4.0 Review

Phylogenetic Characterization of Transport Protein Superfamilies: Superiority of SuperfamilyTree Programs over Those Based on Multiple Alignments

期刊

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000334611

关键词

Transport proteins; Membranes; Protein superfamilies; Phylogenetic analyses; Novel programs; Comparisons

资金

  1. NIH [2 R01 GM077402]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM077402] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transport proteins function in the translocation of ions, solutes and macromolecules across cellular and organellar membranes. These integral membrane proteins fall into >600 families as tabulated in the Transporter Classification Database (www.tcdb.org). Recent studies, some of which are reported here, define distant phylogenetic relationships between families with the creation of superfamilies. Several of these are analyzed using a novel set of programs designed to allow reliable prediction of phylogenetic trees when sequence divergence is too great to allow the use of multiple alignments. These new programs, called SuperfamilyTree1 and 2 (SFT1 and 2), allow display of protein and family relationships, respectively, based on thousands of comparative BLAST scores rather than multiple alignments. Superfamilies analyzed include: (1) Aerolysins, (2) RTX Toxins, (3) Defensins, (4) Ion Transporters, (5) Bile/Arsenite/Riboflavin Transporters, (6) Cation:Proton Antiporters, and (7) the Glucose/Fructose/Lactose superfannily within the prokaryotic phosphoenol pyruvate-dependent Phosphotransferase System. In addition to defining the phylogenetic relationships of the proteins and families within these seven superfannilies, evidence is provided showing that the SFT programs outperform programs that are based on multiple alignments whenever sequence divergence of superfamily members is extensive. The SFT programs should be applicable to virtually any superfamily of proteins or nucleic acids. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据