4.5 Article

The Futalosine Pathway Played an Important Role in Menaquinone Biosynthesis during Early Prokaryote Evolution

期刊

GENOME BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 149-160

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evu007

关键词

menaquinone; futalosine pathway; 1; 4-dihydroxy-2-naphthoate; horizontal gene transfer; phylogeny

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2010CB833801]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31100008, 31270055]
  3. State Key Laboratory of Microbial Resources, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences [SKLMR-20110602]
  4. Yunnan University [2011YB01]
  5. Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Menaquinone (MK) is an important component of the electron-transfer system in prokaryotes. One of its precursors, 1,4-dihydroxy-2-naphthoate, can be synthesized from chorismate by the classical MK pathway. Interestingly, in some bacteria, chorismate can also be converted to 1,4-dihydroxy-6-naphthoate by four enzymes encoded by mqnABCD in an alternative futalosine pathway. In this study, six crucial enzymes belonging to these two independent nonhomologous pathways were identified in the predicted proteomes of prokaryotes representing a broad phylogenetic distribution. Although the classical MK pathway was found in 32.1% of the proteomes, more than twice the proportion containing the futalosine pathway, the latter was found in a broader taxonomic range of organisms (18 of 31 phyla). The prokaryotes equipped with the classical MK pathway were almost all aerobic or facultatively anaerobic, but those with the futalosine pathway were not only aerobic or facultatively anaerobic but also anaerobic. Phylogenies of enzymes of the classical MK pathway indicated that its genes in archaea were probably acquired by an ancient horizontal gene transfer from bacterial donors. Therefore, the organization of the futalosine pathway likely predated that of the classical MK pathway in the evolutionary history of prokaryotes.

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

4.5
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