Exons-original building blocks of proteins?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

57 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In a recent paper, Walter Gilbert's group has estimated the number of original exons from which all extant proteins might have been constructed. The approach used is subjected to a critical analysis here. It is shown that there are flawed assumptions about both the mechanism and generality of exon-shuffling and in the sequence comparison procedures employed, the latter failing to distinguish chance similarity from similarity due to common ancestry. These methodological errors lead to the omission of many known cases of exon-shuffling and the inclusion of others which may not be genuine. In consequence, the analysis from the Gilbert group cannot give a reliable estimate of those modules that actually participated in exon-shuffling and provides no information on the number of protein archetypes that did not participate in these processes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)187-192
Number of pages6
JournalBioEssays
Volume13
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 1991

Fingerprint

exons
Exons
Proteins
proteins
ancestry

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Plant Science
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Biochemistry
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Neuroscience (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Exons-original building blocks of proteins? / Patthy, L.

In: BioEssays, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1991, p. 187-192.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Patthy, L 1991, 'Exons-original building blocks of proteins?', BioEssays, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 187-192.
Patthy, L. / Exons-original building blocks of proteins?. In: BioEssays. 1991 ; Vol. 13, No. 4. pp. 187-192.
@article{dec92ef65b784f45babbbb15a1896645,
title = "Exons-original building blocks of proteins?",
abstract = "In a recent paper, Walter Gilbert's group has estimated the number of original exons from which all extant proteins might have been constructed. The approach used is subjected to a critical analysis here. It is shown that there are flawed assumptions about both the mechanism and generality of exon-shuffling and in the sequence comparison procedures employed, the latter failing to distinguish chance similarity from similarity due to common ancestry. These methodological errors lead to the omission of many known cases of exon-shuffling and the inclusion of others which may not be genuine. In consequence, the analysis from the Gilbert group cannot give a reliable estimate of those modules that actually participated in exon-shuffling and provides no information on the number of protein archetypes that did not participate in these processes.",
author = "L. Patthy",
year = "1991",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "187--192",
journal = "BioEssays",
issn = "0265-9247",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exons-original building blocks of proteins?

AU - Patthy, L.

PY - 1991

Y1 - 1991

N2 - In a recent paper, Walter Gilbert's group has estimated the number of original exons from which all extant proteins might have been constructed. The approach used is subjected to a critical analysis here. It is shown that there are flawed assumptions about both the mechanism and generality of exon-shuffling and in the sequence comparison procedures employed, the latter failing to distinguish chance similarity from similarity due to common ancestry. These methodological errors lead to the omission of many known cases of exon-shuffling and the inclusion of others which may not be genuine. In consequence, the analysis from the Gilbert group cannot give a reliable estimate of those modules that actually participated in exon-shuffling and provides no information on the number of protein archetypes that did not participate in these processes.

AB - In a recent paper, Walter Gilbert's group has estimated the number of original exons from which all extant proteins might have been constructed. The approach used is subjected to a critical analysis here. It is shown that there are flawed assumptions about both the mechanism and generality of exon-shuffling and in the sequence comparison procedures employed, the latter failing to distinguish chance similarity from similarity due to common ancestry. These methodological errors lead to the omission of many known cases of exon-shuffling and the inclusion of others which may not be genuine. In consequence, the analysis from the Gilbert group cannot give a reliable estimate of those modules that actually participated in exon-shuffling and provides no information on the number of protein archetypes that did not participate in these processes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026148460&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026148460&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 187

EP - 192

JO - BioEssays

JF - BioEssays

SN - 0265-9247

IS - 4

ER -