Biomedical subjects

Diana Ekman

Publications and source records attributed to Diana Ekman.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2007

Evolution after gene duplication: models, mechanisms, sequences, systems, and organisms.

Gene duplication is postulated to have played a major role in the evolution of biological novelty. Here, gene duplication is examined across levels of biological organization in an attempt to create a unified picture of the mechanistic process by which gene duplication can have played a role in generating biodiversity. Neofunctionalization and subfunctionalization have been proposed as important processes driving the retention of duplicate genes. These models have foundations in population genetic theory, which is now being refined by explicit consideration of the structural constraints placed upon genes encoding proteins through physical chemistry. Further, such models can be examined in the context of comparative genomics, where an integration of gene-level evolution and species-level evolution allows an assessment of the frequency of duplication and the fate of duplicate genes. This process, of course, is dependent upon the biochemical role that duplicated genes play in biological systems, which is in turn dependent upon the mechanism of duplication: whole genome duplication involving a co-duplication of interacting partners vs. single gene duplication. Lastly, the role that these processes may have played in driving speciation is examined.

Animals↗

PubMed2006

Expansion of protein domain repeats.

Many proteins, especially in eukaryotes, contain tandem repeats of several domains from the same family. These repeats have a variety of binding properties and are involved in protein-protein interactions as well as binding to other ligands such as DNA and RNA. The rapid expansion of protein domain repeats is assumed to have evolved through internal tandem duplications. However, the exact mechanisms behind these tandem duplications are not well-understood. Here, we have studied the evolution, function, protein structure, gene structure, and phylogenetic distribution of domain repeats. For this purpose we have assigned Pfam-A domain families to 24 proteomes with more sensitive domain assignments in the repeat regions. These assignments confirmed previous findings that eukaryotes, and in particular vertebrates, contain a much higher fraction of proteins with repeats compared with prokaryotes. The internal sequence similarity in each protein revealed that the domain repeats are often expanded through duplications of several domains at a time, while the duplication of one domain is less common. Many of the repeats appear to have been duplicated in the middle of the repeat region. This is in strong contrast to the evolution of other proteins that mainly works through additions of single domains at either terminus. Further, we found that some domain families show distinct duplication patterns, e.g., nebulin domains have mainly been expanded with a unit of seven domains at a time, while duplications of other domain families involve varying numbers of domains. Finally, no common mechanism for the expansion of all repeats could be detected. We found that the duplication patterns show no dependence on the size of the domains. Further, repeat expansion in some families can possibly be explained by shuffling of exons. However, exon shuffling could not have created all repeats.

Animals↗

PubMed2006

What properties characterize the hub proteins of the protein-protein interaction network of Saccharomyces cerevisiae?

BACKGROUND: Most proteins interact with only a few other proteins while a small number of proteins (hubs) have many interaction partners. Hub proteins and non-hub proteins differ in several respects; however, understanding is not complete about what properties characterize the hubs and set them apart from proteins of low connectivity. Therefore, we have investigated what differentiates hubs from non-hubs and static hubs (party hubs) from dynamic hubs (date hubs) in the protein-protein interaction network of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. RESULTS: The many interactions of hub proteins can only partly be explained by bindings to similar proteins or domains. It is evident that domain repeats, which are associated with binding, are enriched in hubs. Moreover, there is an over representation of multi-domain proteins and long proteins among the hubs. In addition, there are clear differences between party hubs and date hubs. Fewer of the party hubs contain long disordered regions compared to date hubs, indicating that these regions are important for flexible binding but less so for static interactions. Furthermore, party hubs interact to a large extent with each other, supporting the idea of party hubs as the cores of highly clustered functional modules. In addition, hub proteins, and in particular party hubs, are more often ancient. Finally, the more recent paralogs of party hubs are underrepresented. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that multiple and repeated domains are enriched in hub proteins and, further, that long disordered regions, which are common in date hubs, are particularly important for flexible binding.

Binding Sites↗

PubMed2005

Domain rearrangements in protein evolution.

Most eukaryotic proteins are multi-domain proteins that are created from fusions of genes, deletions and internal repetitions. An investigation of such evolutionary events requires a method to find the domain architecture from which each protein originates. Therefore, we defined a novel measure, domain distance, which is calculated as the number of domains that differ between two domain architectures. Using this measure the evolutionary events that distinguish a protein from its closest ancestor have been studied and it was found that indels are more common than internal repetition and that the exchange of a domain is rare. Indels and repetitions are common at both the N and C-terminals while they are rare between domains. The evolution of the majority of multi-domain proteins can be explained by the stepwise insertions of single domains, with the exception of repeats that sometimes are duplicated several domains in tandem. We show that domain distances agree with sequence similarity and semantic similarity based on gene ontology annotations. In addition, we demonstrate the use of the domain distance measure to build evolutionary trees. Finally, the evolution of multi-domain proteins is exemplified by a closer study of the evolution of two protein families, non-receptor tyrosine kinases and RhoGEFs.

Databases, Protein↗

PubMed2005

Multi-domain proteins in the three kingdoms of life: orphan domains and other unassigned regions.

Comparative studies of the proteomes from different organisms have provided valuable information about protein domain distribution in the kingdoms of life. Earlier studies have been limited by the fact that only about 50% of the proteomes could be matched to a domain. Here, we have extended these studies by including less well-defined domain definitions, Pfam-B and clustered domains, MAS, in addition to Pfam-A and SCOP domains. It was found that a significant fraction of these domain families are homologous to Pfam-A or SCOP domains. Further, we show that all regions that do not match a Pfam-A or SCOP domain contain a significantly higher fraction of disordered structure. These unstructured regions may be contained within orphan domains or function as linkers between structured domains. Using several different definitions we have re-estimated the number of multi-domain proteins in different organisms and found that several methods all predict that eukaryotes have approximately 65% multi-domain proteins, while the prokaryotes consist of approximately 40% multi-domain proteins. However, these numbers are strongly dependent on the exact choice of cut-off for domains in unassigned regions. In conclusion, all eukaryotes have similar fractions of multi-domain proteins and disorder, whereas a high fraction of repeating domain is distinguished only in multicellular eukaryotes. This implies a role for repeats in cell-cell contacts while the other two features are important for intracellular functions.

Amino Acid Sequence↗