TY - JOUR
T1 - Protein disorder-a breakthrough invention of evolution?
AU - Schlessinger, Avner
AU - Schaefer, Christian
AU - Vicedo, Esmeralda
AU - Schmidberger, Markus
AU - Punta, Marco
AU - Rost, Burkhard
N1 - Funding Information:
Thanks to Laszlo Kajan, Tim Karl, and Marlena Drabik (TUM), Julian Gough (Univ. Bristol) and Keith Dunker (Indiana Univ.), and Joel Sussman (Weizmann) for their important support; to the anonymous reviewer for improving this paper. Our work was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the TUM Institute for Advanced Study, funded by the German Excellence, and the following NIH grants: R01-LM07329, U54-GM75026-01, NIH F32-GM088991. Last, not least, thanks to all those who deposit their experimental data in public databases, and to those who maintain these databases.
PY - 2011/6
Y1 - 2011/6
N2 - As an operational definition, we refer to regions in proteins that do not adopt regular three-dimensional structures in isolation, as disordered regions. An antipode to disorder would be 'well-structured' rather than 'ordered'. Here, we argue for the following three hypotheses. Firstly, it is more useful to picture disorder as a distinct phenomenon in structural biology than as an extreme example of protein flexibility. Secondly, there are many very different flavors of protein disorder, nevertheless, it seems advantageous to portray the universe of all possible proteins in terms of two main types: well-structured, disordered. There might be a third type 'other' but we have so far no positive evidence for this. Thirdly, nature uses protein disorder as a tool to adapt to different environments. Protein disorder is evolutionarily conserved and this maintenance of disorder is highly nontrivial. Increasingly integrating protein disorder into the toolbox of a living cell was a crucial step in the evolution from simple bacteria to complex eukaryotes. We need new advanced computational methods to study this new milestone in the advance of protein biology.
AB - As an operational definition, we refer to regions in proteins that do not adopt regular three-dimensional structures in isolation, as disordered regions. An antipode to disorder would be 'well-structured' rather than 'ordered'. Here, we argue for the following three hypotheses. Firstly, it is more useful to picture disorder as a distinct phenomenon in structural biology than as an extreme example of protein flexibility. Secondly, there are many very different flavors of protein disorder, nevertheless, it seems advantageous to portray the universe of all possible proteins in terms of two main types: well-structured, disordered. There might be a third type 'other' but we have so far no positive evidence for this. Thirdly, nature uses protein disorder as a tool to adapt to different environments. Protein disorder is evolutionarily conserved and this maintenance of disorder is highly nontrivial. Increasingly integrating protein disorder into the toolbox of a living cell was a crucial step in the evolution from simple bacteria to complex eukaryotes. We need new advanced computational methods to study this new milestone in the advance of protein biology.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79958059909&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.sbi.2011.03.014
DO - 10.1016/j.sbi.2011.03.014
M3 - Review article
C2 - 21514145
AN - SCOPUS:79958059909
SN - 0959-440X
VL - 21
SP - 412
EP - 418
JO - Current Opinion in Structural Biology
JF - Current Opinion in Structural Biology
IS - 3
ER -