Biomedical subjects

Juan A G Ranea

Publications and source records attributed to Juan A G Ranea.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Protein superfamily evolution and the last universal common ancestor (LUCA).

By exploiting three-dimensional structure comparison, which is more sensitive than conventional sequence-based methods for detecting remote homology, we have identified a set of 140 ancestral protein domains using very restrictive criteria to minimize the potential error introduced by horizontal gene transfer. These domains are highly likely to have been present in the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) based on their universality in almost all of 114 completed prokaryotic (Bacteria and Archaea) and eukaryotic genomes. Functional analysis of these ancestral domains reveals a genetically complex LUCA with practically all the essential functional systems present in extant organisms, supporting the theory that life achieved its modern cellular status much before the main kingdom separation (Doolittle 2000). In addition, we have calculated different estimations of the genetic and functional versatility of all the superfamilies and functional groups in the prokaryote subsample. These estimations reveal that some ancestral superfamilies have been more versatile than others during evolution allowing more genetic and functional variation. Furthermore, the differences in genetic versatility between protein families are more attributable to their functional nature rather than the time that they have been evolving. These differences in tolerance to mutation suggest that some protein families have eroded their phylogenetic signal faster than others, hiding in many cases, their ancestral origin and suggesting that the calculation of 140 ancestral domains is probably an underestimate.

Evolution, Molecular↗

PubMed2006

TSEMA: interactive prediction of protein pairings between interacting families.

An entire family of methodologies for predicting protein interactions is based on the observed fact that families of interacting proteins tend to have similar phylogenetic trees due to co-evolution. One application of this concept is the prediction of the mapping between the members of two interacting protein families (which protein within one family interacts with which protein within the other). The idea is that the real mapping would be the one maximizing the similarity between the trees. Since the exhaustive exploration of all possible mappings is not feasible for large families, current approaches use heuristic techniques which do not ensure the best solution to be found. This is why it is important to check the results proposed by heuristic techniques and to manually explore other solutions. Here we present TSEMA, the server for efficient mapping assessment. This system calculates an initial mapping between two families of proteins based on a Monte Carlo approach and allows the user to interactively modify it based on performance figures and/or specific biological knowledge. All the explored mappings are graphically shown over a representation of the phylogenetic trees. The system is freely available at http://pdg.cnb.uam.es/TSEMA. Standalone versions of the software behind the interface are available upon request from the authors.

Internet↗

PubMed2006

Exploiting protein structure data to explore the evolution of protein function and biological complexity.

New directions in biology are being driven by the complete sequencing of genomes, which has given us the protein repertoires of diverse organisms from all kingdoms of life. In tandem with this accumulation of sequence data, worldwide structural genomics initiatives, advanced by the development of improved technologies in X-ray crystallography and NMR, are expanding our knowledge of structural families and increasing our fold libraries. Methods for detecting remote sequence similarities have also been made more sensitive and this means that we can map domains from these structural families onto genome sequences to understand how these families are distributed throughout the genomes and reveal how they might influence the functional repertoires and biological complexities of the organisms. We have used robust protocols to assign sequences from completed genomes to domain structures in the CATH database, allowing up to 60% of domain sequences in these genomes, depending on the organism, to be assigned to a domain family of known structure. Analysis of the distribution of these families throughout bacterial genomes identified more than 300 universal families, some of which had expanded significantly in proportion to genome size. These highly expanded families are primarily involved in metabolism and regulation and appear to make major contributions to the functional repertoire and complexity of bacterial organisms. When comparisons are made across all kingdoms of life, we find a smaller set of universal domain families (approx. 140), of which families involved in protein biosynthesis are the largest conserved component. Analysis of the behaviour of other families reveals that some (e.g. those involved in metabolism, regulation) have remained highly innovative during evolution, making it harder to trace their evolutionary ancestry. Structural analyses of metabolic families provide some insights into the mechanisms of functional innovation, which include changes in domain partnerships and significant structural embellishments leading to modulation of active sites and protein interactions.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2005

Assessing protein co-evolution in the context of the tree of life assists in the prediction of the interactome.

The identification of the whole set of protein interactions taking place in an organism is one of the main tasks in genomics, proteomics and systems biology. One of the computational techniques used by many investigators for studying and predicting protein interactions is the comparison of evolutionary histories (phylogenetic trees), under the hypothesis that interacting proteins would be subject to a similar evolutionary pressure resulting in a similar topology of the corresponding trees. Here, we present a new approach to predict protein interactions from phylogenetic trees, which incorporates information on the overall evolutionary histories of the species (i.e. the canonical "tree of life") in order to correct by the expected background similarity due to the underlying speciation events. We test the new approach in the largest set of annotated interacting proteins for Escherichia coli. This assessment of co-evolution in the context of the tree of life leads to a highly significant improvement (P(N) by sign test approximately 10E-6) in predicting interaction partners with respect to the previous technique, which does not incorporate information on the overall speciation tree. For half of the proteins we found a real interactor among the 6.4% top scores, compared with the 16.5% by the previous method. We applied the new method to the whole E.coli proteome and propose functions for some hypothetical proteins based on their predicted interactors. The new approach allows us also to detect non-canonical evolutionary events, in particular horizontal gene transfers. We also show that taking into account these non-canonical evolutionary events when assessing the similarity between evolutionary trees improves the performance of the method predicting interactions.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2005

Microeconomic principles explain an optimal genome size in bacteria.

Bacteria can clearly enhance their survival by expanding their genetic repertoire. However, the tight packing of the bacterial genome and the fact that the most evolved species do not necessarily have the biggest genomes suggest there are other evolutionary factors limiting their genome expansion. To clarify these restrictions on size, we studied those protein families contributing most significantly to bacterial-genome complexity. We found that all bacteria apply the same basic and ancestral 'molecular technology' to optimize their reproductive efficiency. The same microeconomics principles that define the optimum size in a factory can also explain the existence of a statistical optimum in bacterial genome size. This optimum is reached when the bacterial genome obtains the maximum metabolic complexity (revenue) for minimal regulatory genes (logistic cost).

Bacteria↗

PubMed2004

Evolution of protein superfamilies and bacterial genome size.

We present the structural annotation of 56 different bacterial species based on the assignment of genes to 816 evolutionary superfamilies in the CATH domain structure database. These assignments have enabled us to analyse the recurrence of specific superfamilies within and across the genomes. We have selected the superfamilies that have a very broad representation and therefore appear to be universally distributed in a significant number of bacterial lineages. Occurrence profiles of these universally distributed superfamilies are compared with genome size in order to estimate the correlation between superfamily duplication and the increase in proteome size. This distinguishes between those size-dependent superfamilies where frequency of occurrence is highly correlated with increase in genome size, and size-independent superfamilies where no correlation is observed. Consideration of the size correlation and the ratio between the mean and the standard deviations for all the superfamily profiles allows more detailed subdivisions and classification of superfamilies. For example, within the size-independent superfamilies, we distinguished a group that are distributed evenly amongst all the genomes. Within the size-dependent superfamilies we differentiated two groups: linearly distributed and non-linearly distributed. Functional annotation using the COG database was performed for all superfamilies in each of these groups, and this revealed significant differences amongst the three sets of superfamilies. Evenly distributed, size-independent domains are shown to be involved primarily in protein translation and biosynthesis. For the size-dependent superfamilies, linearly distributed superfamilies are involved mainly in metabolism, and non-linearly distributed superfamily domains are involved principally in gene regulation.

Databases, Protein↗