Proteome-Scale Detection of Differential Conservation Patterns at Protein and Subprotein Levels with BLUR

In the multiomics era, comparative genomics studies based on gene repertoire comparison are increasingly used to investigate evolutionary histories of species, to study genotype–phenotype relations, species adaptation to various environments, or to predict gene function using phylogenetic profiling. However, comparisons of orthologs have highlighted the prevalence of sequence plasticity among species, showing the benefits of combining protein and subprotein levels of analysis to allow for a more comprehensive study of genotype/phenotype correlations. In this article, we introduce a new approach called BLUR (BLAST Unexpected Ranking), capable of detecting genotype divergence or specialization between two related clades at different levels: gain/loss of proteins but also of subprotein regions. These regions can correspond to known domains, uncharacterized regions, or even small motifs. Our method was created to allow two types of research strategies: 1) the comparison of two groups of species with no previous knowledge, with the aim of predicting phenotype differences or specializations between close species or 2) the study of specific phenotypes by comparing species that present the phenotype of interest with species that do not. We designed a website to facilitate the use of BLUR with a possibility of in-depth analysis of the results with various tools, such as functional enrichments, protein–protein interaction networks, and multiple sequence alignments. We applied our method to the study of two different biological pathways and to the comparison of several groups of close species, all with very promising results. BLUR is freely available at http://lbgi.fr/blur/.

TREND: a platform for exploring protein function in prokaryotes based on phylogenetic, domain architecture and gene neighborhood analyses

Key steps in a computational study of protein function involve analysis of (i) relationships between homologous proteins, (ii) protein domain architecture and (iii) gene neighborhoods the corresponding proteins are encoded in. Each of these steps requires a separate computational task and sets of tools. Currently in order to relate protein features and gene neighborhoods information to phylogeny, researchers need to prepare all the necessary data and combine them by hand, which is time-consuming and error-prone. Here, we present a new platform, TREND (tree-based exploration of neighborhoods and domains), which can perform all the necessary steps in automated fashion and put the derived information into phylogenomic context, thus making evolutionary based protein function analysis more efficient. A rich set of adjustable components allows a user to run the computational steps specific to his task. TREND is freely available at http://trend.zhulinlab.org.

Evolution of Protein Domain Architectures

This chapter reviews current research on how protein domain architectures evolve. We begin by summarizing work on the phylogenetic distribution of proteins, as this will directly impact which domain architectures can be formed in different species. Studies relating domain family size to occurrence have shown that they generally follow power law distributions, both within genomes and larger evolutionary groups. These findings were subsequently extended to multi-domain architectures. Genome evolution models that have been suggested to explain the shape of these distributions are reviewed, as well as evidence for selective pressure to expand certain domain families more than others. Each domain has an intrinsic combinatorial propensity, and the effects of this have been studied using measures of domain versatility or promiscuity. Next, we study the principles of protein domain architecture evolution and how these have been inferred from distributions of extant domain arrangements. Following this, we review inferences of ancestral domain architecture and the conclusions concerning domain architecture evolution mechanisms that can be drawn from these. Finally, we examine whether all known cases of a given domain architecture can be assumed to have a single common origin (monophyly) or have evolved convergently (polyphyly). We end by a discussion of some available tools for computational analysis or exploitation of protein domain architectures and their evolution.