Key Points
-
The process of protein evolution is balanced between Darwinian selection for functionally advantageous mutations and neutral evolution, in which acceptance of amino acid substitution is constrained by the requirement for proper protein structure and function.
-
Comparative analyses of homologous proteins allow conserved features in both sequence and structure to be identified, along with constraints that give rise to distinct patterns of protein evolution.
-
The local structural environment of amino acids in the three-dimensional structures of proteins influences the probability of substitution during protein evolution. Solvent accessibility is the most important determinant, followed by the existence of hydrogen bonds from side-chain to main-chain groups and the nature of the element of secondary structure to which the amino acid contributes.
-
Solvent-inaccessible polar side chains provide strong structural and functional constraints in the evolution of protein families and can give rise to characteristic architectural motifs that are born from the need to satisfy hydrogen bonding.
-
Functional constraints operate through the requirement to maintain the interaction of proteins with other macromolecules in assemblies or with substrates, ligands or allosteric regulators.
-
Functional residues are under greater pressure to be conserved throughout the evolution process, in which they remain crucially important to the activity of proteins and thus to the selective advantage of the organism.
-
Structural and functional constraints in the evolution of protein families can be illustrated by the roles and properties of individual amino acids in the three-dimensional structure of proteins. Although it is an essential prerequisite to understanding protein evolution, further insights will depend on integrated and multidisciplinary systems approaches.
Abstract
High-throughput genomic sequencing has focused attention on understanding differences between species and between individuals. When this genetic variation affects protein sequences, the rate of amino acid substitution reflects both Darwinian selection for functionally advantageous mutations and selectively neutral evolution operating within the constraints of structure and function. During neutral evolution, whereby mutations accumulate by random drift, amino acid substitutions are constrained by factors such as the formation of intramolecular and intermolecular interactions and the accessibility to water or lipids surrounding the protein. These constraints arise from the need to conserve a specific architecture and to retain interactions that mediate functions in protein families and superfamilies.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$189.00 per year
only $15.75 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bajaj, M. & Blundell, T. Evolution and the tertiary structure of proteins. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Bioeng. 13, 453–492 (1984).
Chothia, C. & Lesk, A. M. The relation between the divergence of sequence and structure in proteins. EMBO J. 5, 823–826 (1986). This paper quantifies the relationship between sequence variance and structural tolerance.
Kimura, M. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217, 624–626 (1968). The first paper to introduce the neutral theory of evolution.
Ohta, T. Slightly deleterious mutant substitutions in evolution. Nature 246, 96–98 (1973). Introduces the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution, a modification of that detailed in reference 3.
Zuckerkandl, E. Evolutionary processes and evolutionary noise at the molecular level. I. Functional density in proteins. J. Mol. Evol. 7, 167–183 (1976).
Zuckerkandl, E. Evolutionary processes and evolutionary noise at the molecular level. II. A selectionist model for random fixations in proteins. J. Mol. Evol. 7, 269–311 (1976).
Fraser, H. B., Hirsh, A. E., Steinmetz, L. M., Scharfe, C. & Feldman, M. W. Evolutionary rate in the protein interaction network. Science 296, 750–752 (2002).
Bloom, J. D. & Adami, C. Apparent dependence of protein evolutionary rate on number of interactions is linked to biases in protein-protein interactions data sets. BMC Evol. Biol. 3, 21 (2003).
Jordan, I. K., Wolf, Y. I. & Koonin, E. V. No simple dependence between protein evolution rate and the number of protein–protein interactions: only the most prolific interactors tend to evolve slowly. BMC Evol. Biol. 3, 1 (2003).
Orengo, C. A. & Thornton, J. M. Protein families and their evolution — a structural perspective. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 74, 867–900 (2005).
Bullock, A. N. et al. Thermodynamic stability of wild-type and mutant p53 core domain. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 14338–14342 (1997). An elegant study that applied techniques initially devised to study the biophysics of protein folding to mutations in the protein p53, demonstrating that most of these changes are destabilizing.
Canadillas, J. M. et al. Solution structure of p53 core domain: structural basis for its instability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 2109–2114 (2006).
Friedler, A., Veprintsev, D. B., Hansson, L. O. & Fersht, A. R. Kinetic instability of p53 core domain mutants: implications for rescue by small molecules. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 24108–24112 (2003).
Joerger, A. C., Allen, M. D. & Fersht, A. R. Crystal structure of a superstable mutant of human p53 core domain. Insights into the mechanism of rescuing oncogenic mutations. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 1291–1296 (2004).
Nikolova, P. V., Henckel, J., Lane, D. P. & Fersht, A. R. Semirational design of active tumor suppressor p53 DNA binding domain with enhanced stability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 14675–14680 (1998).
Wang, X., Minasov, G. & Shoichet, B. K. Evolution of an antibiotic resistance enzyme constrained by stability and activity trade-offs. J. Mol. Biol. 320, 85–95 (2002).
Aharoni, A. The 'evolvability' of promiscuous protein functions. Nature Genet. 37, 73–76 (2005). An original study on the evolution of new protein functions that shows that the process is driven by mutations having little effect on native function but large effects on promiscuous function.
Aharoni, A. et al. Directed evolution of mammalian paraoxonases PON1 and PON3 for bacterial expression and catalytic specialization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 482 (2004).
Andreeva, A. & Murzin, A. G. Evolution of protein fold in the presence of functional constraints. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 16, 399–408 (2006). A review of the mechanisms by which a protein fold can evolve whilst maintaining the functional-site structure.
Caetano-Anollés, G., Wang, M., Caetano- Anollés, D. & Mittenthal, J. E. The origin, evolution and structure of the protein world. Biochem. J. 417, 621–637 (2009).
Copley, R. R., Letunic, I. & Bork, P. Genome and protein evolution in eukaryotes. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 6, 39–45 (2002).
Kinch, L. N. & Grishin, N. V. Evolution of protein structures and functions. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 12, 400–408 (2002).
Pal, C., Papp, B. & Lercher, M. J. An integrated view of protein evolution. Nature Rev. Genet. 7, 337–348 (2006). A comprehensive review of various approaches to study protein evolution.
Koonin, E. V. Orthologs, paralogs, and evolutionary genomics. Annu. Rev. Genet. 39, 309–338 (2005).
Hubbard, T. J. & Blundell, T. L. Comparison of solvent-inaccessible cores of homologous proteins: definitions useful for protein modelling. Protein Eng. 1, 159–171 (1987).
Garnier, J., Osguthorpe, D. J. & Robson, B. Analysis of the accuracy and implications of simple methods for predicting the secondary structure of globular proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 120, 97–120 (1978).
Gibrat, J. F., Garnier, J. & Robson, B. Further developments of protein secondary structure prediction using information theory. New parameters and consideration of residue pairs. J. Mol. Biol. 198, 425–443 (1987).
Levin, J. M., Robson, B. & Garnier, J. An algorithm for secondary structure determination in proteins based on sequence similarity. FEBS Lett. 205, 303 (1986).
Pauling, L. & Corey, R. B. Configurations of polypeptide chains with favored orientations around single bonds: two new pleated sheets. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 37, 729–740 (1951).
Pauling, L., Corey, R. B. & Branson, H. R. The structure of proteins; two hydrogen-bonded helical configurations of the polypeptide chain. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 37, 205–211 (1951). References 29 and 30 provided the first hint that regular secondary structure might form in folded proteins.
Hutchinson, E. G. & Thornton, J. M. A revised set of potentials for β-turn formation in proteins. Protein Sci. 3, 2207–2216 (1994).
Sibanda, B. L., Blundell, T. L. & Thornton, J. M. Conformation of β-hairpins in protein structures. A systematic classification with applications to modelling by homology, electron density fitting and protein engineering. J. Mol. Biol. 206, 759–777 (1989).
Wilmot, C. M. & Thornton, J. M. Analysis and prediction of the different types of β-turn in proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 203, 221–232 (1988).
Baker, E. N. & Hubbard, R. E. Hydrogen bonding in globular proteins. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 44, 97–179 (1984). The first comprehensive survey of hydrogen bonds in high-resolution protein structures.
Presta, L. G. & Rose, G. D. Helix signals in proteins. Science 240, 1632–1641 (1988).
Richardson, J. S. & Richardson, D. C. Amino acid preferences for specific locations at the ends of α helices. Science 240, 1648–1652 (1988).
Wan, W. Y. & Milner-White, E. J. A recurring two-hydrogen-bond motif incorporating a serine or threonine residue is found both at α-helical N termini and in other situations. J. Mol. Biol. 286, 1651–1662 (1999).
Wan, W. Y. & Milner-White, E. J. A natural grouping of motifs with an aspartate or asparagine residue forming two hydrogen bonds to residues ahead in sequence: their occurrence at α-helical N termini and in other situations. J. Mol. Biol. 286, 1633–1649 (1999).
Chan, A. W. E., Hutchinson, E. G. & Thornton, J. M. Identification, classification, and analysis of β-bulges in proteins. Protein Sci. 2, 1574–1590 (1993).
Richardson, J. S., Getzoff, E. D. & Richardson, D. C. The β bulge: a common small unit of nonrepetitive protein structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 75, 2574–2578 (1978).
Barlow, D. J. & Thornton, J. M. Helix geometry in proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 201, 601–619 (1988).
Eswar, N. & Ramakrishnan, C. Secondary structures without backbone: an analysis of backbone mimicry by polar side chains in protein structures. Protein Eng. 12, 447–455 (1999).
Cubellis, M. V., Caillez, F., Blundell, T. L. & Lovell, S. C. Properties of polyproline II, a secondary structure element implicated in protein–protein interactions. Proteins 58, 880–892 (2005).
Stapley, B. J. & Creamer, T. P. A survey of left-handed polyproline II helices. Protein Sci. 8, 587–595 (1999).
Milner-White, E., Ross, B. M., Ismail, R., Belhadj-Mostefa, K. & Poet, R. One type of γ-turn, rather than the other gives rise to chain-reversal in proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 204, 777–782 (1988).
Milner-White, E. J. β-bulges within loops as recurring features of protein structure. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 911, 261–265 (1987).
Blundell, T. L. & Wood, S. P. Is the evolution of insulin Darwinian or due to selectively neutral mutation? Nature 257, 197–203 (1975). An early paper discussing the evolution of protein structure and interactions in terms of adaptive processes and neutral mutations.
Guharoy, M. & Chakrabarti, P. Conservation and relative importance of residues across protein–protein interfaces. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 15447–15452 (2005).
Kisters-Woike, B., Vangierdegom, C. & Mueller-Hill, B. On the conservation of protein sequences in evolution. Trends Biochem. Sci. 25, 419–421 (2000).
Lichtarge, O., Bourne, H. R. & Cohen, F. E. Evolutionarily conserved Gαβγ binding surfaces support a model of the G protein-receptor complex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 7507–7511 (1996).
Chelliah, V., Chen, L., Blundell, T. L. & Lovell, S. C. Distinguishing structural and functional restraints in evolution in order to identify interaction sites. J. Mol. Biol. 342, 1487–1504 (2004).
Blundell, T. L. et al. in Methods in Proteins Sequence Analysis (eds Jornvall, H. Hoog, J.O. Gustavsson, A.M.) 373–385 (Birkhauser, Basel, 1991).
Overington, J., Johnson, M. S., Sali, A. & Blundell, T. L. Tertiary structural constraints on protein evolutionary diversity: templates, key residues and structure prediction. Proc. Biol. Sci. 241, 132–145 (1990). The first study to quantify structural restraints on amino acid substitutions between homologous proteins, identifying particular patterns of substitution.
Overington, J., Donnelly, D., Johnson, M. S., Sali, A. & Blundell, T. L. Environment-specific amino acid substitution tables: tertiary templates and prediction of protein folds. Protein Sci. 1, 216–226 (1992).
Michener, C. D. & Sokal, R. R. A quantitative approach to a problem in classification. Evolution 11, 130 (1957).
Bloom, J. D., Labthavikul, S. T., Otey, C. R. & Arnold, F. H. Protein stability promotes evolvability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 5869–5874 (2006).
Bloom, J. D. et al. Thermodynamic prediction of protein neutrality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 606–611 (2005).
Deane, C. M., Allen, F. H., Taylor, R. & Blundell, T. L. Carbonyl–carbonyl interactions stabilize the partially allowed Ramachandran conformations of asparagine and aspartic acid. Protein Eng. 12, 1025–1028 (1999).
Gong, S. & Blundell, T. L. Discarding functional residues from the substitution table improves predictions of active sites within three-dimensional structures. PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000179 (2008).
Schell, D., Tsai, J., Scholtz, J. M. & Pace, C. N. Hydrogen bonding increases packing density in the protein interior. Proteins 63, 278–282 (2006).
Pace, C. N. Polar group burial contributes more to protein stability than nonpolar group burial. Biochemistry 16, 310–313 (2001).
Fleming, P. J. & Rose, G. D. Do all backbone polar groups in proteins form hydrogen bonds? Protein Sci. 14, 1911–1917 (2005).
McDonald, I. K. & Thornton, J. M. Satisfying hydrogen bonding potential in proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 238, 777–793 (1994).
Worth, C. L. & Blundell, T. L. Satisfaction of hydrogen-bonding potential influences the conservation of polar sidechains. Proteins 75, 413–429 (2009).
Eswar, N. & Ramakrishnan, C. Deterministic features of side-chain main-chain hydrogen bonds in globular protein structures. Protein Eng. 13, 227–238 (2000).
Vijayakumar, M., Qian, H. & Zhou, H. X. Hydrogen bonds between short polar side chains and peptide backbone: prevalence in proteins and effects on helix-forming propensities. Proteins 34, 497–507 (1999).
Hamill, S. J., Cota, E., Chothia, C. & Clarke, J. Conservation of folding and stability within a protein family: the tyrosine corner as an evolutionary cul-de-sac. J. Mol. Biol. 295, 641–649 (2000).
Bordo, D. & Argos, P. The role of side-chain hydrogen bonds in the formation and stabilization of secondary structure in soluble proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 243, 504–519 (1994).
Nicholson, H., Anderson, D. E., Dao-pin, S. & Matthews, B. W. Analysis of the interaction between charged side chains and the α-helix dipole using designed thermostable mutants of phage T4 lysozyme. Biochemistry 30, 9816–9828 (1991).
Mizuguchi, K., Deane, C. M., Blundell, T. L. & Overington, J. P. HOMSTRAD: a database of protein structure alignments for homologous families. Protein Sci. 7, 2469–2471 (1998).
Harper, E. T. & Rose, G. D. Helix stop signals in proteins and peptides: the capping box. Biochemistry 32, 7605–7609 (1993).
Serrano, L., Sancho, J., Hirshberg, M. & Fersht, A. R. α-Helix stability in proteins. I. Empirical correlations concerning substitution of side-chains at the N and C-caps and the replacement of alanine by glycine or serine at solvent-exposed surfaces. J. Mol. Biol. 227, 544–559 (1992).
Burley, S. K. & Petsko, G. A. Aromatic–aromatic interaction — a mechanism of protein-structure stabilization. Science 229, 23–28 (1985).
Hunter, C. A., Singh, J. & Thornton, J. M. Pi–Pi-interactions — the geometry and energetics of phenylalanine phenylalanine interactions in proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 218, 837–846 (1991).
Burley, S. K. & Petsko, G. A. Amino-aromatic interactions in proteins. FEBS Lett. 203, 139–143 (1986).
Mitchell, J. B. O., Nandi, C. L., Mcdonald, I. K., Thornton, J. M. & Price, S. L. Amino/aromatic interactions in proteins — is the evidence stacked against hydrogen-bonding. J. Mol. Biol. 239, 315–331 (1994).
Gallivan, J. P. & Dougherty, D. A. Cation–π interactions in structural biology. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 9459–9464 (1999).
Ortlund, E. A., Bridgham, J. T., Redinbo, M. R. & Thornton, J. W. Crystal structure of an ancient protein: evolution by conformational epistasis. Science 317, 1544–1548 (2007).
Shakhnovich, E., Abkevich, V. & Ptitsyn, O. Conserved residues and the mechanism of protein folding. Nature 379, 96–98 (1996). The presentation of a novel computational method for identifying the residues that form the folding nucleus of a protein.
Itzhaki, L. S., Otzen, D. E. & Fersht, A. R. The structure of the transition state for folding of chymotrypsin inhibitor 2 analysed by protein engineering methods: evidence for a nucleation-condensation mechanism for protein folding. J. Mol. Biol. 254, 260–288 (1995). Introduced the nucleation–condensation model of protein folding from experimental work in chymotrypsin inhibitor 2.
Mirny, L. A., Abkevich, V. I. & Shakhnovich, E. I. How evolution makes proteins fold quickly. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 4976–4981 (1998).
Mirny, L. A. & Shakhnovich, E. I. Universally conserved positions in protein folds: reading evolutionary signals about stability, folding kinetics and function. J. Mol. Biol. 291, 177–196 (1999).
Plaxco, K. W. et al. Evolutionary conservation in protein folding kinetics. J. Mol. Biol. 298, 303 (2000).
Larson, S. M., Ruczinski, I., Davidson, A. R., Baker, D. & Plaxco, K. W. Residues participating in the protein folding nucleus do not exhibit preferential evolutionary conservation. J. Mol. Biol. 316, 225–233 (2002).
Tseng, Y. Y. & Liang, J. Are residues in a protein folding nucleus evolutionarily conserved? J. Mol. Biol. 335, 869–880 (2004).
Li, L., Mirny, L. A. & Shakhnovich, E. I. Kinetics, thermodynamics and evolution of non-native interactions in a protein folding nucleus. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 336–342 (2000).
Kim, W. K., Bolser, D. M. & Park, J. H. Large-scale co-evolution analysis of protein structural interlogues using the global protein structural interactome map (PSIMAP). Bioinformatics 20, 1138–1150 (2004).
Pazos, F. & Valencia, A. Protein co-evolution, co-adaptation and interactions. EMBO J. 27, 2648–2655 (2008).
Park, J. & Bolser, D. Conservation of protein interaction network in evolution. Genome Inform. 12, 135–140 (2001).
Batada, N. N., Hurst, L. D. & Tyers, M. Evolutionary and physiological importance of hub proteins. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2, e88 (2006).
Pal, C., Papp, B. & Hurst, L. D. Genomic function: rate of evolution and gene dispensability. Nature 421, 496–497 (2003).
Wall, D. P. et al. Functional genomic analysis of the rates of protein evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 5483–5488 (2005).
Choi, J. K., Kim, S. C., Seo, J., Kim, S. & Bhak, J. Impact of transcriptional properties on essentiality and evolutionary rate. Genetics 175, 199–206 (2007).
Drummond, D. A., Bloom, J. D., Adami, C., Wilke, C. O. & Arnold, F. H. Why highly expressed proteins evolve slowly. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 14338–14343 (2005). This paper suggests that the expression level of a protein is related to the demand for exact folding.
Drummond, D. A., Raval, A. & Wilke, C. O. A single determinant dominates the rate of yeast protein evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23, 327–337 (2006).
Zeldovich, K. B. & Shakhnovich, E. I. Understanding protein evolution: from protein physics to Darwinian selection. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 59, 105–127 (2008).
Akashi, H. Gene expression and molecular evolution. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 11, 660–666 (2001).
Drummond, D. A. & Wilke, C. O. Mistranslation-induced protein misfolding as a dominant constraint on coding-sequence evolution. Cell 134, 341–352 (2008).
Hamill, S. J., Steward, A. & Clarke, J. The folding of an immunoglobulin-like Greek key protein is defined by a common-core nucleus and regions constrained by topology. J. Mol. Biol. 297, 165 (2000).
Chiti, F. & Dobson, C. M. Protein misfolding, functional amyloid, and human disease. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 75, 333–366 (2006).
Hamada, D. et al. Competition between folding, native-state dimerisation and amyloid aggregation in β-lactoglobulin. J. Mol. Biol. 386, 878–890 (2009).
Goldberg, A. L. Protein degradation and protection against misfolded or damaged proteins. Nature 426, 895–899 (2003).
Wolffe, A. P. & Matzke, M. A. Epigenetics: regulation through repression. Science 286, 481–486 (1999).
Murzin, A. G., Brenner, S. E., Hubbard, T. & Chothia, C. SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. J. Mol. Biol. 247, 536–540 (1995). Details the first protein hierarchical classification scheme.
Orengo, C. A. et al. CATH–a hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure 5, 1093–1108 (1997).
Bhaduri, A., Pugalenthi, G. & Sowdhamini, R. PASS2: an automated database of protein alignments organised as structural superfamilies. BMC Bioinformatics 5, 35 (2004).
Worth, C. L. et al. A structural bioinformatics approach to the analysis of nonsynonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms (nsSNPs) and their relation to disease. J. Bioinform. Comput. Biol. 5, 1297–1318 (2007).
Holm, L., Kaariainen, S., Rosenstrom, P. & Schenkel, A. Searching protein structure databases with DaliLite v.3. Bioinformatics 24, 2780 (2008).
Shindyalov, I. N. & Bourne, P. E. Protein structure alignment by incremental combinatorial extension (CE) of the optimal path. Protein Eng. 11, 739–747 (1998).
Marchler-Bauer, A. et al. MMDB: Entrez's 3D structure database. Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 240–243 (1999).
Finn, R. D. et al. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, D281–D288 (2008).
Hunter, S. et al. InterPro: the integrative protein signature database. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D211–D215 (2009).
Hulo, N. et al. The PROSITE database. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D227–D230 (2006).
Attwood, T. K. et al. PRINTS and its automatic supplement, prePRINTS. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 400–402 (2003).
Servant, F. et al. ProDom: automated clustering of homologous domains. Brief. Bioinformatics 3, 246–251 (2002).
Schultz, J., Milpetz, F., Bork, P. & Ponting, C. P. SMART, a simple modular architecture research tool: identification of signaling domains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 5857–5864 (1998).
Haft, D. H., Selengut, J. D. & White, O. The TIGRFAMs database of protein families. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 371–373 (2003).
Buchan, D. W. et al. Gene3D: structural assignments for the biologist and bioinformaticist alike. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 469–473 (2003).
Wilson, D. et al. SUPERFAMILY — sophisticated comparative genomics, data mining, visualization and phylogeny. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, D380–D386 (2009).
Krishnamurthy, N., Brown, D., Kirshner, D. & Sjolander, K. PhyloFacts: an online structural phylogenomic encyclopedia for protein functional and structural classification. Genome Biol. 7, R83 (2006).
Marchler-Bauer, A. et al. CDD: a conserved domain database for interactive domain family analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, D237–D240 (2007).
Heger, A. et al. PairsDB atlas of protein sequence space. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, D276–D280 (2008).
Orengo, C. A., Stilltoe, I., Reeves, G. & Pearl, F. M. G. What can structural classifications reveal about protein evolution? J. Struct. Biol. 134, 145–165 (2001).
Mizuguchi, K., Deane, C. M., Blundell, T. L., Johnson, M. S. & Overington, J. P. JOY: protein sequence-structure representation and analysis. Bioinformatics 14, 617–623 (1998).
Dayhoff, M. O. & Eck, R. V. in Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure 1967–1968 33–45 (National Biomedical Research Foundation, Silver Spring, Maryland, 1968).
Henikoff, S. & Henikoff, J. G. Amino acid substitution matrices from protein blocks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 89, 10915–10919 (1992).
Lee, S. & Blundell, T. L. Ulla: a program for calculating environment-specific amino acid substitution tables. Bioinformatics 25, 1976–1977 (2009).
Letunic, I. & Bork, P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL): an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Bioinformatics 23, 127–128 (2007).
Acknowledgements
C.L.W. was funded by a Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council studentship. S.G. was supported by the BiO foundation. T.L.B. is funded by the Wellcome Trust.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Supplementary information
Glossary
- Chaperone
-
A protein that assists in the folding or unfolding and the assembly or disassembly of other macromolecular structures.
- Neutral drift
-
The process whereby random sampling effects over successive generations give rise to stochastic changes in the allele frequencies within a population.
- β-lactamase
-
An enzyme produced by some bacteria that confers resistance to β-lactam antibiotics.
- Constraint
-
A structural and dynamic system, or functional factor, that influences the acceptance of amino acid substitutions that occur in divergent protein families. Given that selection occurs at the level of the organism and that individual proteins and the systems in which they evolve are plastic, these constraints tend not to 'force' but rather to 'restrain' the substitutions that occur in evolution.
- Orthologues
-
Genes (or gene products) descended from a common ancestral origin that diverged as a result of a speciation event.
- Hydrogen bonding potential
-
The capacity of atoms to act as proton donors or acceptors in the formation of hydrogen bonds.
- Jelly roll
-
An eight-stranded β-sandwich that is formed by four Greek key motifs, each consisting of four sequential antiparallel β-strands.
- β-propeller
-
An all-β protein architecture comprising four to eight blade-shaped β-sheets arranged toroidally around a central axis.
- α-helical bundle
-
A protein fold consisting of multiple α-helices that are approximately parallel to one another.
- αβ-Rossman fold
-
Two repeating β–α–β super-secondary motifs.
- Distance matrix
-
An n×n array that represents the distances between a set of n elements.
- Positive φ main-chain torsion angle
-
A positive dihedral angle around the nitrogen–α-carbon bonds in the protein main chain. For L-amino acids these bond angles are generally restricted to a negative value owing to steric hindrance from the side chains, but they can be positive when there is no side chain (Gly) or when polar side-chain interactions with the main-chain peptide units stabilize this conformation.
- van der Waals interaction
-
A weak electrostatic interaction that is formed by the fluctuating electron clouds of two atoms.
- Tyr corner motif
-
A motif that involves a conserved Tyr within Greek key proteins forming a hydrogen bond with the local protein backbone in an adjacent loop.
- Cation–π interaction
-
A non-covalent interaction between an aromatic side chain and a cationic side chain.
- SH3 domain
-
(Src homology 3 domain). A small domain that is found in various intracellular or membrane-associated proteins and has a β-barrel fold.
- Euclidean distance
-
A geometric distance between two point sets in the n-dimensional (or Euclidean) space.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Worth, C., Gong, S. & Blundell, T. Structural and functional constraints in the evolution of protein families. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 10, 709–720 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2762
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2762
This article is cited by
-
Stability and expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein mutations
Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry (2023)
-
Molecular and thermodynamic mechanisms for protein adaptation
European Biophysics Journal (2022)
-
Deciphering Molecular Virulence Mechanism of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Dop isopeptidase Based on Its Sequence–Structure–Function Linkage
The Protein Journal (2020)
-
Co-evolution in the Jungle: From Leafcutter Ant Colonies to Chromosomal Ends
Journal of Molecular Evolution (2020)
-
Identification of non-conserved residues essential for improving the hydrocarbon-producing activity of cyanobacterial aldehyde-deformylating oxygenase
Biotechnology for Biofuels (2019)