Most models of protein evolution are based upon proteins that form relatively rigid 3D structures. A significant fraction of proteins, the so-called disordered proteins, do not form rigid 3D structures and sample a broad conformational ensemble. Disordered proteins do not typically maintain long-range interactions, so the constraints on their evolution should be different than ordered proteins. To test this hypothesis, we developed and compared models of evolution for disordered and ordered proteins. Substitution matrices were constructed using the sequences of putative homologs for sets of experimentally characterized disordered and ordered proteins. Separate matrices, at three levels of sequence similarity (>85%, 85-60%, and 60-40%), were inferred for each type of protein structure. The substitution matrices for disordered and ordered proteins differed significantly at each level of sequence similarity. The disordered matrices reflected a greater likelihood of evolutionary changes, relative to the ordered matrices, and these changes involved nonconservative substitutions. Glutamic acid and asparagine were interesting exceptions to this result. Important differences between the substitutions that are accepted in disordered proteins relative to ordered proteins were also identified. In general, disordered proteins have fewer evolutionary constraints than ordered proteins. However, some residues like tryptophan and tyrosine are highly conserved in disordered proteins. This is due to their important role in forming protein-protein interfaces. Finally, the amino acid frequencies for disordered proteins, computed during the development of the matrices, were compared with amino acid frequencies for different categories of secondary structure in ordered proteins. The highest correlations were observed between the amino acid frequencies in disordered proteins and the solvent-exposed loops and turns of ordered proteins, supporting an emerging structural model for disordered proteins.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 May 2010.
All research outputs
#15,241,259
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Biology and Evolution
#4,183
of 4,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,774
of 165,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Biology and Evolution
#31
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,918 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 165,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
