. An evolutionary trace method defines binding surfaces common to protein families. J. Mol. Biol. 257, 342-358 (1996).
20. Goh, C. S., Bogan, A. A., Joachimiak, M., Walther, D. & Cohen, F. E. Co?evolution of proteins with their interaction partners. J. Mol. Biol. 299, 283-293 (2000).
21. Pazos, F. & Valencia, A. Similarity of phylogenetic trees as indicator of protein-protein interaction. Protein Eng. 14, 609-614 (2001).
22. Fryxell, K. J. The coevolution of gene family trees. Trends Genet. 12, 364-369 (1996).
23. Korber, B. T., Farber, R. M., Wolpert, D. H. & Lapedes, A. S. Covariation of mutations in the V3 loop of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 envelope protein: an information theoretic analysis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 90, 7176-7180 (1993).
24. Fodor, A. A. & Aldrich, R. W. Influence of conservation on calculations of amino acid covariance in multiple sequence alignments. Proteins 56, 211-221 (2004).
25. Dunn, S. D., Wahl, L. M. & Gloor, G. B. Mutual information without the influence of phylogeny or entropy dramatically improves residue contact prediction. Bioinformatics 24, 333-340 (2008).
26. Olmea, O. & Valencia, A. Improving contact predictions by the combination of correlated mutations and other sources of sequence information. Fold. Des. 2, S25-S32 (1997).
27. Fares, M. A. & Travers, S. A. A. A novel method for detecting intramolecular coevolution: adding a further dimension to selective constraints analyses. Genetics 173, 9-23 (2006).
28. Tillier, E. R. M. & Lui, T. W. H. Using multiple interdependency to separate functional from phylogenetic correlations in protein alignments. Bioinformatics 19, 750-755 (2003).
29. Martin, L. C., Gloor, G. B., Dunn, S. D. & Wahl, L. M. Using information theory to search for co?evolving residues in proteins. Bioinformatics 21, 4116-4124 (2005).
30. Fairman, J. W. et al. Crystal structures of the outer membrane domain of intimin and invasin from enterohemorrhagic E. coli and enteropathogenic Y. pseudotuberculosis. Structure 20, 1233-1243 (2012).
31. Altschuh, D., Lesk, A. M., Bloomer, A. C. & Klug, A. Correlation of co?ordinated amino acid substitutions with function in viruses related to tobacco mosaic virus. J. Mol. Biol. 193, 693-707 (1987).
32. Oliveira, L., Paiva, A. C. M. & Vriend, G. Correlated mutation analyses on very large sequence families. Chembiochem 3, 1010-1017 (2002).
33. Fleishman, S. J., Yifrach, O. & Ben-Tal, N. An evolutionarily conserved network of amino acids mediates gating in voltage-dependent potassium channels. J. Mol. Biol. 340, 307-318 (2004).
34. Dutheil, J., Pupko, T., Jean-Marie, A. & Galtier, N. A model-based approach for detecting coevolving positions in a molecule. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22, 1919-1928 (2005).
35. Pollock, D. D., Taylor, W. R. & Goldman, N. Coevolving protein residues: maximum likelihood identification and relationship to structure. J. Mol. Biol. 287, 187-198 (1999).
36. Barker, D. & Pagel, M. Predicting functional gene links from phylogenetic-statistical analyses of whole genomes. PLoS Comp. Biol. 1, e3 (2005).
37. Lapedes, A. S., Giraud, B. G., Liu, L. C. & Stormo, G. D. Correlated mutations in models of protein sequences: phylogenetic and structural effects. Stat. Mol. Biol. Genet. 33, 236-256 (1999).
38. Morcos, F. et al. Direct-coupling analysis of residue coevolution captures native contacts across many protein families. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, E1293-E1301 (2011)
39. Jones, D. T., Buchan, D. W. A., Cozzetto, D. & Pontil, M. PSICOV: precise structural contact prediction using sparse inverse covariance estimation on large multiple sequence alignments. Bioinformatics 28, 184-190 (2012)
40. Balakrishnan, S., Kamisetty, H., Carbonell, J. G., Lee, S.?I. & Langmead, C. J. Learning generative models for protein fold families. Proteins 79, 1061-1078 (2011).
41. Burger, L. & van Nimwegen, E. Disentangling direct from indirect co?evolution of residues in protein alignments. PLoS Comp. Biol. 6, e1000633 (2010).
42. Sreekumar, J., Braak, ter, C. J. F., van Ham, R. C. H. J. & van Dijk, A. D. J. Correlated mutations via regularized multinomial regression. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 444 (2011).
43. Di Lena, P., Nagata, K. & Baldi, P. Deep architectures for protein contact map prediction. Bioinformatics 28, 2449-2457 (2012).
44. Juan, D., Pazos, F. & Valencia, A. Co?evolution and co?adaptation in protein networks. FEBS Lett. 582, 1225-1230 (2008).
45. Pazos, F. & Valencia, A. Protein co?evolution, co?adaptation and interactions. EMBO J. 27, 2648-2655 (2008).
46. Madabushi, S. et al. Structural clusters of evolutionary trace residues are statistically significant and common in proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 316, 139-154 (2002).
47. del Sol Mesa, A., Pazos, F. & Valencia, A. Automatic methods for predicting functionally important residues. J. Mol. Biol. 326, 1289-1302 (2003).
48. Rausell, A., Juan, D., Pazos, F. & Valencia, A. Protein interactions and ligand binding: from protein subfamilies to functional specificity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 1995-2000 (2010)
49. Rodriguez, G. J., Yao, R., Lichtarge, O. & Wensel, T. G. Evolution-guided discovery and recoding of allosteric pathway specificity determinants in psychoactive bioamine receptors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 7787-7792 (2010).
50. Socolich, M. et al. Evolutionary information for specifying a protein fold. Nature 437, 512-518 (2005).
51. Lockless, S. W. & Ranganathan, R. Evolutionarily conserved pathways of energetic connectivity in protein families. Science 286, 295-299 (1999).
52. Kass, I. & Horovitz, A. Mapping pathways of allosteric communication in GroEL by analysis of correlated mutations. Proteins 48, 611-617 (2002).
53. Süel, G. M., Lockless, S. W., Wall, M. A. & Ranganathan, R. Evolutionarily conserved networks of residues mediate allosteric communication in proteins. Nature Struct. Biol. 10, 59-69 (2003).
54. Reynolds, K. A., McLaughlin, R. N. & Ranganathan, R. Hot spots for allosteric regulation on protein surfaces. Cell 147, 1564-1575 (2011)
55. Hannenhalli, S. S. & Russell, R. B. Analysis and prediction of functional sub-types from protein sequence alignments. J. Mol. Biol. 303, 61-76 (2000).
56. Mirny, L. A. & Gelfand, M. S. Using orthologous and paralogous proteins to identify specificity-determining residues in bacterial transcription factors. J. Mol. Biol. 321, 7-20 (2002).
57. Kalinina, O. V., Gelfand, M. S. & Russell, R. B. Combining specificity determining and conserved residues improves functional site prediction. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 174 (2009).
58. Landgraf, R., Xenarios, I. & Eisenberg, D. Three-dimensional cluster analysis identifies interfaces and functional residue clusters in proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 307, 1487-1502 (2001).
59. Reva, B., Antipin, Y. & Sander, C. Determinants of protein function revealed by combinatorial entropy optimization. Genome Biol. 8, R232 (2007).
60. Marttinen, P., Corander, J., Törönen, P. & Holm, L. Bayesian search of functionally divergent protein subgroups and their function specific residues. Bioinformatics 22, 2466-2474 (2006).
61. Halabi, N., Rivoire, O., Leibler, S. & Ranganathan, R. Protein sectors: evolutionary units of threedimensional structure. Cell 138, 774-786 (2009).
62. Brown, C A. & Brown, K. S. Validation of Coevolving Residue Algorithms Via Pipeline Sensitivity Analysis: ELSC and OMES and ZNMI, Oh My! PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e10779
63. Harrington, E. D., Jensen, L. J. & Bork, P. Predicting biological networks from genomic data. FEBS Lett. 582, 1251-1258 (2008).
64. Wass, M. N., David, A. & Sternberg, M. J. Challenges for the prediction of macromolecular interactions. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 21, 382-390 (2011).
65. von Mering, C. et al. STRING: a database of predicted functional associations between proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 258-261 (2003).
66. Pazos, F., Ranea, J. A. G., Juan, D. & Sternberg, M. J. E. Assessing protein co?evolution in the context of the tree of life assists in the prediction of the interactome. J. Mol. Biol. 352, 1002-1015 (2005).
67. Sato, T., Yamanishi, Y., Kanehisa, M. & Toh, H. The inference of protein-protein interactions by co?evolutionary analysis is improved by excluding the information about the phylogenetic relationships. Bioinformatics 21, 3482-3489 (2005).
68. Kann, M. G., Jothi, R., Cherukuri, P. F. & Przytycka, T. M. Predicting protein domain interactions from coevolution of conserved regions. Proteins 67, 811-820 (2007).
69. Sato, T., Yamanishi, Y., Horimoto, K., Kanehisa, M. & Toh, H. Partial correlation coefficient between distance matrices as a new indicator of protein-protein interactions. Bioinformatics 22, 2488-2492 (2006).
70. Juan, D., Pazos, F. & Valencia, A. High-confidence prediction of global interactomes based on genomewide coevolutionary networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 934-939 (2008).
71. Herman, D. et al. Selection of organisms for the co?evolution-based study of protein interactions. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 363 (2011).
72. Choi, K. & Gomez, S. M. Comparison of phylogenetic trees through alignment of embedded evolutionary distances. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 423 (2009).
73. Tillier, E. R. M. & Charlebois, R. L. The human protein coevolution network. Genome Res. 19, 1861-1871 (2009).
74. Ramani, A. K. & Marcotte, E. M. Exploiting the co?evolution of interacting proteins to discover interaction specificity. J. Mol. Biol. 327, 273-284 (2003).
75. Jothi, R., Kann, M. G. & Przytycka, T. M. Predicting protein-protein interaction by searching evolutionary tree automorphism space. Bioinformatics 21 (Suppl. 1), i241-i250 (2005).
76. Izarzugaza, J. M., Juan, D., Pons, C., Pazos, F. & Valencia, A. Enhancing the prediction of protein pairings between interacting families using orthology information. BMC Bioinformatics 9, 35 (2008).
77. Jothi, R., Cherukuri, P. F., Tasneem, A. & Przytycka, T. M. Co?evolutionary analysis of domains in interacting proteins reveals insights into domain-domain interactions mediating protein-protein interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 362, 861-875 (2006).
78. Kann, M. G., Shoemaker, B. A., Panchenko, A. R. & Przytycka, T. M. Correlated evolution of interacting proteins: looking behind the MirrorTree. J. Mol. Biol. 385, 91-98 (2009).
79. Pellegrini, M., Marcotte, E. M., Thompson, M. J., Eisenberg, D. & Yeates, T. O. Assigning protein functions by comparative genome analysis: protein phylogenetic profiles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 4285-4288 (1999).
80. Gaasterland, T. & Ragan, M. A. Microbial genescapes: phyletic and functional patterns of ORF distribution among prokaryotes. Microb. Comp. Genom. 3, 199-217 (1998).
81. Date, S. V. & Marcotte, E. M. Discovery of uncharacterized cellular systems by genome-wide analysis of functional linkages. Nature Biotech. 21, 1055-1062 (2003).
82. Ranea, J. A. G., Yeats, C., Grant, A. & Orengo, C. A. Predicting protein function with hierarchical phylogenetic profiles: the Gene3D Phylo-Tuner method applied to eukaryotic genomes. PLoS Comp. Biol. 3, e237 (2007).
83. Zhou, Y., Wang, R., Li, L., Xia, X. & Sun, Z. Inferring functional linkages between proteins from evolutionary scenarios. J. Mol. Biol. 359, 1150-1159 (2006).
84. Ta, H. X., Koskinen, P. & Holm, L. A novel method for assigning functional linkages to proteins using enhanced phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 27, 700-706 (2011).
85. Sun, J. et al. Refined phylogenetic profiles method for predicting protein-protein interactions. Bioinformatics 21, 3409-3415 (2005).
86. Jothi, R., Przytycka, T. M. & Aravind, L. Discovering functional linkages and uncharacterized cellular pathways using phylogenetic profile comparisons: a comprehensive assessment. BMC Bioinformatics 8, 173 (2007).
87. Pazos, F. & Valencia, A. In silico two-hybrid system for the selection of physically interacting protein pairs. Proteins 47, 219-227 (2002).
88. Tillier, E. R. M., Biro, L., Li, G. & Tillo, D. Codep: maximizing co?evolutionary interdependencies to discover interacting proteins. Proteins 63, 822-831 (2006).
89. Thompson, J. N. The coevolving web of life. Am. Nat. 173, 125-140 (2009).
90. Graña, O. et al. CASP6 assessment of contact prediction. Proteins 61 (Suppl. 7), 214-224 (2005).
91. Tress, M. L. & Valencia, A. Predicted residue-residue contacts can help the scoring of 3D models. Proteins 78, 1980-1991 (2010).
92. Sadowski, M. I., Maksimiak, K. & Taylor, W. R. Direct correlation analysis improves fold recognition. Comput. Biol. Chem. 35, 323-332 (2011).
93. Marks, D. S. et al. Protein 3D structure computed from evolutionary sequence variation. PLoS ONE 6, e28766 (2011).
94. Hopf, T. A. et al. Three-dimensional structures of membrane proteins from genomic sequencing. Cell 149, 1607-1621 (2012).
95. Nugent, T. & Jones, D. T. Accurate de novo structure prediction of large transmembrane protein domains using fragment-assembly and correlated mutation analysis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, E1540-E1547 (2012).
96. Su?kowska, J. I., Morcos, F., Weigt, M., Hwa, T. & Onuchic, J. N. Genomics-aided structure prediction. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 10340-10345 (2012).
97. Izarzugaza, J. M. G. et al. Characterization of pathogenic germline mutations in human protein kinases. BMC Bioinformatics 12 (Suppl. 4), S1 (2011).
98. Izarzugaza, J. M. G., del Pozo, A., Vazquez, M. & Valencia, A. Prioritization of pathogenic mutations in the protein kinase superfamily. BMC Genomics 13 (Suppl. 4), S3 (2012).
99. Bauer, B. et al. Effector recognition by the small GTPbinding proteins Ras and Ral. J. Biol. Chem. 274, 17763-17770 (1999).
100. Morillas, M. et al. Identification of conserved amino acid residues in rat liver carnitine palmitoyltransferase I critical for malonyl-CoA inhibition. Mutation of methionine 593 abolishes malonyl-CoA inhibition. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 9058-9063 (2003).
101. Hernanz-Falcón, P. et al. Identification of amino acid residues crucial for chemokine receptor dimerization. Nature Immunol. 5, 216-223 (2004).
102. Shenoy, S. K. et al. ?-arrestin-dependent, G proteinindependent ERK1/2 activation by the ?2 adrenergic receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 1261-1273 (2006).
103. Ribes-Zamora, A., Mihalek, I., Lichtarge, O. & Bertuch, A. A. Distinct faces of the Ku heterodimer mediate DNA repair and telomeric functions. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 14, 301-307 (2007).
104. Zamir, L. et al. Tight coevolution of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA)-partner interaction networks in fungi leads to interspecies network incompatibility. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, E406-E414 (2012).
105. Capra, E. J., Perchuk, B. S., Skerker, J. M. & Laub, M. T. Adaptive mutations that prevent crosstalk enable the expansion of paralogous signaling protein families. Cell 150, 222-232 (2012).
106. Gershoni, M. et al. Coevolution predicts direct interactions between mtDNA-encoded and nDNAencoded subunits of oxidative phosphorylation complex i. J. Mol. Biol. 404, 158-171 (2010).
107. Ochoa, D. & Pazos, F. Studying the co?evolution of protein families with the MirrorTree web server. Bioinformatics 26, 1370-1371 (2010).
108. Edgar, R. S. et al. Peroxiredoxins are conserved markers of circadian rhythms. Nature 485, 459-464 (2012).
109. Watanabe, M. et al. Highly divergent sequences of the pollen self-incompatibility (S) gene in class?I S haplotypes of Brassica campestris (syn. rapa) L. FEBS Lett. 473, 139-144 (2000).
110. Clark, N. L. et al. Coevolution of interacting fertilization proteins. PLoS Genet. 5, e1000570 (2009).