Advertisement

Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 53–80 | Cite as

On the probability of the emergence of a protein with a particular function

  • Paul Erbrich
Article

Abstract

Proteins with nearly the same structure and function (homologous proteins) are found in increasing numbers in phylogenetically different, even very distant taxa (e.g. hemoglobins in vertebrates, in some invertebrates, and even in certain plants). In discussing the origin of those proteins biologists hardly at all consider convergent evolution because the origin of proteins is held to be a random process, at least ultimately, since selection can work only what the random process delivers as having a minimum adaptive value. The repetition of a random process with the same result is considered to be extremely unlikely. The supposed (un)likelihood, however, is almost never determined quantitatively. This paper attempts such a quantitative determination. It appears that the probability for the random origin of a definite protein is greater than what one would expect in view of the enormous number of equally possible nucleotide sequences in the corresponding gene since what is equally possible is not always equally likely. The probability, however, of the convergent evolution of two proteins with approximately the same structure and function is too low to be plausible, even when all possible circumstances are present which seem to heighten the likelihood of such a convergence. If this is so, then the plausibility of a random evolution of two or more different but functionally related proteins seems hardly greater.

Keywords

Nucleotide Nucleotide Sequence Random Process Quantitative Determination Related Protein 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Appleby C.A., Tjepkema, J.D. and Trinick, M.J. (1983). Hemoglobin in a nonleguminous plant, Parasponia: possible genetic origin and function in nitrogen fixation.-Science 220: 951–953.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dickerson, R.E. and Geis, I. (1969). The structure and action of proteins.-San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dickerson, R.E. (1972). The structure and history of an ancient protein.-Sc Am 226, no 4: 58–72.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doolittle, R.F. (1981). Similar amino acid sequences: chance or common ancestry?-Science 214: 149–159.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eigen, M. and Winkler, R. (1975). Das Spiel. Naturgesetze steuern den Zufall.-München: Piper.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eigen, M. and Winkler, R. (1981). Laws of the game. How the principles of nature govern chance.-New York: Klockman.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ellfolk, N. (1972). Leghaemoglobin, a plant haemoglobin.Endeavour 31: 139–142.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jacob, F. (1977). Evolution and tinkering.-Science 196: 1161–1166.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim, Y.H. et al. (1975). Tetrodotoxin: occurrence in Atelopid frogs of Costa Rica.-Science 189: 151–152.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krieger, D.T. (1983). Brain peptides: what, where, and why? Science 222: 975–985.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewin, R. (1981). Evolutionary history written in globin genes. Science 214: 426–429.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewin, R. (1982). Can genes jump between eukaryotic species? Science 217: 42–43.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lewin, R. (1983). Myoglobin gene is a big surprise.-Science 219: 1312.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nagl, W., et al. (1983). Genome and chromatin organistion in higher plants.-Biol Zbl 102, 129–148.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neurath, H. (1984). Evolution of proteolytic enzymes.-Science 224: 350–357.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Øostergaard Jensen, E. et al. (1981). The structure of a chromosomal leghaemoglobin gene from soybean.-Nature 291, 677–679.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pabo, C.O. and Lewis, M. (1982). The operator-binding domain of repressor: structure and DNA recognition.-Nature 298: 443–447.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salesbury, F.B. (1969). Natural selection and the complexity of the gene.-Nature 224: 242–243.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sauer, R.T. et al. (1982). Homology among DNA-binding proteins suggests use of conserved super-secondary structure.-Nature 298: 447–451.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwyzer, R. (1982). Peptides and the new endocrinology.-Naturwissenschaften 69: 15–20.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shenmack, D.D. et al. (1978). Maculotoxin: a neurotoxin from the venom glands of the octopus Hapalochlaena maculosa identified as tetrodotoxin. Science 199: 188–189.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith, J.M. (1970). Natural selection and the concept of a protein space.-Nature 225: 563–564.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stent, G.S., and Calendar, R. (1978). Molecular genetics.-San Francisco: Freeman (2. ed).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Takeda, Y. et al. (1983). DNA-binding proteins.-Science 221: 1020–1026.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Takio, K. et al. (1983). Homology of amino acid sequences of rat liver. cathepsins B and H with that of papain.-Proc Natl Acid SCI USA 80: 3666–3670.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Erbrich
    • 1
  1. 1.Hochschule für Philosophie München Philosophische Fakultät S.J.München 22Germany

Personalised recommendations