Quantitative Residue-Level Structure–Evolution Relationships in the Yeast Membrane Proteome

Bioinformatics Program, Department of Chemistry, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Genome Biology and Evolution (Impact Factor: 4.53). 03/2013; 5(4). DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evt039
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Membrane proteins exist in distinctly different environments from soluble proteins, resulting in differences between their respective biophysical and evolutionary properties. In comparison with soluble proteins, relatively little is known about how the unique biophysical properties of membrane proteins affect their evolutionary properties at the residue level. In particular, transmembrane regions of membrane proteins tend to be more conserved than regions outside of the membrane (extramembrane regions), but the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon are not well-understood. Here, we combine homology-based high-resolution three-dimensional protein models with rigorous evolutionary rate calculations to quantitatively assess residue-level structure-evolution relationships in the yeast membrane proteome. We find that residue evolutionary rate increases linearly with decreasing residue burial, regardless of the hydrophobic or hydrophilic nature of the solvent environment. This finding supports a direct relationship between a residue's selective constraint and the extent of its packing interactions with neighboring residues, independent of hydrophobic effects. Most importantly, for a fixed degree of burial, residues from transmembrane regions tend to evolve more slowly than residues from extramembrane regions. We attribute this difference to the increased importance of packing constraints and the decreased importance of hydrophobic effects in transmembrane regions. This additional selective constraint on transmembrane residues plays a dominant role in explaining why transmembrane regions evolve more slowly than extramembrane regions. In addition to revealing the universality of the linear relationship between residue burial and selective constraint across solvent environments, our work highlights the distinct residue-level evolutionary consequences imposed by the unique biophysical properties of the membrane environment.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biogenic amine receptors play critical roles in regulating behavior and physiology in both vertebrates and invertebrates, particularly within the central nervous system. Members of the G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) family, these receptors interact with endogenous bioamine ligands such as dopamine, serotonin, and epinephrine, and are targeted by a wide array of pharmaceuticals. Despite the clear clinical and biological importance of these receptors, their evolutionary history remains poorly characterized. In particular, the relationships among biogenic amine receptors and any specific evolutionary constraints acting within distinct receptor subtypes are largely unknown. To advance and facilitate studies in this receptor family, we have constructed a comprehensive, high-quality sequence alignment of vertebrate biogenic amine receptors. In particular, we have integrated a traditional multiple sequence approach with robust structural domain predictions to ensure that alignment columns accurately capture the highly-conserved GPCR structural domains, and we demonstrate how ignoring structural information produces spurious inferences of homology. Using this alignment, we have constructed a structurally-partitioned maximum-likelihood phylogeny from which we deduce novel biogenic amine receptor relationships and uncover previously unrecognized lineage-specific receptor clades. Moreover, we find that roughly 1% of the 3039 sequences in our final alignment are either misannotated or unclassified, and we propose updated classifications for these receptors. We release our comprehensive alignment and its corresponding phylogeny as a resource for future research into the evolution and diversification of biogenic amine receptors.
    PeerJ 02/2015; 3(5):e773. DOI:10.7717/peerj.773 · 2.10 Impact Factor

Preview (2 Sources)

Available from