Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 38–51 | Cite as

Evolution of catalytic proteins

On the origin of enzyme species by means of natural selection
  • Henrik Kacser
  • Richard Beeby
Article

Summary

It is believed that all present-day organisms descended from a common cellular ancestor. Such a cell must have evolved from more primitive and simpler precursors, but neither their organization nor the route such evolution took are accessible to the molecular techniques available today. We propose a mechanism, based on functional properties of enzymes and the kinetics of growth, which allows us to reconstruct the general course of early enzyme evolution. A precursor cell containing very few multifunctional enzymes with low catalytic activities is shown to lead inevitably to descendants with a large number of differentiated monofunctional enzymes with high turnover numbers. Mutation and natural selection for faster growth are shown to be the only conditions necessary for such a change to have occurred.

Key words

Enzyme evolution Natural selection Multifunctional enzymes Gene duplication Enzyme specificity Metabolic evolution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cairns-Smith AG (1971) The Life Puzzle. Oliver & Boyd, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  2. Chapman DJ, Ragan MA (1980) Evolution of biochemical pathways: evidence from comparative biochemistry. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 31: 639–678Google Scholar
  3. Citri N, Pollock MR (1966) The biochemistry and function of β-lactamase (penicillinase). Adv Enzymol 28: 237–323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dayhoff MO (1976) The origin and evolution of protein superfamilies. Fed Proc 35: 3132–3138Google Scholar
  5. Dayhoff MO, Barker WC, Hunt CT, Schwartz RM (1978) Protein superfamilies. In: Dayhoff MO (ed) Atlas of protein sequence and structure, Vol 5, Suppl 3. National Biomedical Research Foundation, Washington DC, pp 9–10Google Scholar
  6. Fersht A (1977) Enzyme Structure and Mechanism. WH Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  7. Flint HJ, Tateson RW, Barthelmess IB, Porteous DJ, Donachie WD, Kacser H (1981) Control of flux in the arginine pathway ofNeurospora crassa. Modulations of enzyme activity and concentration. Biochem J 200: 231–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Flory PJ (1967) Configurational statistics of polypeptide chains. In: Ramachandran GN (ed) Conformation of biopolymers, Vol 1. Academic Press, New York, pp 339–363Google Scholar
  9. Goodman M (1981) Globin evolution was apparently very rapid in early vertebrates: a reasonable case against the rate constancy hypothesis. J Mol Evol 17: 114–120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Haynes RH, Kunz BA (1981) DNA repair and mutagenesis in yeast. In: Strathern JN, Jones EW, Broach JR (eds) The molecular biology of the yeastSaccharomyces: life cycle and inheritance. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, pp 371–414Google Scholar
  11. Jencks WP (1975) Binding energy, specificity and enzymic catalysis: the Circe effect. Adv Enzymol 43: 220–410Google Scholar
  12. Jensen RA (1976) Enzyme recruitment in the evolution of new function. Annu Rev Microbiol 30: 409–425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kacser H, Burns JA (1973) The control of flux. Symp Soc Exp Biol 27: 65–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kacser H, Burns JA (1979) Molecular democracy: Who shares the controls? Biochem Soc Trans 7: 1149–1160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kacser H, Burns JA (1981) The molecular basis of dominance. Genetics 97: 639–666PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Maynard Smith J (1961) The limitations of molecular evolution. In: Good IJ (ed) The Scientist Speculates. Heinemann, London, pp 252–256Google Scholar
  17. Ninio J (1982) Molecular Approaches to Evolution. Pitman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Privalov PC (1979) Stability of proteins: I. Small globular proteins. Adv Protein Chem 33: 167–241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ptitsyn OB, Finkelstein AV (1980) Similarities of protein topologies: evolutionary divergence, functional convergence or principles of folding? Q Rev Biophys 3: 339–386Google Scholar
  20. Remington SJ, Matthews BW (1980) A systematic approach to the comparison of protein structures. J Mol Biol 140: 77–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Richardson JS (1981) The anatomy and taxonomy of protein structure. Adv Protein Chem 34: 167–339PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rossmann MG (1981) Evolution of glycolytic enzymes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond [Biol] 293: 191–203Google Scholar
  23. Rossmann MG, Argos P (1977) The taxonomy of protein structure. J Mol Biol 109: 99–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Schulz GE (1980) The significance of similarities between protein chain folds. In: Jaenicke R (ed) Protein folding. Elsevier North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, pp 199–213Google Scholar
  25. Von Heijne G, Leimar O, Blomberg C (1978) On the emergence of new function in primitive proteins. J Theor Biol 75: 167–180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Waley SG (1969) Some aspects of the evolution of metabolic pathways. Comp Biochem Physiol 30: 1–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Witkin EM (1976) Ultraviolet mutagenesis and inducible DNA repair inE. coli. Bacteriol Rev 40: 869–907PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Woese CR (1965) On the evolution of the genetic code. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 54: 1546–1552PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Woese CR (1972) The emergence of genetic organisation. In: Ponnamperuma C (ed) Exobiology. North-Holland Publishing Co, Amsterdam and London, p 308Google Scholar
  30. Ycas M (1974) On earlier states of the biochemical system. J Theor Biol 44: 145–160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Zuckerkandl E (1975) The appearance of novel structures and functions in proteins during evolution. J Mol Evol 7: 1–53PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henrik Kacser
    • 1
  • Richard Beeby
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeneticsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations