Evolution of DNA replication protein complexes in Eukaryotes and Archaea

Nicholas D Chia, Isaac Cann, Gary J. Olsen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background The replication of DNA in Archaea and eukaryotes requires several ancillary complexes, including proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), replication factor C (RFC), and the minichromosome maintenance (MCM) complex. Bacterial DNA replication utilizes comparable proteins, but these are distantly related phylogenetically to their archaeal and eukaryotic counterparts at best. Methodology/Principal Findings While the structures of each of the complexes do not differ significantly between the archaeal and eukaryotic versions thereof, the evolutionary dynamic in the two cases does. The number of subunits in each complex is constant across all taxa. However, they vary subtly with regard to composition. In some taxa the subunits are all identical in sequence, while in others some are homologous rather than identical. In the case of eukaryotes, there is no phylogenetic variation in the makeup of each complex-all appear to derive from a common eukaryotic ancestor. This is not the case in Archaea, where the relationship between the subunits within each complex varies taxon-to-taxon. We have performed a detailed phylogenetic analysis of these relationships in order to better understand the gene duplications and divergences that gave rise to the homologous subunits in Archaea. Conclusion/Significance This domain level difference in evolution suggests that different forces have driven the evolution of DNA replication proteins in each of these two domains. In addition, the phylogenies of all three gene families support the distinctiveness of the proposed archaeal phylum Thaumarchaeota.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere10866
JournalPLoS One
Volume5
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Archaea
DNA replication
Eukaryota
DNA Replication
eukaryotic cells
Genes
Replication Protein C
Bacterial DNA
DNA
phylogeny
Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen
family support
proliferating cell nuclear antigen
Proteins
Gene Duplication
proteins
gene duplication
Phylogeny
ancestry
Chemical analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Evolution of DNA replication protein complexes in Eukaryotes and Archaea. / Chia, Nicholas D; Cann, Isaac; Olsen, Gary J.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 5, No. 6, e10866, 2010.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{210c07e51a6c4d4bbcc89b5a57828e6c,
title = "Evolution of DNA replication protein complexes in Eukaryotes and Archaea",
abstract = "Background The replication of DNA in Archaea and eukaryotes requires several ancillary complexes, including proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), replication factor C (RFC), and the minichromosome maintenance (MCM) complex. Bacterial DNA replication utilizes comparable proteins, but these are distantly related phylogenetically to their archaeal and eukaryotic counterparts at best. Methodology/Principal Findings While the structures of each of the complexes do not differ significantly between the archaeal and eukaryotic versions thereof, the evolutionary dynamic in the two cases does. The number of subunits in each complex is constant across all taxa. However, they vary subtly with regard to composition. In some taxa the subunits are all identical in sequence, while in others some are homologous rather than identical. In the case of eukaryotes, there is no phylogenetic variation in the makeup of each complex-all appear to derive from a common eukaryotic ancestor. This is not the case in Archaea, where the relationship between the subunits within each complex varies taxon-to-taxon. We have performed a detailed phylogenetic analysis of these relationships in order to better understand the gene duplications and divergences that gave rise to the homologous subunits in Archaea. Conclusion/Significance This domain level difference in evolution suggests that different forces have driven the evolution of DNA replication proteins in each of these two domains. In addition, the phylogenies of all three gene families support the distinctiveness of the proposed archaeal phylum Thaumarchaeota.",
author = "Chia, {Nicholas D} and Isaac Cann and Olsen, {Gary J.}",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0010866",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evolution of DNA replication protein complexes in Eukaryotes and Archaea

AU - Chia, Nicholas D

AU - Cann, Isaac

AU - Olsen, Gary J.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Background The replication of DNA in Archaea and eukaryotes requires several ancillary complexes, including proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), replication factor C (RFC), and the minichromosome maintenance (MCM) complex. Bacterial DNA replication utilizes comparable proteins, but these are distantly related phylogenetically to their archaeal and eukaryotic counterparts at best. Methodology/Principal Findings While the structures of each of the complexes do not differ significantly between the archaeal and eukaryotic versions thereof, the evolutionary dynamic in the two cases does. The number of subunits in each complex is constant across all taxa. However, they vary subtly with regard to composition. In some taxa the subunits are all identical in sequence, while in others some are homologous rather than identical. In the case of eukaryotes, there is no phylogenetic variation in the makeup of each complex-all appear to derive from a common eukaryotic ancestor. This is not the case in Archaea, where the relationship between the subunits within each complex varies taxon-to-taxon. We have performed a detailed phylogenetic analysis of these relationships in order to better understand the gene duplications and divergences that gave rise to the homologous subunits in Archaea. Conclusion/Significance This domain level difference in evolution suggests that different forces have driven the evolution of DNA replication proteins in each of these two domains. In addition, the phylogenies of all three gene families support the distinctiveness of the proposed archaeal phylum Thaumarchaeota.

AB - Background The replication of DNA in Archaea and eukaryotes requires several ancillary complexes, including proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), replication factor C (RFC), and the minichromosome maintenance (MCM) complex. Bacterial DNA replication utilizes comparable proteins, but these are distantly related phylogenetically to their archaeal and eukaryotic counterparts at best. Methodology/Principal Findings While the structures of each of the complexes do not differ significantly between the archaeal and eukaryotic versions thereof, the evolutionary dynamic in the two cases does. The number of subunits in each complex is constant across all taxa. However, they vary subtly with regard to composition. In some taxa the subunits are all identical in sequence, while in others some are homologous rather than identical. In the case of eukaryotes, there is no phylogenetic variation in the makeup of each complex-all appear to derive from a common eukaryotic ancestor. This is not the case in Archaea, where the relationship between the subunits within each complex varies taxon-to-taxon. We have performed a detailed phylogenetic analysis of these relationships in order to better understand the gene duplications and divergences that gave rise to the homologous subunits in Archaea. Conclusion/Significance This domain level difference in evolution suggests that different forces have driven the evolution of DNA replication proteins in each of these two domains. In addition, the phylogenies of all three gene families support the distinctiveness of the proposed archaeal phylum Thaumarchaeota.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77956217627&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77956217627&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0010866

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0010866

M3 - Article

VL - 5

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 6

M1 - e10866

ER -