Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 63, Issue 4, pp 513–525 | Cite as

Protein Superfamily Evolution and the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA)

  • Juan A. G. Ranea
  • Antonio Sillero
  • Janet M. Thornton
  • Christine A. Orengo
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Last Universal Common Ancestor Ancestral protein families Genome comparison Protein evolution Evolutionary temperature Protein structural domains Ancestral protein functions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Beatriz Simas Magalhaes for her useful advice and comments, Stathis Sideris for help with the figures, and Corin Yeats for text review. This work was supported by grants from the MRC (Christine A. Orengo) and European Union (Juan A. G. Ranea). A.S. was a visiting professor at UCL (from UAM) aided by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science and supported by grants from Direccion General de Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnica (08/0021.1/2001) and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, RMN (C03/08) Madrid, Spain.

Supplementary material

supp.pdf (146 kb)
Supplementary material

References

  1. Bateman A, Birney E, Cerruti L, Durbin R, Etwiller L, Eddy SR, Griffiths-Jones S, Howe KL, Marshall M, Sonnhammer EL (2002) The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res 30:276–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buchan DW, Rison SC, Bray JE, Lee D, Pearl F, Thornton JM, Orengo CA (2003) Gene3D: structural assignments for the biologist and bioinformaticist alike. Nucleic Acids Res 31:469–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castresana J (2001) Comparative genomics and bioenergetics. Biochim Biophys Acta 1506:147–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dobrindt U, Hacker J (2001) Whole genome plasticity in pathogenic bacteria. Curr Opin Microbiol 4:550–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Doolittle WF (2000) The nature of the universal ancestor and the evolution of the proteome. Curr Opin Struct Biol 10:355–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dufresne A, Garczarek L, Partensky F (2005) Accelerated evolution associated with genome reduction in a free-living prokaryote. Genome Biol 6:R14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giovannoni SJ, Tripp HJ, Givan S, Podar M, Vergin KL, Baptista D, Bibbs L, Eads J, Richardson TH, Noordewier M, Rappe MS, Short JM, Carrington JC, Mathur EJ (2005) Genome streamlining in a cosmopolitan oceanic bacterium. Science 309:1242–1245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Koonin EV (2003) Comparative genomics minimal gene-sets and the last universal commonancestor. Nat Rev Microbiol 1:127–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee D, Grant A, Buchan D, Orengo CA (2003) Structural perspective on genome evolution. Curr Opin Struct Biol 13:359–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leipe DD, Aravind L, Koonin EV (1999) Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Res 27:3389–3401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McGuffin LJ, Street SA, Bryson K, Sorensen SA, Jones DT (2004) The Genomic Threading Database: a comprehensive resource for structural annotations of the genomes from key organisms. Nucleic Acids Res 32:D196–D199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Metzler DE, ed (2002) Biochemistry. The chemical reactions of living cells, 2nd ed. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Mira A, Ochman H, Moran NA (2001) Deletional bias and the evolution of bacterial genomes. Trends Genet 17:589–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mirkin BG, Fenner TI, Galperin MY, Koonin EV (2003) Algorithms for computing parsimonious evolutionary scenarios for genome evolution the last universal common ancestor and dominance of horizontal gene transfer in the evolution of prokaryotes. BMC Evol Biol 3:2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moran NA (2002) Microbial minimalism: genome reduction in bacterial pathogens. Cell 108:583–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morett E, Korbel JO, Rajan E, Saab-Rincon G, Olvera L, Olvera M, Schmidt S, Snel B, Bork P (2003) Systematic discovery of analogous enzymes in thiamine biosynthesis. Nat Biotechnol 21:790–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nelson DL, Cox MM, eds (2000) Lehninger principles of biochemistry, 3rd ed. Worth, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Nimwegen E (2003) Scaling laws in the functional content of genomes. Trends Genet 19:479–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ochman H, Lawrence JG, Groisman EA (2000) Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial innovation. Nature 405:299–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Orengo CA (1999) CORA—topological fingerprints for protein structural families. Protein Sci 8:699–715PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Orengo CA, Michie AD, Jones S, Jones DT, Swindells MB, Thornton JM (1997) CATH—a hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure 5:1093–1108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ranea JA, Buchan DW, Thornton JM, Orengo CA (2004) Evolution of protein superfamilies and bacterial genome size. J Mol Biol 336:871–887PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ranea JA, Grant A, Thornton JM, Orengo CA (2005) Microeconomic principles explain an optimal genome size in bacteria. Trends Genet 21:21–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ranea JA (2005) Micro(be)-economics. Heredity 96:337–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shigenobu S, Watanabe H, Hattori M, Sakaki Y, Ishikawa H (2000) Genome sequence of the endocellular bacterial symbiont of aphids Buchnera sp APS. Nature 407:81–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Siegel S, Castellan N (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences, 2nd ed. Anker JD (ed). McGraw-Hill International Editions, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  27. Sillero A, Selivanov VA, Cascante M (2006) Pentose phosphate and Calvin cycles: similarities and three-dimensional views. Biochem Mol Biol Edu 34:275–277Google Scholar
  28. Sillitoe I, Dibley M, Bray J, Addou S, Orengo C (2005) Assessing strategies for improved superfamily recognition. Protein Sci 14:1800–1810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tatusov RL, Koonin EV, Lipman DJ (1997) A genomic perspective on protein families. Science 278:631–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tatusov RL, Natale DA, Garkavtsev IV, Tatusova TA, Shankavaram UT, Rao BS, Kiryutin B, Galperin MY, Fedorova ND, Koonin EV (2001) The COG database: new developments in phylogenetic classification of proteins from complete genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 29:22–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Taylor WR, Orengo CA (1989) Protein structure alignment. J Mol Biol 208:1–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Todd AE, Orengo CA, Thornton JM (2001) Evolution of function in protein superfamilies from a structural perspective. J Mol Biol 307:1113–1143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Valdar WS (2002) Scoring residue conservation. Proteins 48:227–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Voet D, Voet J, eds (2004) Biochemistry, 3rd ed. Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Wayne WD (1995) Biostatistics, 6th ed. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Whitfield J (2004) Origins of life: born in a watery commune. Nature 427:674–676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Woese C (1998) The universal ancestor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:6854–6859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Woese CR (2002) On the evolution of cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:8742–8747PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan A. G. Ranea
    • 1
  • Antonio Sillero
    • 2
  • Janet M. Thornton
    • 3
  • Christine A. Orengo
    • 1
  1. 1.Biomolecular Structure and Modelling Group, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Departamento de BioquimicaInstituto de Investigaciones Biomedicas Alberto Sols UAM/CSIC, Facultad de MedicinaMadridSpain
  3. 3.EMBL-EBIWellcome Trust Genome CampusHinxtoUK

Personalised recommendations