Molecular Biology and Evolution 19:189-200 (2002)
© 2002 Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution
Evolution of Eukaryotic Translation Elongation and Termination Factors: Variations of Evolutionary Rate and Genetic Code Deviations
Phylogénie, Bioinformatique et Génome, UMR 7622 CNRS and
Unité de Biochimie Cellulaire, UMR 7098 CNRS, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 9, quai St Bernard 75005, Paris, France
Translation is carried out by the ribosome and several associated protein factors through three consecutive steps: initiation, elongation, and termination. Termination remains the least understood of them, partly because of the nonuniversality of the factors involved. To get some insights on the evolution of eukaryotic translation termination, we have compared the phylogeny of the release factors eRF1 and eRF3 to that of the elongation factors EF-1
and EF-2, with special focus on ciliates. Our results show that these four translation proteins have experienced different modes of evolution. This is especially evident for the EF-1, EF-2, and eRF1 ciliate sequences. Ciliates appear as monophyletic in the EF-2 phylogenetic tree but not in the EF-1 and eRF1 phylogenetic trees. This seems to be mainly because of phylogeny reconstruction artifacts (the long-branch attraction) produced by the acceleration of evolutionary rate of ciliate EF-1 and eRF1 sequences. Interaction with the highly divergent actin found in ciliates, or on the contrary, loss of interaction, could explain the acceleration of the evolutionary rate of the EF-1 sequences. In the case of ciliate eRF1 sequences, their unusually high evolutionary rate may be related to the deviations in the genetic code usage found in diverse ciliates. These deviations involve a relaxation (or even abolition) of the recognition of one or two stop codons by eRF1. To achieve this, structural changes in eRF1 are needed, and this may affect its evolutionary rate. Eukaryotic translation seems to have followed a mosaic evolution, with its different elements governed by different selective pressures. However, a correlation analysis shows that, beneath the disagreement shown by the different translation proteins, their concerted evolution can still be made apparent when they are compared with other proteins that are not involved in translation.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. J. Heidel and G. Glockner Mitochondrial Genome Evolution in the Social Amoebae Mol. Biol. Evol., July 1, 2008; 25(7): 1440 - 1450. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Lekomtsev, P. Kolosov, L. Bidou, L. Frolova, J.-P. Rousset, and L. Kisselev Different modes of stop codon restriction by the Stylonychia and Paramecium eRF1 translation termination factors PNAS, June 26, 2007; 104(26): 10824 - 10829. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Katz, J. G. Bornstein, E. Lasek-Nesselquist, and S. V. Muse Dramatic Diversity of Ciliate Histone H4 Genes Revealed by Comparisons of Patterns of Substitutions and Paralog Divergences Among Eukaryotes Mol. Biol. Evol., March 1, 2004; 21(3): 555 - 562. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|