Spectrum of Protein Location in Proteomes Captures Evolutionary Relationship Between Species
-
Published:2021-07-30
Issue:8
Volume:89
Page:544-553
-
ISSN:0022-2844
-
Container-title:Journal of Molecular Evolution
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:J Mol Evol
Author:
Marot-Lassauzaie ValérieORCID, Goldberg Tatyana, Armenteros Jose Juan Almagro, Nielsen Henrik, Rost Burkhard
Abstract
AbstractThe native subcellular location (also referred to as localization or cellular compartment) of a protein is the one in which it acts most frequently; it is one aspect of protein function. Do ten eukaryotic model organisms differ in their location spectrum, i.e., the fraction of its proteome in each of seven major cellular compartments? As experimental annotations of locations remain biased and incomplete, we need prediction methods to answer this question. After systematic bias corrections, the complete but faulty prediction methods appeared to be more appropriate to compare location spectra between species than the incomplete more accurate experimental data. This work compared the location spectra for ten eukaryotes: Homo sapiens (human), Gorilla gorilla (gorilla), Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee), Mus musculus (mouse), Rattus norvegicus (rat), Drosophila melanogaster (fruit/vinegar fly), Anopheles gambiae (African malaria mosquito), Caenorhabitis elegans (nematode), Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker’s yeast), and Schizosaccharomyces pombe (fission yeast). The two largest classes were predicted to be the nucleus and the cytoplasm together accounting for 47–62% of all proteins, while 7–21% of the proteins were predicted in the plasma membrane and 4–15% to be secreted. Overall, the predicted location spectra were largely similar. However, in detail, the differences sufficed to plot trees (UPGMA) and 2D (PCA) maps relating the ten organisms using a simple Euclidean distance in seven states (location classes). The relations based on the simple predicted location spectra captured aspects of cross-species comparisons usually revealed only by much more detailed evolutionary comparisons. Most interestingly, known phylogenetic relations were reproduced better by paralog-only than by ortholog-only trees.
Funder
Technische Universität München
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Genetics,Molecular Biology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference31 articles.
1. Alberts BJA, Lewis J et al (2002) Molecular biology of the cell, 4th edn. Garland Science, New York 2. Almagro Armenteros JJ, Sønderby CK, Sønderby SK, Nielsen H, Winther O (2017) DeepLoc: prediction of protein subcellular localization using deep learning. Bioinformatics 33:3387 3. Altenhoff AM, Boeckmann B, Capella-Gutierrez S, Dalquen DA, DeLuca T, Forslund K, Huerta-Cepas J, Linard B, Pereira C, Pryszcz LP, Schreiber F, da Silva AS, Szklarczyk D, Train CM, Bork P, Lecompte O, von Mering C, Xenarios I, Sjolander K, Jensen LJ, Martin MJ, Muffato M, Gabaldon T, Lewis SE, Thomas PD, Sonnhammer E, Dessimoz C (2016) Standardized benchmarking in the quest for orthologs. Nat Methods 13:425 4. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, Harris MA, Hill DP, Issel-Tarver L, Kasarskis A, Lewis S, Matese JC, Richardson JE, Ringwald M, Rubin GM, Sherlock G (2000) Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Gene Ontol Consort Nat Genet 25:25 5. Bernhofer M, Kloppmann E, Reeb J, Rost B (2016) TMSEG: novel prediction of transmembrane helices. Proteins 84:1706
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|