title: Amino acid biosynthetic cost and protein conservation.
abstract: Protein products of highly expressed genes tend to favor amino acids that have lower average biosynthetic costs (i.e., they exhibit metabolic efficiency). While this trend has been observed in several studies, the specific sites where cost-reducing substitutions accumulate have not been well characterized. Toward that end, weighted costs in conserved and variable positions were evaluated across a total of 9,119 homologous proteins in four mammalian orders (primate, carnivore, rodent, and artiodactyls), which together contain a total of 20,457,072 amino acids. Degree of conservation at homologous positions in these mammalian proteins and average-weighted cost across all positions within a single protein are significantly correlated. Dividing human genes into two classes (those with and those without CpG islands in their promoters) suggests that humans also preferentially utilize less costly amino acids in highly expressed genes. In contrast to the intuitive expectation that the relatively weak selective force associated with metabolic efficiency would be a selection pressure in complex multicellular organisms, the overall level of selective constraint within the variable regions of mammalian proteins allows the metabolic efficiency to derive a reduction of overall biosynthetic cost, particularly in genes with the highest levels of expression.
authors: Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435, USA.
authors: Esley M
authors: EM
authors: Heizer
authors: Michael L
authors: ML
authors: Raymer
authors: Dan E
authors: DE
authors: Krane
references: BMC Bioinformatics. 2005 Sep 30;6:240
references: 16194281
references: Hum Mol Genet. 2003 Oct 1;12(19):2411-5
references: 12915446
references: J Mol Evol. 2007 May;64(5):558-71
references: 17476453
references: Protein Sci. 2004 Jan;13(1):190-202
references: 14691234
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2008 Sep;25(9):1795-808
references: 18453548
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Oct 25;102(43):15447-52
references: 16221766
references: Mol Biol Evol. 1998 Jun;15(6):774-6
references: 9615459
references: J Mol Biol. 2006 Sep 22;362(3):459-78
references: 16920150
references: J Mol Evol. 2008 Dec;67(6):621-30
references: 18937004
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Aug 2;102(31):10930-5
references: 16043700
references: J Mol Biol. 1996 Aug 30;261(4):509-23
references: 8794873
references: Genome Res. 2007 Dec;17(12):1797-808
references: 17984227
references: Nucleic Acids Res. 2006 Aug 07;34(13):3698-707
references: 16893954
references: J Mol Evol. 2003 Feb;56(2):151-61
references: 12574861
references: Gene. 2008 Jan 15;407(1-2):54-62
references: 17964742
references: Mol Biol Evol. 1996 Jul;13(6):864-72
references: 8754221
references: Trends Genet. 2000 Jun;16(6):276-7
references: 10827456
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2006 Sep;23(9):1670-80
references: 16754641
references: Mol Biol Evol. 1986 Sep;3(5):418-26
references: 3444411
references: Genomics. 2010 Jan;95(1):25-8
references: 19800400
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2010 Dec;27(12):2804-16
references: 20591845
references: J Bacteriol. 1996 Apr;178(7):1881-94
references: 8606161
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Mar 19;99(6):3695-700
references: 11904428
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Jun;22(6):1365-74
references: 15758206
references: BMC Genomics. 2004 Jun 01;5(1):34
references: 15171795
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Mar;22(3):478-85
references: 15509724