↓ Skip to main content

A Proposal for the Evolution of Cathepsin and Silicatein in Sponges

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Evolution, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
A Proposal for the Evolution of Cathepsin and Silicatein in Sponges
Published in
Journal of Molecular Evolution, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00239-015-9682-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Riesgo, Manuel Maldonado, Susanna López-Legentil, Gonzalo Giribet

Abstract

Cathepsins are enzymes capable of degrading proteins intracellularly. They occur ubiquitously in opisthokonts, but their potential to provide insight across the evolutionary transition from protists to metazoans remains poorly investigated. Here, we explore the evolution of cathepsins using comparative analyses of transcriptomic datasets, focusing on both, protists (closely related to metazoans), and early divergent animals (i.e., sponges). We retrieved DNA sequences of nine cathepsin types (B, C, D, F, H, L, O, Z, and silicatein) in the surveyed taxa. In choanoflagellates, only five types (B, C, L, O, Z) were identified, all of them being also found in sponges, indicating that while all cathepsins present in protists were conserved across metazoan lineages, cathepsins F and H (and probably D) are metazoan acquisitions. The phylogeny of cysteine protease cathepsins (excluding cathepsin D) revealed two major lineages: lineage B (cathepsins B and C) and lineage L (cathepsins F, H, L, O, Z). In the latter lineage, a mutation at the active site of cathepsin L gave rise to silicatein, an enzyme exclusively known to date from siliceous sponges and involved in the production of their silica spicules. However, we found that several sponges with siliceous spicules did not express silicatein genes and that, in contrast, several aspiculate sponges did contain silicatein genes. Our results suggest that the ability to silicify may have evolved independently within sponges, some of them losing this capacity secondarily. We also show that most phylogenies based on cathepsin and silicatein genes (except for that of cathepsin O) failed to recover the major lineages of sponges.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 14%
Chemistry 5 10%
Environmental Science 4 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2018.
All research outputs
#6,565,054
of 23,656,895 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#391
of 1,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,662
of 267,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,656,895 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,460 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,378 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.