Selection of organisms for the co-evolution-based study of protein interactions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The prediction and study of protein interactions and functional relationships based on similarity of phylogenetic trees, exemplified by the <it>mirrortree </it>and related methodologies, is being widely used. Although dependence between the performance of these methods and the set of organisms used to build the trees was suspected, so far nobody assessed it in an exhaustive way, and, in general, previous works used as many organisms as possible. In this work we asses the effect of using different sets of organism (chosen according with various phylogenetic criteria) on the performance of this methodology in detecting protein interactions of different nature.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We show that the performance of three <it>mirrortree</it>-related methodologies depends on the set of organisms used for building the trees, and it is not always directly related to the number of organisms in a simple way. Certain subsets of organisms seem to be more suitable for the predictions of certain types of interactions. This relationship between type of interaction and optimal set of organism for detecting them makes sense in the light of the phylogenetic distribution of the organisms and the nature of the interactions.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In order to obtain an optimal performance when predicting protein interactions, it is recommended to use different sets of organisms depending on the available computational resources and data, as well as the type of interactions of interest.</p

What is Life?

In searching for life in extraterrestrial space, it is essential to act based on an unequivocal definition of life. In the twentieth century, life was defined as cells that self-replicate, metabolize, and are open for mutations, without which genetic information would remain unchangeable, and evolution would be impossible. Current definitions of life derive from statistical mechanics, physics, and chemistry of the twentieth century in which life is considered to function machine like, ignoring a central role of communication. Recent observations show that context-dependent meaningful communication and network formation (and control) are central to all life forms. Evolutionary relevant new nucleotide sequences now appear to have originated from social agents such as viruses, their parasitic relatives, and related RNA networks, not from errors. By applying the known features of natural languages and communication, a new twenty-first century definition of life can be reached in which communicative interactions are central to all processes of life. A new definition of life must integrate the current empirical knowledge about interactions between cells, viruses, and RNA networks to provide a better explanatory power than the twentieth century narrative

Conservation and co-option in developmental programmes: the importance of homology relationships

One of the surprising insights gained from research in evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) is that increasing diversity in body plans and morphology in organisms across animal phyla are not reflected in similarly dramatic changes at the level of gene composition of their genomes. For instance, simplicity at the tissue level of organization often contrasts with a high degree of genetic complexity. Also intriguing is the observation that the coding regions of several genes of invertebrates show high sequence similarity to those in humans. This lack of change (conservation) indicates that evolutionary novelties may arise more frequently through combinatorial processes, such as changes in gene regulation and the recruitment of novel genes into existing regulatory gene networks (co-option), and less often through adaptive evolutionary processes in the coding portions of a gene. As a consequence, it is of great interest to examine whether the widespread conservation of the genetic machinery implies the same developmental function in a last common ancestor, or whether homologous genes acquired new developmental roles in structures of independent phylogenetic origin. To distinguish between these two possibilities one must refer to current concepts of phylogeny reconstruction and carefully investigate homology relationships. Particularly problematic in terms of homology decisions is the use of gene expression patterns of a given structure. In the future, research on more organisms other than the typical model systems will be required since these can provide insights that are not easily obtained from comparisons among only a few distantly related model species

Codon Bias Patterns of E.coliE.coli's Interacting Proteins

Synonymous codons, i.e., DNA nucleotide triplets coding for the same amino acid, are used differently across the variety of living organisms. The biological meaning of this phenomenon, known as codon usage bias, is still controversial. In order to shed light on this point, we propose a new codon bias index, $CompAI$, that is based on the competition between cognate and near-cognate tRNAs during translation, without being tuned to the usage bias of highly expressed genes. We perform a genome-wide evaluation of codon bias for $E.coli$, comparing $CompAI$ with other widely used indices: $tAI$, $CAI$, and $Nc$. We show that $CompAI$ and $tAI$ capture similar information by being positively correlated with gene conservation, measured by ERI, and essentiality, whereas, $CAI$ and $Nc$ appear to be less sensitive to evolutionary-functional parameters. Notably, the rate of variation of $tAI$ and $CompAI$ with ERI allows to obtain sets of genes that consistently belong to specific clusters of orthologous genes (COGs). We also investigate the correlation of codon bias at the genomic level with the network features of protein-protein interactions in $E.coli$. We find that the most densely connected communities of the network share a similar level of codon bias (as measured by $CompAI$ and $tAI$). Conversely, a small difference in codon bias between two genes is, statistically, a prerequisite for the corresponding proteins to interact. Importantly, among all codon bias indices, $CompAI$ turns out to have the most coherent distribution over the communities of the interactome, pointing to the significance of competition among cognate and near-cognate tRNAs for explaining codon usage adaptation

Interplay between pleiotropy and secondary selection determines rise and fall of mutators in stress response

Dramatic rise of mutators has been found to accompany adaptation of bacteria in response to many kinds of stress. Two views on the evolutionary origin of this phenomenon emerged: the pleiotropic hypothesis positing that it is a byproduct of environmental stress or other specific stress response mechanisms and the second order selection which states that mutators hitchhike to fixation with unrelated beneficial alleles. Conventional population genetics models could not fully resolve this controversy because they are based on certain assumptions about fitness landscape. Here we address this problem using a microscopic multiscale model, which couples physically realistic molecular descriptions of proteins and their interactions with population genetics of carrier organisms without assuming any a priori fitness landscape. We found that both pleiotropy and second order selection play a crucial role at different stages of adaptation: the supply of mutators is provided through destabilization of error correction complexes or fluctuations of production levels of prototypic mismatch repair proteins (pleiotropic effects), while rise and fixation of mutators occur when there is a sufficient supply of beneficial mutations in replication-controlling genes. This general mechanism assures a robust and reliable adaptation of organisms to unforeseen challenges. This study highlights physical principles underlying physical biological mechanisms of stress response and adaptation

Protein Evolution in Yeast Transcription Factor Subnetworks

When averaged over the full yeast protein–protein interaction and transcriptional regulatory networks, protein hubs with many interaction partners or regulators tend to evolve significantly more slowly due to increased negative selection. However, genome-wide analysis of protein evolution in the subnetworks of associations involving yeast transcription factors (TFs) reveals that TF hubs do not tend to evolve significantly more slowly than TF non-hubs. This result holds for all four major types of TF hubs: interaction hubs, regulatory in-degree and out-degree hubs, as well as co-regulatory hubs that jointly regulate target genes with many TFs. Furthermore, TF regulatory in-degree hubs tend to evolve significantly more quickly than TF non-hubs. Most importantly, the correlations between evolutionary rate (KA/KS) and degrees for TFs are significantly more positive than those for generic proteins within the same global protein–protein interaction and transcriptional regulatory networks. Compared to generic protein hubs, TF hubs operate at a higher level in the hierarchical structure of cellular networks, and hence experience additional evolutionary forces (relaxed negative selection or positive selection through network rewiring). The striking difference between the evolution of TF hubs and generic protein hubs demonstrates that components within the same global network can be governed by distinct organizational and evolutionary principles.National Natural Science Foundation of China (10801131, 10631070); National Science Foundation (DGE-0654108); Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Foundation (Research Starter Grant in Informatics); K. C. Wong Education Foundatio

Two genetic codes: Repetitive syntax for active non-coding RNAs; non-repetitive syntax for the DNA archives

Current knowledge of the RNA world indicates 2 different genetic codes being present throughout the living world. In contrast to non-coding RNAs that are built of repetitive nucleotide syntax, the sequences that serve as templates for proteins share—as main characteristics—a non-repetitive syntax. Whereas non-coding RNAs build groups that serve as regulatory tools in nearly all genetic processes, the coding sections represent the evolutionarily successful function of the genetic information storage medium. This indicates that the differences in their syntax structure are coherent with the differences of the functions they represent. Interestingly, these 2 genetic codes resemble the function of all natural languages, i.e., the repetitive non-coding sequences serve as appropriate tool for organization, coordination and regulation of group behavior, and the nonrepetitive coding sequences are for conservation of instrumental constructions, plans, blueprints for complex protein-body architecture. This differentiation may help to better understand RNA group behavioral motifs