« Ursula Euteneuer | Main | Paul Mulvaney »

Sarah E. Hitchcock-DeGregori

Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, New Jersey

A molecular biophysicist muses on how a vital structural protein might have turned out differently.

One thing I love about science is its surprises. One signature eukaryotic protein is actin, a cytoskeletal protein involved in cell migration and muscle contraction. Few would have guessed that actin has a similar structure to proteins with little sequence homology or shared function beyond hydrolysis of the energy-storage molecule ATP.

Some prokaryotic cytoskeletal proteins share actin's folding pattern and, like actin, can form filaments. Electron microscopy initially indicated that the filament structure of the DNA-segregation protein ParM, for example, is similar to actin's. With improved methods, Orlova et al. revealed another surprise: ParM's helix winds in the opposite direction to actin's (A. Orlova et al. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 14, 921–926; 2007). The main differences between actin and ParM filaments are in contact regions between subunits, which are crucial for constructing this new molecular model of the filament.

If we consider each evolutionary change as a 'mutagenesis experiment', the number required for a common ancestor to become actin or ParM is mind-boggling. There would be new functions and failures along the way — even a single amino-acid substitution in haemoglobin can cause sickle-cell anaemia. Without a record of genetic changes we cannot know the intermediate successes and failures, as we do for some bizarre invertebrates found in the fossil record. Stephen Jay Gould recounts these discoveries in Wonderful Life, in which he warns of being bound by conventional thinking.

Eukaryotic life settled on the actin filament, constrained by evolution to be dynamic, to work with its motor protein, myosin, and myriad binding proteins. Just think, if actin filaments had different inter-subunit contacts — such as those in ParM — myosin would be unable to bind to it, an important helical protein, tropomyosin, would coil in the wrong direction for binding along the filament and ... well, it's like me wondering what I would be like if I had a different father.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4051

Comments

Thank you for the nice commentary! One implication of your commentary is that small changes in sequence can lead to very large changes in tertiary structure. This may emerge as an important mechanism in evolutionary divergence.

Oops! I meant to say that small changes in sequence can lead to very large changes in quaternary structure, but there is no way to edit posts on this site. This is a weakness of the site.

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by staff before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief. Excessively long entries may be cropped. Remember this is for feedback and discussion - not for publishing papers or press releases.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is just in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately. They won’t be published.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'journalclub at nature.com'.