2022
DOI: 10.1101/2022.03.30.486258
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Evolution of Protein Folds by Creative Destruction

Abstract: Mechanisms by which new protein folds emerge and diverge pose central questions in biological sciences. Incremental mutation and step-wise adaptation explain relationships between topologically similar protein folds. However, the universe of folds is diverse and riotous, suggesting roles of more potent and creative forces. Sequence and structure similarity are observed between topologically distinct folds, indicating that proteins with distinct folds may share common ancestry. We found evidence of common anc… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Presumably, the protein universe-by which we mean the set of all unique protein sequences (known or unknown, ancestral or extant)-did not spontaneously arise with intact, full-sized domains. Rather, smaller, sub-domainsized protein fragments likely preceded more modern domains; the genomic elements encoding these primitive fragments were subject to natural evolutionary processes of duplication, mutation and recombination to give rise to extant domains found in contemporary proteins [2][3][4][5][6]. Our ability to detect common polypeptide fragments, shared amongst at least two domains (in terms of either sequence or structure), relies upon having (i) a similarity metric that is sensitive and accurate, and (ii) a suitable random/background distribution (i.e., null model) for distances under this metric; historically, such metrics have been rooted in the comparison of either amino acid sequences or three-dimensional (3D) structures, often for purposes of exploring protein fold space.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Presumably, the protein universe-by which we mean the set of all unique protein sequences (known or unknown, ancestral or extant)-did not spontaneously arise with intact, full-sized domains. Rather, smaller, sub-domainsized protein fragments likely preceded more modern domains; the genomic elements encoding these primitive fragments were subject to natural evolutionary processes of duplication, mutation and recombination to give rise to extant domains found in contemporary proteins [2][3][4][5][6]. Our ability to detect common polypeptide fragments, shared amongst at least two domains (in terms of either sequence or structure), relies upon having (i) a similarity metric that is sensitive and accurate, and (ii) a suitable random/background distribution (i.e., null model) for distances under this metric; historically, such metrics have been rooted in the comparison of either amino acid sequences or three-dimensional (3D) structures, often for purposes of exploring protein fold space.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent and somewhat unique approach, Geometricus (Durairaj et al ., 2020), creates protein embeddings by taking two parallel approaches to fragmentation: (i) a k -mer based fragmentation runs along the sequence (yielding contiguous segments), while (ii) a radius-based fragmentation uses the method of spatial moment invariants to compute (potentially non-contiguous) geometric ‘fragments’ for each residue position and its neighborhood within a given radius, which are then mapped to ‘shape-mers’. Conceptually, this allowance for discontinuous fragments is a key step in allowing an algorithm to bridge more of fold space, as similarities between such non-contiguous fragments can imply an ancestral contiguous peptide that duplicated and removed its terminal SSE in a process termed ‘creative destruction’, resulting in two different folds with different topologies, but similar architecture (Alvarez-Carreño et al ., 2021, 2022).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Presumably, the protein universe—meaning the set of all proteins (known or unknown, ancestral or extent)—did not spontaneously arise with intact, full-sized domains. Rather, smaller, sub-domain–sized protein fragments likely preceded the modern domains; the genomic elements encoding these primitive fragments were subject to natural evolutionary processes of duplication, mutation and recombination to give rise to extant domains found in contemporary proteins (Alva et al ., 2015; Alvarez-Carreño et al ., 2022; Bromberg et al ., 2022; Kolodny et al ., 2021; Youkharibache, 2019). Our ability to detect common fragments, shared amongst at least two domains, relies on (i) having an accurate similarity metric and (ii) a suitable random/background distribution (i.e.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Despite having permuted strands, the architecturally-identical SBBs are often involved in nucleic acid metabolic pathways, and many of them oligomerize via residue interactions amongst similar edge-strands [8]. Recently, others have proposed that the SH3 and OB share a common ancestor that diverged via a process called 'Creative Destruction' [9,10]. Notably, the SH3 and OB are two of the most ancient and widespread protein folds, and they permeate most information-storage and information-processing pathways in cellular life, from DNA replication to transcription of DNA→RNA and translation of RNA→protein [9,11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%