Modularity and evolutionary constraint on proteins (original) (raw)

Nature Genetics volume 37, pages 351–352 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

Modularity, which has been found in the functional and physical protein interaction networks of many organisms, has been postulated to affect both the mode and tempo of evolution. Here I show that in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, protein interaction hubs situated in single modules are highly constrained, whereas those connecting different modules are more plastic. This pattern of change could reflect a tendency for evolutionary innovations to occur by altering the proteins and interactions between rather than within modules, in a manner somewhat similar to the evolution of new proteins through the shuffling of conserved protein domains.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

$259.00 per year

only $21.58 per issue

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

Figure 1: Intramodule hubs are more evolutionarily constrained than intermodule hubs.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Needham, J. Biol. Rev. 8, 180–233 (1933).
    Article Google Scholar
  2. Gerhart, J. & Kirschner, M. Cells, Embryos, and Evolution (Blackwell Science, Malden, Massachusetts, 1997).
    Google Scholar
  3. Hartwell, L.H., Hopfield, J.J., Leibler, S. & Murray, A.W. Nature 402, C47–C52 (1999).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  4. Schlosser, G. Theory Biosci. 121, 1–80 (2002).
    Article Google Scholar
  5. Schlosser, G. & Wagner, G.P. (eds.) Modularity in Development and Evolution (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 2004).
    Google Scholar
  6. Fisher, R.A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Dover, New York, New York, 1930).
    Book Google Scholar
  7. Waxman, D. & Peck, J.R. Science 279, 1210–1213 (1998).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  8. von Mering, C. et al. Nature 417, 399–403 (2002).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  9. Han, J.D. et al. Nature 430, 88–93 (2004).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  10. Hirsh, A.E., Fraser, H.B. & Wall, D.P. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22, 174–177 (2005).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  11. Fraser, H.B., Hirsh, A.E., Steinmetz, L.M., Scharfe, C. & Feldman, M.W. Science 296, 750–752 (2002).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  12. Jordan, I.K., Marino-Ramirez, L., Wolf, Y.I. & Koonin, E.V. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21, 2058–2070 (2004).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  13. Krylov, D.M., Wolf, Y.I., Rogozin, I.B. & Koonin, E.V. Genome Res. 13, 2229–2235 (2003).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  14. Doolittle, R.F. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 64, 287–314 (1995).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  15. Fraser, H.B., Hirsh, A.E., Wall, D.P. & Eisen, M.B. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 9033–9038 (2004).
    Article CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank J. Plotkin and A. Hirsh for suggestions. This work was supported by a National Science Foundation predoctoral fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, 94720, California, USA
    Hunter B Fraser

Corresponding author

Correspondence toHunter B Fraser.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fraser, H. Modularity and evolutionary constraint on proteins.Nat Genet 37, 351–352 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1530

Download citation

This article is cited by