Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hughes, A. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hughes, A. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol 10, 1343-1359, Copyright © 1993 by Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Contrasting evolutionary rates in the duplicate chaperonin genes of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and M. leprae

AL Hughes
Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802.

A phylogenetic analysis of chaperonin (heat shock protein 60) sequences from prokaryotes and eukaryotes indicated that a single gene duplication event in the common ancestor of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, M. leprae, and Streptomyces albus gave rise to the duplicate chaperonin genes found in these species (designated HSP65 and GroEL in the mycobacterial species). Comparison of rates of synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide substitution in different gene regions suggested that the 5' end of the HSP65 gene was homogenized by an ancient recombination event between M. tuberculosis and M. leprae. In S. albus, the two duplicated chaperonin genes have evolved at essentially the same rate. In both M. tuberculosis and M. leprae, however, the GroEL gene has evolved considerably more rapidly at nonsynonymous nucleotide sites than has the HSP65 gene. Because this difference is not seen at synonymous sites, it must be due to a difference in selective constraint on the proteins encoded by the two genes, rather than to a difference in mutation rate. The difference between GroEL and HSP65 is striking in regions containing epitopes recognized by T cells of the vertebrate host; in certain cross-reactive epitopes conserved across all organisms, nonsynonymous sites in GroEL have evolved twice as fast as those in HSP65. It is suggested that these differences are correlated with differences in the way in which the duplicate chaperonins of M. tuberculosis and M. leprae interact with the host immune system.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
S. H. Gillespie
Evolution of Drug Resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Clinical and Molecular Perspective
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., February 1, 2002; 46(2): 267 - 274.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Genes Dev.Home page
J Ogawa and S R Long
The Rhizobium meliloti groELc locus is required for regulation of early nod genes by the transcription activator NodD.
Genes & Dev., March 15, 1995; 9(6): 714 - 729.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.