Enzyme Evolution John Mitchell, February 2010. Theories of Enzyme Evolution.

Enzyme Evolution

John Mitchell, February 2010

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/

Theories of Enzyme Evolution

Overview

(1) Divergent retrograde evolution, recruiting adjacent enzymes in pathway and constrained by binding similar molecules as substrates or products.

Overview

(2) Divergent patchwork evolution, recruiting enzymes catalysing similar chemical reactions, typically from other pathways, constrained by supporting similar catalytic chemistry.

Overview

(3) Convergent evolution, reinventing similar chemistry in a different evolutionary family.

Retrograde Evolution (Horowitz,1945)

Pathways evolve backwards: the end product of the newly evolved reaction is

the substrate of the existing one.

Picture adapted from Betts & Russell, 2009


Successive reactions in the pathway would therefore be catalysed by homologous enzymes


Patchwork Evolution (Jensen,1976)

Recruitment of enzymes for new reactions was based on similarity of reactions catalysed and

possibly on substrate ambiguity.

It did not necessarily require the sequential and backwardly evolving progression of steps.

Patchwork recruitment:Recruit an enzyme with a chemically similar catalytic function from a quite different pathway.

Picture from Betts & Russell, 2009



The Importance of Moonlighting

A moonlighting enzyme has a second job.


Patchwork recruitment is most likely to occur when the original enzyme already

has some low level of activity for catalysing a different reaction.


This allows the enzyme to be recruited to carry out the new

function.

Main reaction Minor side reaction

A starting point for evolving a new catalytic function!

Main reaction Minor side reaction

How Might Divergent Evolution Occur?

At the level of the gene, the most obvious idea is via gene duplication with one copy being free to mutate away from its original

function

Picture adapted from Todd, Orengo & Thornton, 1999



Original function New function


Original function New function

This way, the original function is maintained and a new one evolved.

How Might Divergent Evolution Occur?

There are other possible routes to diverged functions (Orengo, Thornton, Todd & others)


Models for Divergent Enzyme Evolution

Two main models of divergent enzyme evolution discussed by Gerlt and Babbitt:

Chemistry is conserved, substrate specificity changes.

Substrate binding is conserved, chemistry changes.

Evidence for both models in different cases, but conserved chemistry is likely to be more common.

Models for Divergent Enzyme Evolution

Two main models of divergent enzyme evolution discussed by Gerlt and Babbitt:

Chemistry is conserved, substrate specificity changes.

If true, implies that chemical reactions are harder to evolve than is substrate binding.

Fits well with patchwork recruitment model.

Enzyme Nomenclature and Classification

EC Classification

Class

Subclass

Sub-subclass

Serial number

Phylogeny of Enzymes (Caetano-Annolés)

Taking advantage of the genomic data now available, Caetano-Annolés and group attempted

to build a phylogeny of enzymes based on the occurrence of their folds in sequenced genomes.

Phylogeny of Enzymes (Caetano-Annolés)

In principle, this could “age” enzymes – the more universal the older.

Picture from Caetano-Annolés et al. (2007)

The diverse mix of “ages” within metabolic networks seems to support the patchwork model.

Picture from Kim et al. (2006)

Using similar ideas of universality of superfamilies, tried to reconstruct proteome of LUCA.

Interesting, but speculative?

Both Divergent & Convergent Evolution are Important

Divergent evolution leads to one fold performing a plurality of functions.

Convergent evolution leads to a plurality of folds performing the same function

Takes advantage of folds being both structural and evolutionary units of protein structure.

Divergence

Convergence

Those figures are based on available structures. As more become available, we will find more functions for existing folds, and more folds with existing functions.So these are underestimates!

Convergent

Divergent

Caveat: Our working definition of “Convergent Evolution” is dependent on the EC classification, which is not a perfect gold standard.

Mechanism, Annotation and Classification in Enzymes.http://www.ebi.ac.uk/thornton-srv/databases/MACiE/

The MACiE Database

G.L. Holliday et al., Nucl. Acids Res., 35, D515-D520 (2007)

Gemma Holliday, Daniel Almonacid, Noel O’Boyle, Janet Thornton, Peter Murray-Rust, Gail Bartlett,

James Torrance, John Mitchell

Enzyme Nomenclature and Classification

EC Classification

Class

Subclass

Sub-subclass

Serial number

The EC Classification

Deals with overall reaction, not mechanism

Reaction direction arbitrary

Cofactors and active site residues ignored

Doesn’t deal with structural and sequence information

However, it was never intended to do so

A New Representation of Enzyme Reactions?

Should be complementary to, but distinct from, the EC system

Should take into account:

Reaction Mechanism

Structure

Sequence

Active Site residues

Cofactors

Need a database of enzyme mechanisms

Mechanism, Annotation and Classification in Enzymes.http://www.ebi.ac.uk/thornton-srv/databases/MACiE/

MACiE Database

Difficulties of Hierarchical Classification

• Very similar mechanisms can end up in different first level classes.

• In the case of phosphoinositide-specific phospholipases C, this is due to a slow final hydrolysis step occurring in one of the two enzymes.

Classifying Related Enzymes: Phosphoinositide-specific Phospholipases C

Eukaryotic (rat)Cell SignallingMultidomainCatalytic TIM BarrelEC 3.1.4.11HydrolaseFinal hydrolysis stepPrefers bisphosphateAcid-base mechanismCalcium dependent

Prokaryotic (B. cereus)Virulence factorSingle domainCatalytic TIM BarrelEC 4.6.1.13LyaseNo/slow final hydrolysisDisfavours bisphosphateAcid-base mechanismNot calcium dependent

Evolutionarily related

Similar reactions end up far apart

EC 3.1.4.11

EC 4.6.1.13

Difficulties of Hierarchical Classification

• Different mechanisms can occur with exactly the same EC number.

• MACiE has six beta-lactamases, all with different mechanisms but the same overall reaction.

MACiE Mechanisms are Sourced from the Literature

Coverage of MACiE

Representative – based on a non-homologous dataset,and chosen to represent each available EC sub-subclass.

EC Coverage of MACiE

Representative – based on a non-homologous dataset,and chosen to represent each available EC sub-subclass.

Structures exist for: 6 EC 1.-.-.- 57 EC 1.2.-.- 194 EC 1.2.3.-1547 EC 1.2.3.4

MACiE covers: 6 EC 1.-.-.- 54 EC 1.2.-.- 165 EC 1.2.3.- 249 EC 1.2.3.4

Convergent Evolution of Enzyme Function

D.E. Almonacid et al., PLoS Computational Biology, accepted

N.M. O’Boyle et al., J. Molec. Biol., 368, 1484-1499 (2007)

We use a combination of bioinformatics & chemoinformatics to identify similarities between enzyme-catalysed reaction mechanisms

Similarity of Overall Reactions: Compare Bond Changes

Similarity of Mechanisms: Compare Steps

Just like sequence alignment!

We can measure their similarity …

Similarity of Mechanisms: Compare Steps

Carrying out an analysis of pairwise similarity of reactions in MACiE ...

Find only a few similar pairs

Identify convergent evolution

Check MACiE for duplicates!

Mechanistic similarity is only weakly related to proximity in the EC classification

EC in common

0 -.-.-.-

1 c.-.-.-

2 c.s.-.-

3 c.s.ss.-

Similarity of Analogous Reactions

• We take all possible pairs of analogous enzyme reactions from MACiE 2.3.9

• Analogous means that they carry out similar functions (EC 1.2.3.- conserved) ...

• ... and that the enzymes are not homologous• We find 95 analogous pairs (convergent

evolution).

43 out of 95 pairs that are analogous according to EC have no significant reaction or mechanistic similarity

Shared EC sub-subclass and Bond Change based reaction similarity are quite different criteria.

Has implications for using EC as a gold standard of similarity in studies of evolution.

Shared EC sub-subclass and Bond Change based reaction similarity are quite different criteria.

One third of analogous pairs with significantly similar overall reactions have significantly similar mechanisms.

Most often, similar overall reactions that evolve convergently will have quite different mechanisms.

For analogous pairs, we find that mechanistic similarity is less than overall similarity (almost always); these lie in the lower triangle.

Conclusions for Analogous Enzymes

• Conservation of EC sub-subclass does not imply quantitative reaction similarity.

• One third of analogous pairs with significantly similar overall reactions have significantly similar mechanisms.

• Mechanistic similarity is less than overall similarity (unlike homologues).

Theories of Enzyme Evolution

Overall Conclusions

• Both convergent and divergent evolution are important.

• Patchwork evolution is quite common.• Retrograde evolution does sometimes occur

(adjacent reactions in pathways have similar enzymes more often than by chance), but is not strongly prevalent.

• Consistent with the above, conservation of chemistry is more important than conservation of substrate binding.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Cambridge Overseas

Trust

Enzyme Evolution John Mitchell, February 2010. Theories of Enzyme Evolution.

Documents

reaction slide

original function slide

divergent evolution

divergent patchwork

original enzyme

divergent retrograde

moonlighting enzyme

convergent evolution