Mechanisms of Protein Sequence Divergence and Incompatibility

English version České info

Alignments of orthologous protein sequences convey a complex picture. Some positions are utterly conserved whilst others have diverged to variable degrees. Amongst the latter, many are non-exchangeable between extant sequences. How do functionally critical and highly conserved residues diverge? Why and how did these exchanges become incompatible within contemporary sequences? Our model is phosphoglycerate kinase (PGK), where lysine 219 is an essential active-site residue completely conserved throughout Eukaryota and Bacteria, and serine is found only in archaeal PGKs. Contemporary sequences tested exhibited complete loss of function upon exchanges at 219. However, a directed evolution experiment revealed that two mutations were sufficient for human PGK to become functional with serine at position 219. These two mutations made position 219 permissive not only for serine and lysine, but also to a range of other amino acids seen in archaeal PGKs. The identified trajectories that enabled exchanges at 219 show marked sign epistasis - a relatively small loss of function with respect to one amino acid (lysine) versus a large gain with another (serine, and other amino acids). Our findings support the view that, as theoretically described, the trajectories underlining the divergence of critical positions are dominated by sign epistatic interactions. Such trajectories are an outcome of rare mutational combinations. Nonetheless, as suggested by the laboratory enabled K219S exchange, given enough time and variability in selection levels, even utterly conserved and functionally essential residues may change.

Vyšlo v časopise: Mechanisms of Protein Sequence Divergence and Incompatibility. PLoS Genet 9(7): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003665
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003665

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. KooninEV (2003) Comparative genomics, minimal gene-sets and the last universal common ancestor. Nat Rev Microbiol 1: 127–136.

2. MirkinBG, FennerTI, GalperinMY, KooninEV (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: 2.

3. RaneaJA, SilleroA, ThorntonJM, OrengoCA (2006) Protein superfamily evolution and the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). J Mol Evol 63: 513–525.

4. LunzerM, GoldingGB, DeanAM (2010) Pervasive cryptic epistasis in molecular evolution. PLoS Genet 6: e1001162.

5. BreenMS, KemenaC, VlasovPK, NotredameC, KondrashovFA (2012) Epistasis as the primary factor in molecular evolution. Nature 490: 535–538.

6. PovolotskayaIS, KondrashovFA (2010) Sequence space and the ongoing expansion of the protein universe. Nature 465: 922–926.

7. KvitekDJ, SherlockG (2011) Reciprocal sign epistasis between frequently experimentally evolved adaptive mutations causes a rugged fitness landscape. PLoS Genet 7: e1002056.

8. SalverdaML, DellusE, GorterFA, DebetsAJ, van der OostJ, et al. (2011) Initial mutations direct alternative pathways of protein evolution. PLoS Genet 7: e1001321.

9. KondrashovAS, SunyaevS, KondrashovFA (2002) Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities in protein evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 14878–14883.

10. WeinreichDM, DelaneyNF, DepristoMA, HartlDL (2006) Darwinian evolution can follow only very few mutational paths to fitter proteins. Science 312: 111–114.

11. WeinreichDM, WatsonRA, ChaoL (2005) Perspective: Sign epistasis and genetic constraint on evolutionary trajectories. Evolution 59: 1165–1174.

12. KondrashovFA, KondrashovAS (2001) Multidimensional epistasis and the disadvantage of sex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98: 12089–12092.

13. GloorGB, TyagiG, AbrassartDM, KingstonAJ, FernandesAD, et al. (2010) Functionally compensating coevolving positions are neither homoplasic nor conserved in clades. Mol Biol Evol 27: 1181–1191.

14. LunzerM, MillerSP, FelsheimR, DeanAM (2005) The biochemical architecture of an ancient adaptive landscape. Science 310: 499–501.

15. FraenkelDG (1986) Mutants in glucose metabolism. Annu Rev Biochem 55: 317–337.

16. KooninEV, WolfYI (2010) The common ancestry of life. Biol Direct 5: 64.

17. Toth-PetroczyA, TawfikDS (2011) Slow protein evolutionary rates are dictated by surface-core association. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: 11151–11156.

18. SzaboJ, VargaA, FlachnerB, KonarevPV, SvergunDI, et al. (2008) Communication between the nucleotide site and the main molecular hinge of 3-phosphoglycerate kinase. Biochemistry 47: 6735–6744.

19. SmithJM (1970) Natural selection and the concept of a protein space. Nature 225: 563–564.

20. PollackJD, LiQ, PearlDK (2005) Taxonomic utility of a phylogenetic analysis of phosphoglycerate kinase proteins of Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota: insights by Bayesian analyses. Mol Phylogenet Evol 35: 420–430.

21. CliffMJ, BowlerMW, VargaA, MarstonJP, SzaboJ, et al. (2010) Transition state analogue structures of human phosphoglycerate kinase establish the importance of charge balance in catalysis. J Am Chem Soc 132: 6507–6516.

22. GondeauC, ChaloinL, LallemandP, RoyB, PerigaudC, et al. (2008) Molecular basis for the lack of enantioselectivity of human 3-phosphoglycerate kinase. Nucleic Acids Res 36: 3620–3629.

23. LallemandP, ChaloinL, RoyB, BarmanT, BowlerMW, et al. (2011) Interaction of human 3-phosphoglycerate kinase with its two substrates: is substrate antagonism a kinetic advantage? J Mol Biol 409: 742–757.

24. ZerradL, MerliA, SchroderGF, VargaA, GraczerE, et al. (2011) A spring-loaded release mechanism regulates domain movement and catalysis in phosphoglycerate kinase. J Biol Chem 286: 14040–14048.

25. IraniMH, MaitraPK (1977) Properties of Escherichia coli mutants deficient in enzymes of glycolysis. J Bacteriol 132: 398–410.

26. BabaT, AraT, HasegawaM, TakaiY, OkumuraY, et al. (2006) Construction of Escherichia coli K-12 in-frame, single-gene knockout mutants: the Keio collection. Mol Syst Biol 2: 2006 0008.

27. LeeTS, KrupaRA, ZhangF, HajimoradM, HoltzWJ, et al. (2011) BglBrick vectors and datasheets: A synthetic biology platform for gene expression. J Biol Eng 5: 12.

28. Sambrook J (2001) Molecular Cloning: A laboratory manual. 3rd edition. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.

29. AliM, BrownstoneYS (1976) A study of phosphoglycerate kinase in human erythrocytes. I. Enzyme isolation, purification and assay. Biochim Biophys Acta 445: 74–88.

30. WilksJC, SlonczewskiJL (2007) pH of the cytoplasm and periplasm of Escherichia coli: rapid measurement by green fluorescent protein fluorimetry. J Bacteriol 189: 5601–5607.

31. ShawKL, GrimsleyGR, YakovlevGI, MakarovAA, PaceCN (2001) The effect of net charge on the solubility, activity, and stability of ribonuclease Sa. Protein Sci 10: 1206–1215.

32. SoskineM, TawfikDS (2010) Mutational effects and the evolution of new protein functions. Nat Rev Genet 11: 572–582.

33. SheridanPP, FreemanKH, BrenchleyJE (2003) Estimated Minimal Divergence Times of the Major Bacterial and Archaeal Phyla. Geomicrobiology Journal 20: 1–14.

34. NasvallJ, SunL, RothJR, AnderssonDI (2012) Real-time evolution of new genes by innovation, amplification, and divergence. Science 338: 384–387.

35. BarveA, RodriguesJF, WagnerA (2012) Superessential reactions in metabolic networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: E1121–1130.

36. BridghamJT, OrtlundEA, ThorntonJW (2009) An epistatic ratchet constrains the direction of glucocorticoid receptor evolution. Nature 461: 515–519.

37. DobzhanskyT (1936) Studies on Hybrid Sterility. II. Localization of Sterility Factors in Drosophila Pseudoobscura Hybrids. Genetics 21: 113–135.

38. OrrHA (1995) The population genetics of speciation: the evolution of hybrid incompatibilities. Genetics 139: 1805–1813.

39. AndreevaA, HoworthD, BrennerSE, HubbardTJ, ChothiaC, et al. (2004) SCOP database in 2004: refinements integrate structure and sequence family data. Nucleic Acids Res 32: D226–229.

40. EdgarRC (2004) MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinformatics 5: 113.

41. LiW, GodzikA (2006) Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 22: 1658–1659.

42. GuindonS, GascuelO (2003) A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst Biol 52: 696–704.

43. LetunicI, BorkP (2007) Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL): an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Bioinformatics 23: 127–128.

44. YangZ (2007) PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol Biol Evol 24: 1586–1591.

45. DatsenkoKA, WannerBL (2000) One-step inactivation of chromosomal genes in Escherichia coli K-12 using PCR products. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97: 6640–6645.

46. SassonV, ShachraiI, BrenA, DekelE, AlonU (2012) Mode of regulation and the insulation of bacterial gene expression. Mol Cell 46: 399–407.

47. SzilagyiAN, VasM (1998) Anion activation of 3-phosphoglycerate kinase requires domain closure. Biochemistry 37: 13910.