How many membrane proteins are there?

One of the basic issues that arises in functional genomics is the ability to predict the subcellular location of proteins that are deduced from gene and genome sequencing. In particular, one would like to be able to readily specify those proteins that are soluble and those that are inserted in a membrane. Traditional methods of distinguishing between these two locations have relied on extensive, time-consuming biochemical studies. The alternative approach has been to make inferences based on a visual search of the amino acid sequences of presumed gene products for stretches of hydrophobic amino acids. This numerical, sequence-based approach is usually seen as a first approximation pending more reliable biochemical data. The recent availability of large and complete sequence data sets for several organisms allows us to determine just how accurate such a numerical approach could be, and to attempt to minimize and quantify the error involved. We have optimized a statistical approach to protein location determination. Using our approach, we have determined that surprisingly few proteins are misallocated using the numerical method. We also examine the biological implications of the success of this technique.     

How important are transmembrane helices of bitopic membrane proteins?

The topology of a bitopic membrane protein consists of a single transmembrane helix connecting two extra-membranous domains. As opposed to helices from polytopic proteins, the transmembrane helices of bitopic proteins were initially considered as merely hydrophobic anchors, while more recent studies have begun to shed light on their role in the protein's function. Herein the overall importance of transmembrane helices from bitopic membrane proteins was analyzed using a relative conservation analysis. Interestingly, the transmembrane domains of bitopic proteins are on average, significantly more conserved than the remainder of the protein, even when taking into account their smaller amino acid repertoire. Analysis of highly conserved transmembrane domains did not reveal any unifying consensus, pointing to a great diversity in their conservation patterns. However, Fourier power spectrum analysis was able to show that regardless of the conservation motif, in most sequences a significant conservation moment was observed, in that one side of the helix was conserved while the other was not. Taken together, it may be possible to conclude that a significant proportion of transmembrane helices from bitopic membrane proteins participate in specific interactions, in a variety of modes in the plane of the lipid bilayer.     

How important are transmembrane helices of bitopic membrane proteins?

The topology of a bitopic membrane protein consists of a single transmembrane helix connecting two extra-membranous domains. As opposed to helices from polytopic proteins, the transmembrane helices of bitopic proteins were initially considered as merely hydrophobic anchors, while more recent studies have begun to shed light on their role in the protein's function. Herein the overall importance of transmembrane helices from bitopic membrane proteins was analyzed using a relative conservation analysis. Interestingly, the transmembrane domains of bitopic proteins are on average, significantly more conserved than the remainder of the protein, even when taking into account their smaller amino acid repertoire. Analysis of highly conserved transmembrane domains did not reveal any unifying consensus, pointing to a great diversity in their conservation patterns. However, Fourier power spectrum analysis was able to show that regardless of the conservation motif, in most sequences a significant conservation moment was observed, in that one side of the helix was conserved while the other was not. Taken together, it may be possible to conclude that a significant proportion of transmembrane helices from bitopic membrane proteins participate in specific interactions, in a variety of modes in the plane of the lipid bilayer.     

Why are proteins O-glycosylated?

The O-linked oligosaccharides of glycoproteins are usually clustered within heavily glycosylated regions of the peptide chain. Steric interactions between carbohydrate and peptide within these clusters induce the peptide core to adopt a stiff and extended conformation and this conformational effect appears to represent a major function of O-glycosylation.     

How do proteins fold?

This article emphasizes the importance of getting students to understand the ways in which polypeptides fold to form protein molecules with complex higher-ordered structures. Modern views on how this folding occurs in vitro and in the cell are summarized and set within an appropriate biological context.     

How many potentially secreted proteins are contained in a bacterial genome?

Artificial neural networks were trained on the prediction of the subcellular location of bacterial proteins. A cross-validated average prediction accuracy of 93% was reached for distinction between cytoplasmic and non-cytoplasmic proteins, based on the analysis of protein amino-acid composition. Principal component analysis and self-organizing maps were used to create graphical representations of amino-acid sequence space. A clear separation of cytoplasmic, periplasmic, and extracellular proteins was observed. The neural network system was applied to predicting potentially secreted proteins in 15 complete genomes. For mesophile bacteria the predicted fractions of non-cytoplasmic proteins agree with previously published estimates, ranging between 15% and 30%. Characteristics of thermophile genomes might lead to an under-estimation of the fraction of secreted proteins by presently available prediction systems. A self-organizing map was constructed from all 15 bacterial genomes. This technique can reveal additional sequence features independent from exhaustive pair-wise sequence alignment. The Treponema pallidum and Mycobacterium tuberculosis data formed separate clusters indicating unusual characteristics of these genomes.     

Why are proteins marginally stable?

Most globular proteins are marginally stable regardless of size or activity. The most common interpretation is that proteins must be marginally stable in order to function, and so marginal stability represents the results of positive selection. We consider the issue of marginal stability directly using model proteins and the dynamical aspects of protein evolution in populations. We find that the marginal stability of proteins is an inherent property of proteins due to the high dimensionality of the sequence space, without regard to protein function. In this way, marginal stability can result from neutral, non-adaptive evolution. By allowing evolving protein sub-populations with different stability requirements for functionality to complete, we find that marginally stable populations of proteins tend to dominate. Our results show that functionalities consistent with marginal stability have a strong evolutionary advantage, and might arise because of the natural tendency of proteins towards marginal stability.     

How do uncoupling proteins uncouple?

According to the proton buffering model, introduced by Klingenberg, UCP1 conducts protons through a hydrophilic pathway lined with fatty acid head groups that buffer the protons as they move across the membrane. According to the fatty acid protonophore model, introduced by Garlid, UCPs do not conduct protons at all. Rather, like all members of this gene family, they are anion carriers. A variety of anions are transported, but the physiological substrates are fatty acid (FA) anions. Because the carboxylate head group is translocated by UCP, and because the protonated FA rapidly diffuses across the membrane, this mechanism permits FA to behave as regulated cycling protonophores. Favoring the latter mechanism is the fact that the head group of long-chain alkylsulfonates, strong acid analogues of FA, is also translocated by UCP.     

How Tough are Sclerophylls?

Fracture toughness was estimated for a 'least tough' path inthe leaves of woody species from three sclerophyllous plantcommunities. Most of the species from Mediterranean, tropicalheath forest and lowland tropical rain forest habitats had verytough leaves, with toughness generally 600-1300 J m^-2, whichis two to four times higher than soft-leaved tropical pioneertrees. The toughest leaf (2032 J m^-2), Parishia insignis, camefrom the canopy of the lowland rain forest. Leaves from theshaded understorey of the rain forest did not appear any lesstough than those from the canopy.Copyright 1993, 1999 AcademicPress Leaf fracture toughness, sclerophylly, Mediterranean vegetation, tropical forest     

How do thermophilic proteins resist aggregation?

Aggregation is an ancient threat that must be overcome by proteins from all organisms to maintain their native functional states. This is essential for the maintenance of metabolic flux and viability of their cellular machineries. Here, we compare the aggregation-resistance strategies adapted by the thermophilic proteins and their mesophilic homologs using a dataset of 373 protein families. Like their mesophilic homologs, the thermophilic protein sequences also contain potential aggregation prone regions (APRs), capable of forming cross-β motif and amyloid-like fibrils. Tetrapeptide and hexapeptide amyloid-like fibril forming sequence patterns and experimentally proven amyloid-like fibril forming peptide sequences were also detected in the thermophilic proteins. Both the thermophilic and the mesophilic proteins use similar strategies to resist aggregation. However, the thermophilic proteins show superior utilization of these strategies. The thermophilic protein monomers show greater ability to "stow away" the APRs in the hydrophobic cores to protect them from solvent exposure. The thermophilic proteins are also better at gatekeeping the APRs by surrounding them with charged residues (Asp, Glu, Lys, and Arg) and Pro to a greater extent. While thermophilic and mesophilic proteins in our dataset are highly homologous and show strong overall sequence conservation, the APRs are not conserved between the homologs. These findings indicate that evolution is working to avoid amyloidogenic regions in proteins. Our results are also consistent with the observation that thermophilic cells often accumulate small molecule osmolytes capable of stabilizing their proteins and other macromolecules. This study has important implications for rational design and formulation of therapeutic proteins and antibodies.     

How do proteins gain new domains?

A study of the contributions of different mechanisms of domain gain in animal proteins suggests that gene fusion is likely to be most frequent.     

How repetitive are genomes?

Background  

Genome sequences vary strongly in their repetitiveness and the causes for this are still debated. Here we propose a novel measure of genome repetitiveness, the index of repetitiveness, I _r, which can be computed in time proportional to the length of the sequences analyzed. We apply it to 336 genomes from all three domains of life.     

How reticulated are species?

Many groups of closely related species have reticulate phylogenies. Recent genomic analyses are showing this in many insects and vertebrates, as well as in microbes and plants. In microbes, lateral gene transfer is the dominant process that spoils strictly tree‐like phylogenies, but in multicellular eukaryotes hybridization and introgression among related species is probably more important. Because many species, including the ancestors of ancient major lineages, seem to evolve rapidly in adaptive radiations, some sexual compatibility may exist among them. Introgression and reticulation can thereby affect all parts of the tree of life, not just the recent species at the tips. Our understanding of adaptive evolution, speciation, phylogenetics, and comparative biology must adapt to these mostly recent findings. Introgression has important practical implications as well, not least for the management of genetically modified organisms in pest and disease control.