![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2005 Song et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. The TyrA family of aromatic-pathway dehydrogenases in phylogenetic context 1Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, 87545, USA 2Emerson Hall, University of Florida, P.O. Box 14425, Gainesville, Florida, 32604-2425, USA Corresponding author.Jian Song: jian/at/lanl.gov; Carol A Bonner: cbonner/at/ufl.edu; Murray Wolinsky: murray/at/lanl.gov; Roy A Jensen: rjensen/at/ufl.edu Received February 19, 2005; Accepted May 12, 2005. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Background The TyrA protein family includes members that catalyze two dehydrogenase reactions in distinct pathways leading to L-tyrosine and a third reaction that is not part of tyrosine biosynthesis. Family members share a catalytic core region of about 30 kDa, where inhibitors operate competitively by acting as substrate mimics. This protein family typifies many that are challenging for bioinformatic analysis because of relatively modest sequence conservation and small size. Results Phylogenetic relationships of TyrA domains were evaluated in the context of combinatorial patterns of specificity for the two substrates, as well as the presence or absence of a variety of fusions. An interactive tool is provided for prediction of substrate specificity. Interactive alignments for a suite of catalytic-core TyrA domains of differing specificity are also provided to facilitate phylogenetic analysis. tyrA membership in apparent operons (or supraoperons) was examined, and patterns of conserved synteny in relationship to organismal positions on the 16S rRNA tree were ascertained for members of the domain Bacteria. A number of aromatic-pathway genes (hisHb, aroF, aroQ) have fused with tyrA, and it must be more than coincidental that the free-standing counterparts of all of the latter fused genes exhibit a distinct trace of syntenic association. Conclusion We propose that the ancestral TyrA dehydrogenase had broad specificity for both the cyclohexadienyl and pyridine nucleotide substrates. Indeed, TyrA proteins of this type persist today, but it is also common to find instances of narrowed substrate specificities, as well as of acquisition via gene fusion of additional catalytic domains or regulatory domains. In some clades a qualitative change associated with either narrowed substrate specificity or gene fusion has produced an evolutionary "jump" in the vertical genealogy of TyrA homologs. The evolutionary history of gene organizations that include tyrA can be deduced in genome assemblages of sufficiently close relatives, the most fruitful opportunities currently being in the Proteobacteria. The evolution of TyrA proteins within the broader context of how their regulation evolved and to what extent TyrA co-evolved with other genes as common members of aromatic-pathway regulons is now feasible as an emerging topic of ongoing inquiry. Background Dehydrogenases dedicated to L-tyrosine (TYR) biosynthesis comprise a family of TyrA homologs that have different specificities for the cyclohexadienyl substrate: ones specific for L-arogenate (AGN), ones specific for prephenate (PPA), and those that are able to use both [1,2]. Figure Figure11
The TyrA family is typical of many protein families in that its members have a relatively small core domain that is not highly conserved. As such, substantial challenges for bioinformatic analysis are posed. Here we have not only carried out a labor-intensive manual analysis, but we have also developed tools intended to facilitate and refine follow-on studies of this protein family in the genome era. The approaches implemented in this study with the TYR segment of aromatic biosynthesis hopefully can serve as a template for forthcoming integrant analyses of other pathway segments of aromatic biosynthesis, and indeed for metabolic subsystems in general. This manuscript contains three broad sections. First, the biochemical and enzymological complexity of the TyrA protein family is presented in terms of the diversity that exists in nature with respect to substrate specificity and the association of the core domain with other catalytic or regulatory domains. Secondly, the genomic colinear organization of tyrA genes with other genes is evaluated, i.e., tyrA is considered in its syntenic context. Thirdly, tyrA is evaluated in its context of regulation. These three sections are tied together in a framework of evolutionary perspective. Results and discussion Background of TyrA diversity Our evolutionary analysis is limited by the amount of information that can be managed in a single study, with the focus fixed upon the domain Bacteria (due to the relative density of genome representation for Bacteria in the public databases). However, in order to show where future expansion of the analysis might lead, the selection of TyrA proteins in Fig. Fig.22
As an illustration of the detailed information that follows, note that the TyrA sequences from the beta Proteobacteria at five o'clock in Fig. Fig.22 Phylogenetically congruent TyrA groupings Multiple alignments of catalytic-core domains A phylogenetic tree is only as good as the input alignment. An optimal multiple alignment of TyrA homologs requires a trimmed set of sequences that corresponds to the catalytic-core domain. Alignment of sequences with non-homologous N-terminal fusions (such as with chorismate mutase• (AroQ•), HisHb•, or plant transit peptides•; note the convention of using a bullet to indicate the fusion point of one domain with another domain) will make them appear to be more closely related than they actually are because residues in the non-homologous N-terminal regions find matches at random. Likewise, those TyrA sequences with C-terminal fusions (such as with •AroF, •ACT, or •REG) will appear to be anomalously close to one another. Even enzyme proteins that have much greater sequence conservation and amino-acid lengths than TyrA proteins cannot reasonably be expected to yield a protein tree that would be congruent over an extensive phylogenetic range with the overall 16S rRNA tree. However, if genome representation is sufficiently dense within a range of closely related organisms, 16S rRNA congruency with a given protein can be expected within that range of organisms provided that (i) the particular functional role has been retained and (ii) lateral gene transfer has not occurred to obscure the relationship. This expectation follows from the outcome of a detailed analysis of tryptophan-pathway proteins in Bacteria [7,8]. Congruency within major clades TyrA sequences from higher-plant and yeast Eukarya form cohesive clusters. Genome representation among Archaea is still relatively limited. (Fig. (Fig.22 The great majority of TyrA sequences available are from Bacteria, and one can see (by inspection of the major clades supported by high bootstrap values in Fig. Fig.2)2 Proteobacteria By far the greatest genomic density available is for Proteobacteria, the group of Bacteria that includes purple bacteria and their relatives. The various divisions of Proteobacteria, as currently named, lack hierarchical equivalence. For example, the epsilon and delta divisions branch from much deeper positions on the phylogenetic tree than do the alpha Proteobacteria. As genome representation expands for epsilon and delta Proteobacteria, it is probable that these will subdivide to newly named groupings of approximate hierarchical equivalence with alpha Proteobacteria. The most recently diverged Proteobacteria are the beta and gamma divisions. From the combination of our previous analysis of tryptophan biosynthesis [7,8], TYR biosynthesis (this paper), and other segments of aromatic biosynthesis (unpublished data), we find it useful to separate "upper-gamma" Proteobacteria from "lower-gamma" Proteobacteria (an "enteric lineage" with Shewanella oneidensis as approximately the most divergent member). This separation is because the beta Proteobacteria and the upper-gamma Proteobacteria exhibit a smooth continuity of relatively few evolutionary events with respect to aromatic biosynthesis, in striking contrast to extraordinarily dynamic evolutionary events in the lower-gamma Proteobacteria. As a consequence, the lower-gamma Proteobacteria are much more distinct (in terms of aromatic biosynthesis) from the upper-gamma Proteobacteria than the upper-gamma are from the beta Proteobacteria. Figure Figure22 Comparison of tryptophan and tyrosine congruency groups Although the true extent of lateral gene transfer (LGT) at present must be described as intensely controversial, there is little doubt that any given organism is mosaic with respect to some unknown fraction of its gene repertoire. Our "accounting" system for keeping track of proteins that are faithful to the vertical genealogy is to formulate congruency groupings that are defined by congruence of given protein-tree clusters to a section of the 16S rRNA tree. Ultimately this information will reveal which organisms are "pure" with respect to the vertical inheritance of a given pathway or pathway segment. Our congruency groups are intended to be fluid, in that with the continued availability of new sequences, a previous orphan sequence may very well become the seed for a new congruency group. On the other hand, previously separate congruency groups have the potential to merge. (See Methods for more information.) The present tyrosine congruency groups are listed on the AroPath website [9]. Seven tryptophan congruency groups in Bacteria were previously formulated [8] based upon the correspondence of cohesive clusters in trees of Trp-protein concatenates with sections of 16S rRNA trees. The information input for formulation of tryptophan congruency groups is of greater quality than for tyrosine congruency groups because seven-protein concatenates could be used for the former. On the other hand, the broad information input supporting tyrosine congruency groups in this study is more comprehensive because of greater genome availability. Tryptophan congruency group 1 (TrpCG-1) corresponds perfectly with the organisms represented in TyrCG-1, these being the lower-gamma Proteobacteria (enteric lineage). The upper-gamma Proteobacteria (TyrCG-2) and the beta Proteobacteria (tyrosine congruency group 3; TyrCG-3) are represented by different tyrosine congruency groups. In contrast, the membership of tryptophan congruency group 2 (TrpCG-2) includes both the upper-gamma Proteobacteria and the beta Proteobacteria. The latter merging probably reflects the advantage conferred by the greater information content of the concatenated sequences used to define tryptophan congruency groups. Species of Xylella and Xanthomonas are usually referred to as gamma Proteobacteria. They probably represent an outlying deeply branching lineage, although trees based on concatenated strings of proteins [10] or 16S rRNA [11] position them with beta Proteobacteria. In any event, Trp-protein concatenate trees placed Xylella and Xanthomonas within TrpCG-2, which contains both upper-gamma and beta Proteobacteria. In contrast, the TyrA domains from Xylella and Xanthomonas were well separated (at about two o'clock in Fig. Fig.2)2 Cohesive tryptophan congruency groups of the alpha Proteobacteria (tryptophan congruency group 3; TrpCG-3) and the cyanobacteria (tryptophan congruency group 4; TrpCG-4) match up well with the corresponding tyrosine congruency groups (tyrosine congruency group 4 (TyrCG-4) and tyrosine congruency group 8 (TyrCG-8), respectively). The TyrA proteins of epsilon Proteobacteria define a cohesive tyrosine congruency group (tyrosine congruency group 5; TyrCG-5), whereas the Trp-protein concatenates of epsilon Proteobacteria did not exhibit a coherent congruency group, due at least in part to LGT [8]. The delta Proteobacteria separate into two distinct tyrosine congruency groups: Delta_1 (tyrosine congruency group 6; TyrCG-6) and Delta_2 (tyrosine congruency group 7; TyrCG-7), as shown in Fig. Fig.2.2 Whereas tryptophan congruency group 5 (TrpCG-5) is defined by cohesive concatenates from actinomycete bacteria, the TyrA proteins from the same organisms separated into two distinct congruency groups. It is intriguing that this partitioning into two congruency groups correlates with narrowed specificity for NAD+ (indicating an evolutionary jump) in one of the groups. The latter group (tyrosine congruency group 11; TyrCG-11) is denoted Actinobacteridae_2 in Fig. Fig.2,2 Tyrosine congruency groups and tryptophan congruency groups are maintained and updated at the AroPath website [12]. Distribution in nature of TyrA specificity subclasses for the cyclohexadienyl substrate Four qualitative classes of specificity for the cyclohexadienyl substrate populate the TyrA superfamily of homologs (Fig. (Fig.1).1 Our collection of curated TyrA sequences at AroPath (see Table 3) contains trimmed sequences that comprise catalytic-core domains. This collection was divided into two groups based on whether the sequences contained the relatively short N-terminal pyridine-nucleotide discriminator segment or the longer C-terminal cyclohexadienyl-substrate core segment. The sequences in the latter group were assembled into subgroups representing established substrate specificities (TyrAa, TyrAp and TyrAc) and were aligned separately to obtain overall consensus sequences for cyclohexadienyl-substrate core segments. The TyrAc group members from the lower-gamma assemblage of Proteobacteria (as well as from a few other lineages) were so distinctive that a fourth group (TyrAc_Δ) was defined. This latter group is, in fact, the most divergent of the four. Figure Figure33
Cyclohexadienyl dehydrogenases Many TyrA proteins (at least in the domain Bacteria) are of the TyrAc subclass. The cyclohexadienyl dehydrogenases commonly accept PPA or AGN about equally well, but various degrees of preference for one of the alternative substrates are also observed. Detailed molecular and genetic studies of TyrAc proteins from Pseudomonas aeruginosa, [17], P. stutzeri [1], and Zymomonas mobilis [18] have been carried out. The distinct variety of TyrAc mentioned above, which has been denoted TyrAc_Δ exhibits a number of indels (mostly deletions) within the catalytic-core region when its consensus sequence is aligned with those of the other TyrA classes (Fig. (Fig.3).3 Arogenate dehydrogenases The TyrAa class of specificity is currently represented by higher plants and at least three widely spaced bacterial lineages: cyanobacteria, actinomycetes and Nitrosomonas europaea. This discontinuity of phylogenetic spacing is consistent with a fundamental evolutionary scenario [19] whereby the ancestral dehydrogenase was a broad-specificity TyrAc that evolved narrowed substrate specificity (to yield either TyrAp or TyrAa) independently on multiple occasions in modern lineages. The ubiquitous presence of TyrAa in cyanobacteria has been heavily documented [20]. Nitrosomonas europaea currently (as of March, 2005) has no sufficiently close genome relatives that have been sequenced. The first BLAST hit returned from a NADPTyrAa query from N. europaea (March,2005) is the protein from Ralstonia solanacearum (48% identity), which is known to possess broad specificity for both of its substrates (i.e., NAD(P)TyrAc) [21,22]. The TyrA sequences of Actinobacteria separate into two distinct groupings on the protein tree (Fig. (Fig.2).2
A similar relationship of phylogenetic separation associated with narrowed specificity for pyridine-nucleotide substrate exists for the low-GC gram-positive bacteria (eight o'clock in Fig. Fig.2).2 Recently, a plant tyrAa from Arabidopsis thaliana has been reported to consist of two near-identical domains that are fused [27]. The gene encoding this 68-kDa protein co-exists in the genome with a single-domain paralog [28] that encodes a predicted 37-kDa protein, somewhat larger than the catalytic-core domain of TyrAa from Synechocystis. TyrAa (known to be located in higher-plant chloroplasts [2]) may have originated from cyanobacteria via endosymbiosis. If so, however, the plant TyrAa sequences have diverged sufficiently that they no longer share a specific phylogenetic grouping with the cyanobacterial TyrA sequences. This is in marked contrast with the phylogenetic coherence of the tryptophan synthase subunit proteins (TrpEa and TrpEb_1) from cyanobacteria and higher plants [29]. Prephenate dehydrogenases TyrAp is conspicuously represented by a large clade of low-GC gram-positive organisms, of which Bacillus subtilis TyrAp is the best studied [30]. Thus far, all TyrAp proteins are fused to a C-terminal ACT domain, and therefore no "minimal" TyrAp proteins that consist only of a catalytic core are available as yet. At the level of physiological function, it should be added that those cyclohexadienyl dehydrogenases that exhibit a very substantial preference for prephenate are for all practical purposes prephenate dehydrogenases, even though they carry a formal designation of TyrAc or TyrAc_Δ. These include most, if not all, of the AroQ•TyrAc_Δ enzymes of the enteric lineage (lower-gamma in Fig. Fig.2).2 PapC dehydrogenases PapC participates in the formation of p-aminophenylalanine as a step in the synthesis of at least two antibiotics (see Fig. Fig.1).1 The "redundant" trp/aro supraoperon of Nostoc/Anabaena All cyanobacteria possess a highly conserved tyrAa gene, as well as a complete suite of tryptophan-pathway genes that are dispersed (unlinked) in the genome. The large-genome cyanobacterial lineage consisting of the Nostoc and Anabaena genera possess in addition a unique and seemingly redundant trp/aro supraoperon consisting of most of the aforementioned genes [31]. These include a second tyrA gene (curated as tyrAc_Δ), six trp-pathway genes (all except trpC), and genes encoding the first two common-pathway steps of aromatic amino acid biosynthesis. All of these supraoperonic genes appear to be redundant in that they are represented by homologs (paralogs or xenologs) elsewhere in the Nostoc and Anabaena genomes at scattered loci. The closest BLAST hits for the Nostoc/Anabaena TyrAc_Δ proteins are not the co-existing TyrAa homologs present in their own genomes (and universally present in cyanobacteria). Rather the closest BLAST hits are to the TyrAc_Δ domains of the AroQ•TyrAc_Δ fusions in the enteric lineage. Since the enteric proteins are NAD+-specific and strongly prefer prephenate, it is likely that the "extra" cyanobacterial proteins are also NADTyrAc_Δ proteins. Indeed, this would be consistent with enzymological evidence provided in the literature for both Nostoc and Anabaena [20]. Concerning the evolutionary origin of the redundant block of linked genes found in the Nostoc and Anabaena genomes, at least two possibilities await further illumination. (i) These genes might have been acquired by a common ancestor of Nostoc and Anabaena via lateral gene transfer. This is consistent with the observation that biosynthetic-pathway operons are generally absent in the cyanobacteria, and all of the linked genes could have been recruited in a single event. However, at present no candidate donor genomes are known that possess this supraoperon combination of genes. If the TyrAc_Δ proteins of Nostoc/Anabaena and the enteric lineage are possibly related by LGT, it is of interest that the N-terminal extension of TyrAc_Δ from Nostoc/Anabaena resembles a degraded AroQ domain of AroQ•TyrAc_Δ from enterics. In both cases the N-terminal residues may compensate for indel deletions within the catalytic core region of TyrAc_Δ. Subsequently, AroQ function may have evolved in one lineage (or have been lost in the other). This possibility of domain-domain interaction is consistent with the established interdependence of the AroQ• and •TyrAc_Δ domains from E. coli [32]. Alternatively, tyrAa and tyrAc_Δ (and the duplicated trp and aro genes present in the supraoperon) might be ancient paralogs within the cyanobacterial lineage. If so, at a time following divergence of heterocystous cyanobacteria from the unicellular cyanobacteria, the latter may have lost the clustered block of aromatic-pathway genes in a single event of reductive evolution. The supraoperonic genes might be related to a specialized function associated with "developmental" physiological processes that typify the filamentous, heterocyst-forming cyanobacteria. This might be reminiscent of the nature of the phenazine-pigment operon of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Here unique phenazine-pathway genes are combined with a redundant gene of common-pathway aromatic biosynthesis and two redundant (and fused) genes of tryptophan biosynthesis. This accomplishes the linkage of specific phenazine biosynthesis with a supply of 2-amino-2-deoxy-isochorismate, the branchpoint of divergence toward phenazine and tryptophan [33,34]. This complexity in which multiple paralogs are differentially deployed is consistent with the large genome sizes of Anabaena (7.2 MB) and Nostoc (9.2 MB), compared with the much smaller unicellular genomes of Prochlorococcus marinus (1.7 MB), Synechococcus sp. WH8102 (2.4 MB), and Synechocystis sp. PCC6803 (3.6 MB). Profile hidden Markov models (HMMs) to distinguish specificity subfamilies for cyclohexadienyl substrate The limited information thus far available about specific molecular roles of particular TyrA amino acid residues has been summarized recently [25]. The catalytic-core domains of known TyrAa, TyrAp, TyrAc, and TyrAc_Δ proteins were selected from our files of TyrA catalytic-core domains [35], and a new subset of sequences was prepared that lacked the pyridine nucleotide discriminator segment, a glycine-rich βαβ region at the N terminus. Although the glycine-rich βαβ region is not the only segment that contacts pyridine nucleotide substrate, it is the sole region that discriminates between NAD+ and NADP+. The resulting trimmed sequence is defined as the "cyclohexadienyl-substrate core segment". No distinctive motifs were found that, in isolation, would be a clear predictive indicator of specificity for cyclohexadienyl substrate. Similar substrate specificity profiles probably can be dictated by alternative patterns of interplay between different residue combinations. Because of the rapid accumulation of incorrectly annotated TyrA entries in GenBank and other databases, partly due to the complications of misnaming that are associated with gene fusions and partly to a failure to assimilate published substrate specificities, the use of BLAST does not return reliable annotations with respect to substrate specificity. Even the HMMs used in Pfam [36] and Interpro [37] were not helpful in this case because the HMM deployed in those databases was broadly but incorrectly defined as 'prephenate dehydrogenase (NADP+) activity' for all TyrA dehydrogenases (accession number PF02153 in Pfam and entry IPR003099 in Interpro). However, Profile HMM is known to be well suited for modeling a particular sequence family of interest and for finding additional remote homologs [38]. It is reputed to outperform methods that rely only upon pair-wise alignment of homologous residues in predicting protein function [39]. Therefore, profile HMMs were constructed using our multiple sequence alignments of each curated TyrA specificity subfamily, using the HMMER package [38]. The profile HMMs obtained are only tentatively reliable for prediction of substrate specificity. To facilitate ongoing and future functional annotations, we have made our profile HMMs available as a working resource for "specificity prediction" at AroPath [40]. Users can match query sequences against the four profile HMMs to predict the subfamily to which a query sequence belongs. It is anticipated that future experimental data relevant to substrate specificity will facilitate refinement of the prediction program. For example, at present the program predicts that the TyrA sequences from organisms such as Helicobacter pylori and Saccharomyces cerevisiae belong to the TyrAa grouping, and it will be interesting to see whether this holds up to experimental confirmation. It is additionally fascinating that (i) the dehydrogenase from Archaeoglobus fulgidus is predicted to belong to the indel-containing TyrAc_Δ grouping and (ii) that it possesses a possible cooperatively interacting extra-core domain extension (an AroQ fusion), just as occurs for the large clade of enteric bacteria. If this is relevant, it is even more fascinating that the Archaeoglobus aroQ is fused at the C-terminal side of tyrAc_Δ, rather than at the N terminus as is the case with enteric bacteria. Users at AroPath [41] can enter query sequences into interactive multiple sequence alignments with any of the four sets of "cyclohexadienyl-substrate core segments" sequences that were used to train the profile HMMs. An ongoing effort is in process to extend the predictor capability to include the pyridine nucleotide substrate as well. One can also align query sequences of interest with either an assemblage of the complete set of curator-approved TyrA catalytic-core TyrA sequences or with any desired subset of seed sequences. The catalytic-core domain of TyrA proteins The simplest set of fully functional TyrA proteins consists only of the catalytic-core domain (about 180 amino acids) [1] and includes the well-characterized TyrAc enzymes from Neisseria gonorrhoeae [21] and Zymomonas mobilis [18], as well as TyrAa from a cyanobacterium [25]. In addition the catalytic-core domain from Pseudomonas stutzeri has been engineered for study from a tyrAc•aroF fusion [1]. These model core proteins are roughly as divergent from one another on the TyrA protein tree as are the organisms that contain them (Fig. (Fig.2).2 Xie et al. [1] suggested that in the set of catalytic-core TyrA proteins, inhibitors bind at the catalytic site and exhibit classical competitive inhibition with respect to the particular cyclohexadienyl substrates that can be accepted by a given organism. This model predicts that the specificity for the sidechains of substrates used would parallel the specificity for inhibitor sidechains. The information summarized in Table 4 supports this expectation. Thus, the TyrAc proteins of P. stutzeri and P. aeruginosa will accept either a pyruvyl (as with PPA) or an alanyl (as with AGN) sidechain in the alternative substrates used, and this is paralleled by recognition of either a pyruvyl (4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate) or an alanyl (TYR) sidechain in the competent inhibitor structures. In another case, the N. gonorrhoeae TyrAc exhibits an overwhelming substrate preference for PPA, and consistent with the foregoing, is subject to inhibition by 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate but not by TYR. A variety of analog inhibitor structures were used by Xie et al. [1] to show that the minimal structure for binding at the substrate-binding site of P. stutzeri TyrAc is a six-membered ring with a 4-hydroxy substituent.
In contrast to the TyrAc proteins just described, the Z. mobilis TyrAc is totally insensitive to inhibition by either 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate or TYR. Since both of these compounds lack a 1-carboxy moiety, it is reasonable to assume that the 1-carboxy substituent present in the two substrates accepted may be required for binding at the catalytic center. Thus, although TyrAc from Z. mobilis will accept the same two substrates as does the TyrAc from P. stutzeri, the greatly different inhibition results suggest that Z. mobilis obeys more stringent rules for binding at the catalytic site (i.e., a ring carboxylate must be present). Synechocystis sp. and Arabidopsis thaliana TyrAa proteins accept as a substrate only AGN, which has an alanyl sidechain. The ring-carboxylate moiety is evidently not absolutely required for binding since these TyrAa proteins can recognize TYR (alanyl sidechain) as a competitive inhibitor. In contrast, since N. europaea TyrAa is not inhibited by TYR, it resembles the Z. mobilis TyrAc in the putative requirement for a 1-carboxy substituent to secure successful binding at the catalytic site. In summary, some TyrA proteins probably exercise greater discrimination in their requirement for a 1-carboxy moiety for binding at the catalytic site, and these are insensitive to competitive inhibition by the aromatic reaction products (which lack the 1-carboxy substituent). Other TyrA proteins that require the 1-carboxy moiety for the fundamental catalytic process, but presumably do not require it for binding, will recognize product inhibitors that have the same sidechain as any substrate recognized. Specificity for the pyridine nucleotide co-substrate within the TyrA superfamily NAD+ differs from NADP+ only in that NADP+ has a phosphate group esterified at the 2'-position of adenosine ribose. Therefore, the ability of a dehydrogenase to discriminate between those two lies in the particular enzyme region that contacts the ribose moiety. The glycine-rich region known to constitute the ADP-binding βαβ fold is well known to be this point of contact [26]. This Rossmann β α β fold is inevitably positioned at the extreme N terminus of TyrA proteins, and the typical GXGXXG motif is almost always observed, as illustrated in Fig. Fig.4.4 The absolute specificity of TyrAp proteins for PPA tends to be accompanied by absolute specificity for NAD+, as illustrated by the large Bacillus/Staphylococcus/Listeria/Enterococcus clade at eight o'clock in Fig. Fig.2.2 The TyrAc proteins of most complete-genome organisms thus far have happened to be NAD+-specific, and this has been the property of the most rigorously characterized ones (from Z. mobilis, P. stutzeri, and P. aeruginosa). However, it is clear from extensive enzymological surveys [22] that TyrAc proteins having broad specificity for NAD+/NADP+ are common, examples including species of Ralstonia and Burkholderia. The spectrum of variation that can exist, even within a clade of organisms that are of fairly close relationship, is illustrated by one striking example. In the pseudomonad clade marked by a common tyrA•aroF fusion, the Acinetobacter sp. TyrAc is NADP+-specific [44], whereas the sister subclade Pseudomonas/Azotobacter exhibits NAD+ specificity (Fig. (Fig.2).2 We had previously suggested that there might be a general structural relationship of substrate pairing that tends to favor interaction between PPA and NAD+, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, between the greater positive charge of AGN and the greater negative charge of NADP+. These relationships may indeed be favored, but it increasingly appears that any combination can occur. Beyond the catalytic core: allosteric domains Various lineages have acquired an amino acid binding domain known as the ACT domain (pfam01842), which is known to bind a variety of amino acids, thus functioning as an allosteric domain for many proteins including phosphoglycerate dehydrogenase, aspartokinase, acetolactate synthase, phenylalanine hydroxylase, prephenate dehydratase and formyltetrahydrofolate deformylase. Recruitment of this domain by fusion with tyrAp appears to have occurred in a common ancestor of the large Bacillus/Staphylococcus/Listeria/Enterococcus/Streptococcus assemblage (Fig. (Fig.2).2 B. subtilis, which belongs to the large clade having an ACT domain as a carboxy extension, has been extensively characterized [30]. 4-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate is an effective competitive inhibitor, as would be consistent with our proposed effects at the catalytic core for a PPA-specific enzyme. However, TYR, phenylalanine (PHE) and tryptophan were also inhibitors. The violation of the rule that the latter three amino acid inhibitors would not be expected to bind the catalytic core region (because they have alanyl sidechains even though the substrate-binding site only recognizes the pyruvyl sidechain of prephenate) and the finding that some of these were not competitive inhibitors can now be accounted for by the presence of the allosteric ACT domain. A carboxy extension shared by a number of Archaea (denoted 'REG' in Fig. Fig.2)2 The tyrA gene is a popular fusion partner Fusion with aroQ tyrA may be fused with a number of other catalytic domains, each of them relevant to aromatic biosynthesis (Fig. (Fig.2).2 Fusion with aroF Secondly, tyrAc has been fused with aroF on at least two separate occasions in Bacteria. (The aroF gene encodes enolpyruvylshikimate-3-P synthase, the sixth enzyme in the common pathway of aromatic biosynthesis; see [5,6] for nomenclature used.) One clade includes members of the upper-gamma Proteobacteria: P. aeruginosa, P. syringae, P. putida, P. stutzeri, P. fluorescens and Azotobacter vinelandii. It is interesting that P. syringae has experienced a deletion of about 200 residues at the N-terminal region of the AroF domain. This has been coupled with the acquisition of a stand-alone aroF gene that is absent in other members of the clade. Interestingly, the latter AroF shows high identity only with AroF from Agrobacterium tumefaciens, an alpha proteobacterium. The A. tumefaciens aroF, in turn, is unique compared to its α-subdivision relatives, both in having divergent sequence and in being unlinked to cmk and rpsA. Thus, it seems likely that the incongruence of AroF belonging to both P. syringae and A. tumefaciens reflects acquisition via LGT from some as yet unknown source. The disruption of the fused aroF domain in P. syringae is an unusual instance where the catalytic function of one fusion domain has become discarded while the function of the second domain has been retained. It is interesting to consider the possibility that the truncated remnant of the aroF fusion domain might be exploitable for use as an innovative source of a new regulatory domain. An additional fusion of tyrA with aroF has occurred independently within the beta Proteobacteria in the common ancestor of Burkholderia pseudomallei and B. mallei. This has been very recent since the closely related B. fungorum and B. cepacia organisms lack the fusion. It has been suggested that presence of a given fusion may be useful for sorting out clades that diverged from a common ancestor, independent of other methods [48]. Different fusions offer the power of discriminating clades at various hierarchical levels, i.e., nested clades discriminated by nested gene fusions. The tyrA•aroF fusion occurred in the common ancestor of the clade that includes the upper-gamma Proteobacteria shown in Fig. Fig.2.2 Fusion with hisHb Thirdly, a single organism, Rhodobacter sphaeroides, possesses a hisHb•tyrA fusion that must have occurred very recently. hisHb encodes an aromatic aminotransferase that is closely related to (or sometimes even synonymous with) imidazole acetol phosphate aminotransferase [49]. The hisHb/tyrA/aroF linkage group is part of a supraoperon in some gram-negative bacteria in which a relatively conserved, yet frequently shuffled gene order is observed [5,6]. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that at the time just prior to fusion, hisHb, tyrA and aroF were adjacent. Note that among the fusions currently known, hisHb and aroF are fused to the N-terminal and C-terminal ends of tyrA, respectively. It would be interesting to know the substrate specificity of the R. sphaeroides TyrA domain. If it is AGN-specific the significance of hisHb presumably would be to transaminate PPA to form AGN, the substrate used by TyrAa (see Fig. Fig.1).1 Fusion with ACT The widespread ACT regulatory domain appears to have been acquired by independent fusions at least three separate times judging from the widely separated lineages that possess a TyrA•ACT fusion (Fig. (Fig.2).2 Fusion with REG Another putative regulatory domain fused to tyrA (denoted tyrA•REG) is thus far restricted to some of the Archaea. This domain is a predicted regulatory domain, as described in COG4937. A novel 4-domain fusion Archaeoglobus fulgidus exhibits a striking four-domain fusion consisting of three catalytic domains and a regulatory ACT domain (TyrA•AroQ•PheA•ACT). The TyrA domain is predicted to belong to the TyrAc_Δ class when used as a query input into the AroPath Specificity Predictor Tool [40]. We speculated earlier that the •AroQ fusion domain of Archaeoglobus may exercise cooperative interactions with TyrAc_Δ, as appears to occur between the AroQ•TyrAc_Δ domains of E. coli and its relatives. tyrA in its syntenic context Although the genes of prokaryotes have clearly been subject to frequent scrambling, some gene-gene associations persist more tenaciously than others. Xie et al. [5,6] asserted that one such ancestral gene string that has resisted scrambling forces is hisHb > tyrA > aroF. As suggested above, contemporary gene fusions can serve as frozen-in-time indicators of ancient gene organizations that were later obscured by gene-scrambling events. Another gene string that is often within the syntenic region of hisHb, tyrA, and aroF is cmk > rpsA. Gene synteny in prokaryotes has not been easily recognized because substantial manual scrutiny in combination with a sufficient density of genomic representation on a given portion of the phylogenetic tree is necessary to detect patterns of synteny that are camouflaged by frequent scrambling events (inversion, deletion and transposition). The domain Bacteria is now represented by a collection of sequenced genomes that is progressively approaching the genomic densities needed for meaningful analysis. Figure Figure55
When the various examples of hisHb > tyrA > aroF linkage are mapped on a 16S rRNA tree, they first appear in gram-positive bacteria. In Bacillus and related organisms (such as Listeria), the hisHb > tyrA > aroF unit is associated with a large ancestral operon consisting of aroG > aroB > aroH > hisHb > tyrAp> aroF. Bacillus additionally possesses the cmk > rpsA unit, albeit in a separate location. Interestingly, in one narrow subclade (B. subtilis, B. halodurans and B. stearothermophilus) the trp operon has been inserted between aroH and hisHb to yield a supraoperon that has been fully characterized as a complex functional unit [51]. See Xie et al. [7] for a full presentation of evolutionary interpretation relevant to the latter. Though highly scrambled, a pattern of association of pheA with hisHb > tyrA >aroF is suggested by linkage patterns seen at the hierarchical level of Cytophaga and Bacteroides (Fig. (Fig.5).5 Consensus ancestral gene organizations for the most densely represented divisions of Proteobacteria have been deduced as shown at the bottom of Fig. Fig.5.5
The ancestor of alpha Proteobacteria has lost the aroQ•pheA fusion, and a stand-alone pheA is consistently observed. Members of this group are quite uniform in the stable possession of hisHb > tyrA and aroF > cmk > rpsA as two separated linkage groups. The beta Proteobacteria are represented by members that have the gene organization: serC > aroQ•pheA > hisHb > tyrA > aroF > cmk > rpsA. This is also seen in the members of the upper-gamma Proteobacteria. Figure Figure55 Zooming in on syntenic contexts of proteobacteria Beta proteobacteria and upper-gamma proteobacteria The beta Proteobacteria exhibit a dynamic but still interpretable pattern of altered synteny (Fig. (Fig.66
The gamma Proteobacteria have separated into two distinctly different synteny patterns. The lower-gamma Proteobacteria have undergone marked syntenic change (see below). The assemblage portrayed between Acidithiobacillus and Microbulbifer in the lower part of Fig. Fig.66 The enteric lineage The lower-gamma Proteobacteria differ sharply from upper-gamma Proteobacteria in their possession of the tyrAc_Δ class of tyrA and its fusion with aroQ. In Fig. Fig.22
The dissociation of tyrAc_Δ from the serC/rpsA linkage group correlates with the fusion of aroQ with tyrAc_Δ. The aroQ•pheA fusion has also escaped from the serC/rpsA linkage grouping and has become linked with the newly emerged tyr operon. Some sort of duplication and recombinational event between aroQ•pheA and tyrAc_Δ may have led to the creation of aroQ•tyrAc_Δ since the AroQ•PheA proteins of lower-gamma Proteobacteria are distinct from AroQ•PheA proteins of other Proteobacteria with respect to the inter-domain linker length and the indel content (data not shown). Although it usually is absent from the lower-gamma Proteobacteria, HisHb has persisted as the broad-specificity aromatic aminotransferase in the Pasteurella/Haemophilus grouping where two hisH paralogs are generally present, one of narrow specificity (denoted hisHn) being within the histidine operon. The aspC gene next to aroF in Shewanella is a paralog that probably functions as an aromatic aminotransferase, suggestive of the situation in the E. coli grouping where tyrB is a close paralog relative of aspC, tyrB having become specialized for aromatic biosynthesis [49]. Gene reduction associated with both endosymbiotic and pathogenic lifestyles are evident. Thus, Buchnera lacks tyrA, cmk, hisH, tyrB, and possesses only a single aroAIα species (aroAIα_H). Haemophilus ducreyi also lacks tyrA, as well as aroAIα_H and the entire trp operon [5]. TyrA in its context of regulation TyrR regulon Knowledge of the gene regulation impacting TyrA in prokaryotes is sparse, being limited to the lower-gamma Proteobacteria. Here, extensive information gathered from E. coli has revealed that aroQ•tyrAc_Δ belongs to a large regulon controlled by the TyrR repressor. The limited phylogenetic distribution of TyrR, being present only in the lower-gamma Proteobacteria (Fig. (Fig.8),8
Although outside the scope of this study, a logical expansion of it would be to examine the individual evolutionary histories of all the members of the contemporary E. coli TyrR regulon, i.e., asking when and in what order did these genes come under the influence of tyrR? Clearly, the recruitment of structural genes by tyrR has been recent, quite dynamic and even now, exhibits evidence of further ongoing change. For example, tyrosine phenol-lyase (a catabolic enzyme that is only sparsely present in gamma Proteobacteria) has been recruited to the TyrR regulons of Erwinia herbicola [56] and Citrobacter freundii [57]. In these cases, not only does TyrR perform as a transcriptional activator, but it requires cyclic AMP receptor protein and integration host factor to do so. As exemplified by E. coli, TyrR is generally a repressor. However, the transcriptional expression of mtr is activated by TyrR in the presence of TYR, and tyrP is activated in the presence of PHE (although it is repressed in the presence of TYR). The N-terminal domain of TyrR has been associated with the ability of TyrR to activate transcription in the case of mtr and tyrP [55]. Members of the Haemophilus/Pasteurella lineage have all lost the N-terminal domain and presumably all lack the ability to accomplish transcriptional activation, as has been demonstrated experimentally with H. influenzae TyrR [58]. In view of the interesting complexity that two operons (mtr and aroLM) in E. coli are regulated by both tyrR and trpR [55], it may be more than coincidental that tyrR and trpR seem to have emerged at about the same evolutionary time, i.e., coincident with the divergence of the upper-gamma Proteobacteria from the lower-gamma Proteobacteria (Fig. (Fig.7).7 PhhR in relationship to aromatic catabolism Arias-Barrau et al. [59] have recently characterized a central catabolic pathway (Hmg) that degrades homogentisate in three steps to fumarate and acetoacetate as a source of carbon and energy. One of several peripheral pathways feeding into the central pathway begins with PHE and produces homogentisate via the reactions of phenylalanine hydroxylase (Phh), aromatic aminotransferase, and 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (Hpd). In the absence of Phh, a shorter version of the peripheral pathway is one that can use TYR, but not PHE, as a source of carbon and energy. In Fig. Fig.88 PhhR is a homolog of TyrR that has been shown in P. aeruginosa to be a divergently transcribed activator of a 3-gene operon needed for PHE and TYR catabolism [61]. The structural genes encode phenylalanine hydroxylase (phhA), carbinolamine dehydratase (phhB) and 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate aminotransferase (phhC), and are powered by a σ54 promoter [61,62]. PhhR evolved relatively recently since it is only present in some gamma Proteobacteria (Fig. (Fig.8).8
Relationship of TyrR and PhhR What might be of origin of TyrR? TyrR is an anomalous member of the large prokaryote family of σ54 enhancer-binding proteins that activate promoters dependent upon σ54. TyrR is unique within its homology grouping in that it targets σ70 promoters for regulation, usually (but not always) being a repressor. Its closest homolog relative is PhhR, a canonical member of σ54 enhancer-binding proteins. σ54-dependent enhancer proteins possess a highly conserved σ54-contact motif, GAFTGA, that is intimately involved in formation of the ternary complex of enhancer and σ54-RNA polymerase holoenzyme [64]. This is perfectly or nearly perfectly retained in the upper clades shown in Fig. Fig.9,9 Consistent with the latter supposition, the gain of TyrR generally correlates with the loss of competence for aromatic catabolism (Fig. (Fig.8).8 Even more striking as a possible evolutionary intermediate is the most outlying member of the lower- gamma Proteobacteria, Shewanella oneidensis. The position of its TyrR on the protein tree parallels expectations based on the 16S rRNA tree. This, plus the conservation of the TyrR regulon features and the overall gene synteny suggest E. coli-like function as TyrR, i.e. acting as a general repressor of regulon-member σ70 promoters engaged in aromatic biosynthesis. However, the location of "tyrR" in S. oneidensis between phhA and phhB on one side, and hmgB and hmgC on the other side, strongly implies some kind of regulatory relationship with the catabolic genes. It would be quite interesting to determine experimentally whether "TyrR" in S. oneidensis (and maybe Vibrio, as well) can function as a repressor of the usual suite of σ70 promoters, as well as an activator of σ54 promoters for phhA/phhB and/or hmgB/hmgC. We suggest that TyrR evolved as a modified version of PhhR as follows. In view of the distribution of genes encoding PhhR and TyrR, as well as the aforementioned catabolic enzymes, the most parsimonious evolutionary scenario may be that central and peripheral catabolic pathways depicted in Fig. Fig.88 Regulation by attenuation A widespread mechanism of regulation is via an attenuation mechanism whereby transcripts initiated at given promoters can be terminated prior to reaching the structural genes of an operon. Whether termination occurs usually depends on the balance (dictated by a variety of mechanisms) between mutually exclusive terminator and anti-terminator structures [65]. Merino has developed a website [66] to provide a database of putative attenuators ahead of various operons in Bacteria. We screened this database for likely attenuators relevant to the regulation of tyrA. Table 7 shows intriguing results that point to significant experimental work that would be desirable. tyrA is frequently a member of apparent supraoperons, as alluded to elsewhere in this paper, and some of these appear to be large gene clusters controlled by attenuation. Substantial work is needed to establish the depth of clades possessing a given attenuator. For example, the hisHb > tyrA operon is reliably present throughout all alpha Proteobacteria. Since Agrobacterium tumefaciens has been found to possess an attenuator ahead of the hisHb > tyrA operon, one might reasonably expect that most of the alpha Proteobacteria would possess the attenuator as well. If not, this attenuator would have been a very recent evolutionary innovation. Likewise, since the aroAIα_Y > tyrA operon is widely present throughout the lower-gamma Proteobacteria, it would be interesting to confirm whether only the several species of Vibrio identified on the Merino website have an attenuator ahead of this operon (or whether other attenuators present are too weak to exceed the threshold imposed for preliminary detection).
Some of the supraoperons that appear to be controlled by attenuation are interesting in that they contain the majority of genes needed for both PHE and TYR biosynthesis, e.g., the supraoperons in Enterococcus faecalis and Streptococcus pneumoniae. The latter organism displays two attenuator units. The supraoperon of Desulfovibrio vulgaris is novel in that it begins with two relatively rare genes encoding alternative enzyme steps for aromatic biosynthesis [52], denoted here as aroA' and aroB'. The leading five genes are adjacent to the seven-gene trp operon. Conclusion Protein divergence within a vertical genealogy is not necessarily smooth and progressive. Qualitative biochemical innovations can result in a barrage of new selective pressures that result in evolutionary jumps. The consequent incongruence might easily be mistaken for LGT. The basis for evolutionary jumps will usually only be recognized by detailed and comprehensive analyses of any given subsystem. Examples in this study are as follows. (i) The tyrAc_Δ gene of the lower-gamma Proteobacteria has diverged markedly from tyrAc of the upper-gamma Proteobacteria. Here the milestone event was fusion of aroQ to a putative tyrAc in the ancestor of lower-gamma Proteobacteria to produce aroQ•tyrAc_Δ. Indels within the •tyrAc_Δ domain presumably reflect a multiplicity of selections for functional interactions known to exist between the two fused domains as discussed earlier. (ii) Members of the subclass taxon Actinobacteridae possess TyrAa proteins that separate into two distinct groupings. The presumed ancestral NAD(p)TyrAa that is still present in the Actinobacteridae_1 clade very likely spawned the divergent NAD+-specific variety of TyrAa to yield the contemporary Actinobacteridae_2 clade. The previous evolutionary analysis of trp-pathway genes [7,8] can be viewed as a model for comparable studies with other gene systems. Expansion to the greater aromatic pathway is a logical extension. The dynamics of evolutionary change for tyrA can be matched to the dynamics exhibited by the trp system. For example, the lower-gamma Proteobacteria separate as a distinct phylogenetic unit from beta Proteobacteria and upper-gamma Proteobacteria on criteria defined by milestone evolutionary events that altered many character states of both tryptophan and tyrosine biosynthesis in the lower-gamma Proteobacteria. In the future one can anticipate that comprehensive and systematic phylogenetic analysis of each protein member of the TYR, PHE and TRP branches, the common aromatic-pathway trunk, and minor vitamin-like branches (such as the 4-aminobenzoate/folate branch) will accommodate a progressively integrated picture of the entire aromatic network, including catabolic pathways and many other specialized pathways. Methods TyrA sequences Most TyrA sequences were obtained from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) [16]. TyrA sequences from incomplete genomes were retrieved from the PEDANT database [67]. Several sequences in our curated TyrA collection have been corrected for incorrect translation start sites. Various curated TyrA sequence files can be downloaded from our website. These files include complete sequences, trimmed catalytic-core domains, and amino-acid sequence segments that are relevant to specificity for pyridine nucleotide or to specificity for the cyclohexadienyl substrate. The sequence files are summarized in Table 3. Congruency groupings TyrA proteins that cluster together on the TyrA protein tree in congruence with the 16S rRNA tree are called congruency groups. Exact correspondence of branching orders is not necessarily observed. So far, congruency groupings have been assembled for tryptophan-protein concatenates [8] and for TyrA proteins. Completion of equivalent work with the remaining aromatic-pathway segments will identify the repertoire of bacterial organisms in possession of a "pure" vertical genealogy with respect to aromatic biosynthesis. Congruency groups for TyrA can be accessed at our AroPath website [9], where a listing of the membership of congruency groups is maintained and updated. Any members of congruency-group clusters, whose position there is incongruent with 16S rRNA expectations, probably (but not necessarily) originated by LGT. The donor lineage may not be obvious, but as more genomes come on line, many cases where donor identities are currently unknown may become revealed. A listing of "orphan" TyrA proteins that belong to no current congruency group is given. Such orphans reflect the lack of sufficient genome representation in particular phylogenetic regions and undoubtedly will become the nucleus for additional congruency groups in due course. Alignments Multiple alignments were obtained by use of the ClustalW or ClustalX programs (Version 1.83) [68]. Manual adjustments were needed in the region of the GxGxxG motif for binding of pyridine nucleotide cofactor in the N-terminal region of TyrA proteins. Guidance for alignment was assisted by maximizing conformation with the Wierenga fingerprint, making allowance for a variable loop of 2–5 residues [26]. This was done with the assistance of the BioEdit multiple alignment tool of Hall (5.0.9 Edition) [69]. The refined multiple alignment was used as input for generation of a phylogenetic tree using the phylogeny inference package (Version 3.2), PHYLIP [70]. The neighbor-joining program was used to obtain a distance-based tree. The distance matrix was obtained by use of Protdist with a Dayhoff Pam matrix. The Seqboot and Consense programs were then applied to assess the statistical support of the tree using bootstrap resampling (1,000 replications). We also used the ANCESCON package [71], which produced similar results as shown in Fig. Fig.22 Profile HMMs Profile hidden Markov models for each of the four TyrA subfamilies, TyrAa, TyrAc, TyrAp and tyrAc_Δ, were built using Sean Eddy's HMMER package [72]. The HMMs were generated from our file of curated cyclohexadienyl-substrate core segments (see Table 3). The seed sequences for each subfamily were first aligned using ClustalW [68]. The resulting multiple sequence alignments were then manually edited to produce more accurate alignment of the seed sequences. Finally, the edited multiple sequence alignments were used to generate the profile HMMs for each TyrA subfamily. Appraisal of gene fusions as one-time or multiple events Whether any given contemporary gene fusions tracked back to a fusion event in a common ancestor or whether they occurred independently was evaluated by phylogenetic analysis of the individual protein domains and by inspection of the inter-domain linker region. Linker regions were determined by multiple alignments of fusion sequences with corresponding free-standing domains present in the closest relatives to organisms that lack the gene fusions. Authors' contributions JS and MW integrated this specific effort with the broader and ongoing objective of implementing a dynamic and progressively updateable website (AroPath). JS also made substantial contributions to the bioinformatic work. CB did all of the art work and a majority of the bioinformatic analyses. RJ provided initial guiding concepts, a general organizational overview, and assembled the initial manuscript draft. CB, RJ, and JS contributed to the formulation of conclusions made, and all of the authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Additional File 1 Table S1, entitled "Key to organism acronyms and sequence identifiers", is provided as supplementary material in an html document. This table contains the full collection of sequence data and annotations contained in this paper, and gene identification (gi) numbers are included and hyperlinked to facilitate access to the corresponding GenBank records. For future reference to a progressively updated table, refer to the AroPath website [73]. Acknowledgements R. Jensen thanks the National Library of Medicine (Grant G13 LM008297) for partial support. This research is partially supported by the U. S. Army Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID). This analysis would not have been possible were it not for the yeoman efforts in comparative enzymology carried out over a period of more than 25 years by many students and postdoctoral fellows, most notably Graham S. Byng, Robert Whitaker, Alan X. Berry and Suhail Ahmad. This has produced an invaluable resource of comprehensive data, some of it unpublished. This paper is dedicated to our colleague and collaborator, John E. Gander, on the occasion of his 80th birthday. References
|
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000 Jan; 125(1):65-83.
[Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000]J Mol Biol. 2001 Apr 6; 307(4):1113-43.
[J Mol Biol. 2001]J Mol Biol. 2001 Aug 24; 311(4):693-708.
[J Mol Biol. 2001]Microb Comp Genomics. 1999; 4(1):5-28.
[Microb Comp Genomics. 1999]J Mol Evol. 1999 Jul; 49(1):108-21.
[J Mol Evol. 1999]Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2003 Sep; 67(3):303-42, table of contents.
[Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2003]BMC Biol. 2004 Jun 23; 2():15.
[BMC Biol. 2004]Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2003 Sep; 67(3):303-42, table of contents.
[Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2003]BMC Biol. 2004 Jun 23; 2():15.
[BMC Biol. 2004]BMC Biol. 2004 Jun 23; 2():15.
[BMC Biol. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Aug 5; 100(16):9388-93.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]Trends Microbiol. 2004 Apr; 12(4):148-54.
[Trends Microbiol. 2004]BMC Biol. 2004 Jun 23; 2():15.
[BMC Biol. 2004]BMC Biol. 2004 Jun 23; 2():15.
[BMC Biol. 2004]Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2003 Sep; 67(3):303-42, table of contents.
[Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2003]Mol Microbiol. 1997 Jan; 23(2):191-202.
[Mol Microbiol. 1997]J Biol Chem. 1983 May 25; 258(10):6492-6.
[J Biol Chem. 1983]J Biol Chem. 1990 Nov 15; 265(32):20033-6.
[J Biol Chem. 1990]Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000 Jan; 125(1):65-83.
[Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000]Eur J Biochem. 1993 Feb 15; 212(1):157-65.
[Eur J Biochem. 1993]Annu Rev Microbiol. 1976; 30():409-25.
[Annu Rev Microbiol. 1976]J Bacteriol. 1982 Jan; 149(1):65-78.
[J Bacteriol. 1982]Microbiology. 1994 Dec; 140 ( Pt 12)():3431-40.
[Microbiology. 1994]J Bacteriol. 1980 Oct; 144(1):247-57.
[J Bacteriol. 1980]Hoppe Seylers Z Physiol Chem. 1983 Apr; 364(4):455-9.
[Hoppe Seylers Z Physiol Chem. 1983]Biol Chem Hoppe Seyler. 1985 Nov; 366(11):1063-6.
[Biol Chem Hoppe Seyler. 1985]Biochem J. 2004 Aug 15; 382(Pt 1):279-91.
[Biochem J. 2004]J Mol Biol. 1986 Jan 5; 187(1):101-7.
[J Mol Biol. 1986]Plant Mol Biol. 2002 Mar; 48(4):361-8.
[Plant Mol Biol. 2002]Eur J Biochem. 2002 Oct; 269(19):4753-61.
[Eur J Biochem. 2002]Genome Biol. 2002; 3(1):RESEARCH0004.
[Genome Biol. 2002]J Biol Chem. 1970 Aug 10; 245(15):3763-70.
[J Biol Chem. 1970]Microbiology. 1994 Dec; 140 ( Pt 12)():3431-40.
[Microbiology. 1994]Biochem J. 2004 Aug 15; 382(Pt 1):279-91.
[Biochem J. 2004]Genome Biol. 2003; 4(2):R14.
[Genome Biol. 2003]J Bacteriol. 1982 Jan; 149(1):65-78.
[J Bacteriol. 1982]Eur J Biochem. 2003 Feb; 270(4):757-63.
[Eur J Biochem. 2003]J Bacteriol. 1998 May; 180(9):2541-8.
[J Bacteriol. 1998]FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1995 Dec 15; 134(2-3):299-307.
[FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1995]Biochem J. 2004 Aug 15; 382(Pt 1):279-91.
[Biochem J. 2004]Bioinformatics. 1998; 14(9):755-63.
[Bioinformatics. 1998]J Mol Biol. 1998 Dec 11; 284(4):1201-10.
[J Mol Biol. 1998]Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000 Jan; 125(1):65-83.
[Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000]Microbiology. 1994 Dec; 140 ( Pt 12)():3431-40.
[Microbiology. 1994]Eur J Biochem. 1993 Feb 15; 212(1):157-65.
[Eur J Biochem. 1993]Biochem J. 2004 Aug 15; 382(Pt 1):279-91.
[Biochem J. 2004]Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000 Jan; 125(1):65-83.
[Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000]J Mol Biol. 1986 Jan 5; 187(1):101-7.
[J Mol Biol. 1986]J Bacteriol. 1979 Jun; 138(3):805-15.
[J Bacteriol. 1979]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980 Mar; 77(3):1270-3.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980]J Bacteriol. 1980 Oct; 144(1):247-57.
[J Bacteriol. 1980]Arch Microbiol. 1985 Nov; 143(2):122-9.
[Arch Microbiol. 1985]J Biol Chem. 1970 Aug 10; 245(15):3763-70.
[J Biol Chem. 1970]J Bacteriol. 2004 Aug; 186(15):4940-50.
[J Bacteriol. 2004]Eur J Biochem. 2003 Feb; 270(4):757-63.
[Eur J Biochem. 2003]Microb Comp Genomics. 1999; 4(1):5-28.
[Microb Comp Genomics. 1999]J Mol Evol. 1999 Jul; 49(1):108-21.
[J Mol Evol. 1999]J Bacteriol. 1996 Apr; 178(8):2161-71.
[J Bacteriol. 1996]Microb Comp Genomics. 1999; 4(1):5-28.
[Microb Comp Genomics. 1999]J Mol Evol. 1999 Jul; 49(1):108-21.
[J Mol Evol. 1999]Microb Comp Genomics. 1999; 4(1):5-28.
[Microb Comp Genomics. 1999]J Mol Biol. 1999 Apr 16; 287(5):1023-40.
[J Mol Biol. 1999]Microb Comp Genomics. 1999; 4(1):5-28.
[Microb Comp Genomics. 1999]J Mol Evol. 1999 Jul; 49(1):108-21.
[J Mol Evol. 1999]Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2003 Sep; 67(3):303-42, table of contents.
[Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2003]BMC Biol. 2004 Jun 23; 2():15.
[BMC Biol. 2004]Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2003 Sep; 67(3):303-42, table of contents.
[Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2003]J Bacteriol. 1996 Apr; 178(8):2161-71.
[J Bacteriol. 1996]Biochemistry. 2004 Jun 15; 43(23):7618-27.
[Biochemistry. 2004]Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2003 Sep; 67(3):303-42, table of contents.
[Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2003]Microb Comp Genomics. 1999; 4(1):5-28.
[Microb Comp Genomics. 1999]J Mol Evol. 1999 Jul; 49(1):108-21.
[J Mol Evol. 1999]J Mol Evol. 1987; 25(2):159-67.
[J Mol Evol. 1987]J Mol Evol. 2002 Mar; 54(3):416-23.
[J Mol Evol. 2002]J Bacteriol. 1996 Apr; 178(8):2161-71.
[J Bacteriol. 1996]Microb Comp Genomics. 1999; 4(1):5-28.
[Microb Comp Genomics. 1999]Mol Microbiol. 2005 Jan; 55(1):16-26.
[Mol Microbiol. 2005]J Bacteriol. 1998 Dec; 180(23):6173-86.
[J Bacteriol. 1998]Mol Microbiol. 2005 Jan; 55(1):16-26.
[Mol Microbiol. 2005]J Biol Chem. 1999 Jan 15; 274(3):1842-7.
[J Biol Chem. 1999]Mol Microbiol. 2005 Jan; 55(1):16-26.
[Mol Microbiol. 2005]J Bacteriol. 2004 Aug; 186(15):5062-77.
[J Bacteriol. 2004]J Bacteriol. 1996 Apr; 178(8):2161-71.
[J Bacteriol. 1996]FEBS Lett. 2002 Jul 17; 523(1-3):177-81.
[FEBS Lett. 2002]Mol Microbiol. 1996 Nov; 22(3):497-507.
[Mol Microbiol. 1996]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Feb 15; 91(4):1366-70.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994]Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2004 Sep; 68(3):474-500.
[Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2004]J Bacteriol. 1998 Dec; 180(23):6173-86.
[J Bacteriol. 1998]Genes Dev. 2001 Sep 1; 15(17):2282-94.
[Genes Dev. 2001]Genes Dev. 2001 Sep 1; 15(17):2282-94.
[Genes Dev. 2001]Trends Genet. 2004 Aug; 20(8):367-74.
[Trends Genet. 2004]Biochemistry. 2004 Jun 15; 43(23):7618-27.
[Biochemistry. 2004]Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2003 Sep; 67(3):303-42, table of contents.
[Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2003]BMC Biol. 2004 Jun 23; 2():15.
[BMC Biol. 2004]BMC Biol. 2004 Jun 23; 2():15.
[BMC Biol. 2004]J Mol Biol. 1986 Jan 5; 187(1):101-7.
[J Mol Biol. 1986]BMC Evol Biol. 2004 Sep 17; 4():33.
[BMC Evol Biol. 2004]