4.2 Article

Intrinsically disordered proteins in human mitochondria

Journal

GENES TO CELLS
Volume 17, Issue 10, Pages 817-825

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/gtc.12000

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Strategic Research Foundation from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [S1001042]
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [2250027, 23500372]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21113007, 23700353, 23500372] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intrinsically disordered (ID) proteins (IDPs) are abundant in eukaryotes but are scarce in prokaryotes. Mitochondria, cellular organelles that descended from Rickettsia-like a-proteobacteria, are at the intersection between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Although IDPs are reportedly as rare in mitochondria as in bacteria, these details remained to be clarified. Human mitochondrial proteins (n = 706) were obtained from the UniProt database, and information on ID regions of all human proteins was extracted from the DICHOT database. A BLAST search carried out against all a-proteobacterial proteins identified two types of mitochondrial proteins: those with (B) and without (E) bacterial homologues. The B-type proteins (n = 387) descended from a bacterial ancestor, whereas the E-type proteins (n = 319) were more recently added to the mitochondria via the host cell during the early evolution of eukaryotes. The average ID ratios of B-type/E-type proteins are 10.3% and 21.4%, respectively. The 706 proteins were further classified into four groups based on the mitochondrial subcompartment, namely, the matrix, intermembrane space, inner membrane, or outer membrane. The ID ratios in these different locations suggest that the frequency of IDPs in mitochondria might be due to the evolutionary origin (B-type/E-type) of the protein, rather than differences in its functional environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available