1986
DOI: 10.1007/bf00233799
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Are proteins made of modules?

Abstract: Analysis of a set of well characterized enzymes shows that the size of a protein subunit is directly related to the number of unique ligand binding functions described for the particular enzyme. The average size increment is about 5 000 Da per ligand binding function. This value corresponds very well to: (a) the amount of polypeptide chain required to form a stable folded structure, and (b) the size of polypeptide coded by the average exon. This reinforces the hypothesis that exon-coded modules are basic archi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

1987
1987
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Contemporary enzymes the size of aaRS Urzymes exist, but they are hydrolases and isomerases that act on a single substrate; multisubstrate enzymes generally have considerably more mass [ 39 ]. The average modular molecular weight of 5000 Kd/ligand from a survey of molecular mass required per ligand bound [ 40 ] suggests a minimum molecular mass of 20 Kd for such enzymes. In fact, enzymes that bind nucleotide ligands from that survey have a mean molecular mass of 41 Kd with a standard error of the mean of 1.9 Kd.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contemporary enzymes the size of aaRS Urzymes exist, but they are hydrolases and isomerases that act on a single substrate; multisubstrate enzymes generally have considerably more mass [ 39 ]. The average modular molecular weight of 5000 Kd/ligand from a survey of molecular mass required per ligand bound [ 40 ] suggests a minimum molecular mass of 20 Kd for such enzymes. In fact, enzymes that bind nucleotide ligands from that survey have a mean molecular mass of 41 Kd with a standard error of the mean of 1.9 Kd.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such a structure would be an excellent scaffold for fixing interactive side chains. Indeed it is now generally recognized that modules are fundamentally and autonomously folding units of large proteins, and one reason for the evolution of modules is to endow proteins with ligand binding capacity (45)(46)(47). The observation that the FIMs are facilitating devices that promote interaction of C5 and C6, which is important for antibody-mediated complement activation, conveys implications as to how the terminal pathway of complement evolved.…”
Section: Fig 10 the Affinity Of C5 For C6mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While there is insufficient data to relate the various motifs described here with exons in their genes, it has been stated that Walker A and B segments should be independently folding domains [52], which is consistent with considering them as protein modules. The benefits of such modular architecture have been more specifically described for enzymes, where the functional benefit of using two modules for a ligand-binding pocket were considered [47,481. If the motifs described here for binding ATPIGTP and NMP correspond to modules, then this would give examples for slightly more complex ligand-binding sites.…”
Section: Motifs and Modulesmentioning
confidence: 99%