Advertisement

Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 349–360 | Cite as

Evaluation of compositional nonrandomness in proteins

  • R. Holmquist
Article

Summary

Cornish-Bowden and Marson have recently suggested that the finite sampling component of Q, a measure of nonrandomness in the amino acid composition of proteins, may have been underestimated because it was calculated on the basis of the genetic code table frequencies rather than on the basis of the average natural abundance with which the twenty amino acids actually occur in proteins. This underestimate would lead to an overestimate of Qc a measure of selective effects above and beyond those imposed by the average natural abundance of the amino acids. In this paper the finite sampling component of Q is quantitatively estimated on the basis of these natural abundances and found to reduce Qc from its previous average value of 24.3 to the lower value of 9.7, with the standard deviation of the population of Qc values being 12.5. Individual Qc values are given for 81 protein families of mean composition per 61 codons of Ala5.3 Arg2.4 Asn3.0 Asp3.6 Cys1.5 Gln2.6 Glu3.5 Gly4.7 His1.3 Ile3.4 Leu4.5 Lys4.2 Met1.0 Phe2.3 Pro2.3 Ser4.2 Thr3.6 Trp0.8 Tyr2.6 Val4.2. The mean Qc value of 9.7 is notably small, and indicates that quantitatively minimal adjustments away from the average protein composition are necessary to maintain many different biological functions. This small value, however, is shown to differ significantly from the value of zero expected were the natural abundances of the amino acids the only selective constraint. These small deviations from the natural abundances are thus effectively selected for in the Darwinian sense.

Key words

Amino acid composition of proteins Compositional selection for biological function 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Behrens, P., Spiekerman, A., Brown, J. (1975). Fed. Proc.34, 591. Abstract 2106Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J. (1975). Fed. Proc.34, 591. Abstract 2105Google Scholar
  3. Cornish-Bowden. A., Marson, A. (1977). J. Mol. Evol.10, 231–240Google Scholar
  4. Fitch, W., Markowitz, E. (1970). Biochemical Genetics,4, 579–593Google Scholar
  5. Gatlin, L. (1974). J. Mol. Evol.3, 189–208Google Scholar
  6. Goodman, M., Moore, G., Matsuda, G. (1975). Nature253, 603Google Scholar
  7. Holmquist, R. (1975). J. Mol. Evol.4, 277–306Google Scholar
  8. Holmquist, R., Moise, H. (1975). J. Mol. Evol.6, 1–14Google Scholar
  9. Holmquist, R. (1976). Random and Nonrandom Processes in the Molecular Evolution of Higher Organisms. In: Molecular Anthropology, M. Goodman, R. Tashian, J. Tashian eds., pp. 89–116. New York: PlenumGoogle Scholar
  10. Holmquist, R., Jukes, T., Moise, H., Goodman, M., Moore, G. (1976). J. Mol. Biol.105, 39–74Google Scholar
  11. Jukes, T., Homquist, R., Moise, H. (1975). Science189, 50–51Google Scholar
  12. Laird, M., Holmquist, R. (1975). J. Mol. Evol.4, 261–276Google Scholar
  13. Lehninger, A.L. (1970). Biochemistry, p. 94, New York: WorthGoogle Scholar
  14. Mood, A.M. (1950a). Introduction to The Theory of Statistics, p. 136, New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  15. Mood, A.M. (1950b). Introduction to The Theory of Statistics, p.385, New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  16. Moore, G., Goodman, M., Callahan, C., Holmquist, R., Moise, H. (1976). J. Mol. Biol.105, 15–37Google Scholar
  17. Nakashima, Y., Dunker, A., Marvin, D., and Konigsberg, W. (1974). FEBS letters40, 290–292Google Scholar
  18. Vogel. H. (1975). J. Mol. Evol.6, 271–283Google Scholar
  19. Vogel, H., Zuckerkandl, E. (1972). The Evolution of Polarity Relations in Globins. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Berkely Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Volume 5: Darwinian, Neo-Darwinian, and Non-Darwinian Evolution, L.M. LeCam, J. Neyman, E. Scott eds., pp. 155–176. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Holmquist
    • 1
  1. 1.Space Sciences LaboratoryUniversity of California at BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations